Yeah, next year's going to be interesting.

Old-fashioned regional warfare -- the stuff nightmares are made of -- seems to be back in style.

Sounds like a job for the Mossad.

I hate to say it, but anything short of a successful coup to take down the entire ruling leadership of Iran means we're going to war again next year.

Hope you enjoyed the peace folks, because as of now, we're back in business. . .

*Shudder*

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I hate to say it, but anything short of a successful coup to take down the entire ruling leadership of Iran means we're going to war again next year.

Nonsense. Unless Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to hit us first -- and he may well be -- there's no way Bush is sending troops into Iran. He doesn't have nearly enough political capital.

Ahmadnijead, you usress bastard! Stop stearing my schtick!

Btw: since the real power in Iran resides in the mullahs, not in the president, I wonder if they're playing a game of good cop/bad cop here. Namely, Ahmadinejad does his loose-cannon shtick -- and then ends up being purged by Khamenei and co. to show the west how "moderate" the clerics are by comparison.

Surely the west wouldn't deny nuclear weapons to moderates, would they?

Sounds like a job for the mullahs, who will then blame it on the Mossad.

No way Dave, Iran would have to actually nuke Israel or attack Iraq for us to do anything to them. Unfortunately we will have to wait until 08 at the earliest to deal with Iran, of course by then it will be decidedly to late to do anything since they will surely have nuclear weapons. Too bad the entire media and democratic party hate Bush so much that they will let a genocidal, holocaust denying lunatic go on with his plans for first Israels destruction and the eventual destruction of the western world rather than support anything Bush proposes.

Of course that assumes Bush would like to take some kind of action and I haven't really seen any indication of that. I suppose we are left with the sad hope that Israel will do something since they are first on Iran's list.

Here's the bottom line: prepare to live with a nuclear bomb Iran and with a hindsight is 20/20 media wondering how it ever happened that Iran ever got the bomb.

Contrary to Michael Ledeen, the revolution is not going to happen. The regime is way too entrenched and adept at dealing with the Western world.

As far as I'm concerned, Iran has declared war on the US. Nook 'em and cook 'em.

Seriously, though, do you think GWB will leave a pile of shit for his successor -- like Clinton did for him?

P.S. Don't forget to vote at Weblog.

Allah, Big E-- I appreciate and understand your optimism (pessimism?), I do.

I just don't see a way out.

Israel will *have* to take action next year. The problem is, as Ace rightly points out, Iran's built a program invulvnerable to an Osirak-type strike. We're talking a long campaign, and it might not be entirely achievable through the air (especially not by the Israelis).

I'm not suggesting we're going to invade Iran. But we may have to bomb them, and hard. And the problem with that is, unless the regime goes away, you've then just smacked them hard. . . and guess how easy it would be for Iran to play bad in next-door Iraq? We'd *never* be able to leave Iraq with all the terror attacks direct Iranian involvement would spur.

Who cares about domestic political "capital"? This is a shit sandwich, folks. Unless we are willing to accept an Iranian bomb-- are you?-- someone is going to hit them in the next year or two, sooner or later.

I'm not happy about it. I just don't see a way out.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

It'll be fascinating to watch the left react to a confrontation with Iran, assuming Ahmadinejad continues to crazy-up like this.

He's on record as a Holocaust denier. He's on record as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Let's say, sometime in the spring, he calls a press conference and announces that Iran has the bomb. So he's on record with that.

There's no doubt the left will object to American military action against Iran -- but on what grounds, precisely? Can't wait to see that narrative take shape.

Unless we are willing to accept an Iranian bomb-- are you?-- someone is going to hit them in the next year or two, sooner or later.

We're going to accept an Iranian bomb. We have to. Simple as that.

Israel may try to take it out, but even in a best-case scenario, they'll only delay the inevitable for a few years.

Re: the narrative I mentioned in my last comment -- here's chapter one.

It's a direct threat to the US as well, we'll still have troops in the region.

The entire Iranian government is on record saying ,"Death to America, Death to Israel," repeatedly.

What more do we need?

This guy is the Howard Dean of Iran. Ahmadinejad's politcal tourette's plays well to those who've drunk the kool-aid but it will ultimately lead to a quicker than expected exit. Either by the Mad Mullahs or the IDF.

Allah writes:

"It'll be fascinating to watch the left react to a confrontation with Iran, assuming Ahmadinejad continues to crazy-up like this.

He's on record as a Holocaust denier. He's on record as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Let's say, sometime in the spring, he calls a press conference and announces that Iran has the bomb. So he's on record with that."

I think we already know the answer: the same way the Left reacted with Saddam, who actually attacked Israel, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, manufactured WMDs and murdered 300,000 people.

The Left will change the subject to the sins of the West and start talking about Mohammad Mossadegh and how we missed our opportunity with Khatami and how if we only solve the Arab-Israeli conflict then there will be no reason for Hizballah and the Iranians to be upset anymore.

The Bush administration sees the writing on the wall. They know the deal in the Middle East.

The plan for Iraq includes a permanent US military base in Iraq. We will already be there in case Iran, Syria, etc., start to feel froggy.

Allah, do you really think the left will have to dance around Ahmadinejad's comments? I would expect the left to react to an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel with some variation of "Well, of course Iran committed a reprehensible act, but Israel's been provoking them for 50 years. (I mean just look at how she's dressed!)"

"We're going to accept an Iranian bomb. We have to. Simple as that."

Compare the case of nuclear Pakistan. Granted, Ahmadinejad makes Musharraf look perfectly stable by comparison, but my concern is not so much with Musharraf, as it is with the relative stability of his government, and his likley successor in the event of a coup.

And yet we live with nuclear Pakistan. We live with a lot of crazy crap that I would prefer go away, because sometimes the only available solutions are worse than the problems.

I'm not as certain as other here that a military strike (by the U.S. or by Israel) will knock out their nuke program, although I imagine it's a possibility. I'm just saying that it's perfectly feasible to imagine a scenario where Iran gets the bomb and everyone else just learns to live with it. Happens all the time. Just ask India.

Or is it a sign of desperation, in the face of an emerging democracy next door. Try and goad Israel into launching an air-strike to polarize? Divide then conquer? I dunno.

The rhetoric seems specifically tailored towards that end.

Sure seems that no matter what, the solution eventually will rhyme with that classic Beach-Boys tune "Barbara Ann".

This guy is the Howard Dean of Iran

you don't expect to find something funny in a thread like this.

and yet you do.

We will all have to get used to Iran having the bomb. What we are likely to see in the coming years is a return to a policy of containment coupled with Mutual Assured Destruction.

Israel cannot stop Iran from developing the bomb. A sustained strategic bombing campaign by the IDF is simply not feasible; and a sustained strategic bombing campaign is precisely what would be needed to take out Iran's dispersed and well protected nuclear weapon sites. Obtaining flyover rights to reach Iran is just one of many obstactles that militates against Israel taking such action. The relatively small size of the IDF's air force and its very limited strategic strike capability is another obstacle. Equally problematic are the difficulties that arise from havint to refuel their aircraft en route--not to mention finding friendly or neutral air space in which to carry out this task.

The U.S. alone has the capability to carry out a sustained strategic air campaign against multiple hardened targetss in Iran but whether decsive results could be achieved by doing so is open to question. Even John Warden might back away from this one.

Ahmadnijead, you usress bastard! Stop stearing my schtick!

Remember the old "illmatic" site? Bush, Saddam, and Kim all having a rollicking good blog time.

On point:
Eric J's comment at 1:05 above:
It seems that the MSM will assist the left in all lines of complaint. Even the most contradictory ones.

If Israel sends its air force to attack, won't that be a one-way mission? The US will have to assist somehow, in order to get those planes back home. That will wipe out whatever we have built up, in terms of middle east capital. The only way out would be to have an attack on us, or present evidence of the collusion between the Iraqi shiites, and Iranian shiites, or the insurgents. Bush does not have the talent to pull that off.

The filth that comments regularly at John Cole's blog is helping to shape the narrative too.

Right now, they're arguing that Iraq will soon look just like Iran. Thanks to George Bush and John Cole.

Too bad Saddam's out, eh?

"...a policy of containment coupled with Mutual Assured Destruction."

I don't know about MAD. It's one thing to accept that Iran is developing a nuke, and another thing entirely for them to get missiles to deliver those warheads as far as America. I haven't read anything suggesting they have a ballistic missile sufficient for the task.

I imagine Dave from It's Old would have more information on this.

"A sustained strategic bombing campaign by the IDF is simply not feasible..."

As I read through your list of reasons why Israel can't do this job, basically to the effect that Israel doesn't have the range, re-fueling capacity or fly-over rights for a sustained bombing campaign, a thought occurred to me.

I've read that part of Israel's power-projection problem is that they don't have any aircraft carriers, so they can't launch from the Gulf of Arabia or the Indian Ocean. Obviously Israel can't build an aircraft carrier in the time it would take to change the equation in the ME. But what about a sale? If America sells Israel an aircraft carrier, then all of a sudden there are no fly-over rights problems, there are no range problems, there are no re-fueling problems (except for getting fuel from Israel out to the carrier, I suppose).

That still leaves the question of defending said carrier, but I suspect solutions to that problem could be found.

During Kerry's presidential campaign, he and his friends were repeating a common criticism: "Iraq wasn't threat, it was a diversion from our real problems -- Iran and N. Korea."

Why aren't they saying that anymore?
Because they have no plans to deal with them. That's why this is a perfect time to Force the Democrats into a debate on how to deal with Iran. Get them on record now.

"That's why this is a perfect time to Force the Democrats into a debate on how to deal with Iran. Get them on record now."

That would be a fantastic idea, if Democrats cared at all about what the record says.

Do you honestly think that we'll let Iran develop operable nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them?

It isn't going to happen, folks.

Look for Iran in the very near future to suffer a Chernobyl-grade "accident" in a key facility... whichever key facility survives the impending Israeli strike we all know is coming, that is.

They will not be allowed to complete their work under this President. You seem to forget he doesn't give much of a damn about political capital, especially when he knows he's doing the right thing for the right reasons, and I don't honestly think anyone is going to stand against him and say Iran should be able to develop nuclear weapons.

The UN with whine a little, but most agree, and the Dems, already going under for their cut and run appraoch, will have even less political capital than Bush.

In addition, you can expect Pakistan's nuclear capabilites to be destroyed just as soon as Musharraf develops a bad cold. Pakistan has only a handful of hardened facilities secure enough to hold their small collection of nukes, and I'm sure we just happen to have GPS coordinates for each one, and weapons to reach them...

Israel may or may not be able to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with an air/missile/commando strike of some sort. But all those nuclear goodies cost money and employ specialized people, and Israel could certainly do some serious damage to Iran's oil industry, thereby put Iran in a financial squeeze, or alternately target the brains behind the nuclear operation, thereby delaying Iran's ambitions.

Don't forget to add in the possible reaction by Russia if either we or the IDF or both bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure, since it's largely made of Russian components and there's probably Russian know-how helping to assemble it. Putin should not be dealing with radical Islamists like Iran given his own domestic problems with them, but like the EU he can't resist.

Ace, Check the spelling in your headline.

And Sobeck, I read somewhere recently that Israel has acquired extra-large fuel tanks for their planes.

Plus they bought a sub from Germany, which may allow them to launch weapons from the sea.

Meyers has an interesting thought. Targeting the Iraninan leadership as they're "softer" targets than the weapons. Its an appealing idea, but unfortunately requires a competent intelligence apparatus to know where and when these guys will be somewhere bombable, which we are sorely lacking right now.

I have a question with regards the application of the MAD concept in this case. It's probably a bit simplistic, but...didn't MAD's effectiveness in our stalemate with the Soviet Union rely heavily on the fact that they didn't want to die either?

Can the same be said of the Iranian leadership? I'd certainly hesitate to paint the whole country as being suicidal, but the whole country doesn't need to be. What if the guys with the keys think "our lives for the lives of Israel" is a pretty fair trade?

Israel has F-15I aircraft in its inventory, and with drop tanks they do possess the range to strike Iran.

Overflight will be an unmitigated pain in the butt.

Israel possesses ballistic missiles with sufficient range.

Israeli submarines have recently been fitted with sub-launched cruise missiles.

All in all, it is by no means, impossible for Israel to strike, although there will be some considerable difficulties.

More significantly, however, if Israel strikes it will stir up a shit storm.

Sobek, did you just use "Dave from it's Old"???

Sigh. I had such high hopes for you.

Anyway, Chicago Guy's on the money with his analysis. Israel has been trying in recent years to develop a longer-range strike capability using refueling and precision guided munitions, but even then we're talking about a long trip. And it's not just the strike package, it's the bomb damage assessment-- did you hit what you intended to hit? Did you do enough damage to put it out of commission? That's an art as much as a science, and it's made more difficult at that distance.

Worse, there are lots of targets if you want to put things out of commission for more than a few weeks.

I don't see Israel being able to inflict permament damage on Iran, unlike in Iraq (after all, Osirak represented an above-board, "all the marbles" effort for Saddam-- the Iranians, like the Norks before them, learned that lesson early. Dispersal is less efficient, but it's more effective and safer in the long run).

As for "learning to live with the Iranian bomb," Americans might be able to (I doubt it), but the Israelis won't. One healthy-sized bomb goes off in their country, and their country ceases to effectively exist. They can't, and won't, risk that.

So, here's the dilemma: Israel can do damage, is willing to do damage, but it can't do enough damage to do anything but delay the inevitable. It'd have to overfly American-held Iraq, causing a diplomatic row that would probably spawn greater Iranian intervention against a free Iraq-- anything to keep the Americans stuck to the tar baby.

The only viable mid-term option involves sustained American air strikes. Unfortunately, if the Iranian regime is left intact, that inevitably results in a confrontation with Iran in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, one that makes our mission there that much harder (two front war, anyone?).

The long term option is, of course, regime change. Which isn't going to happen as long as we're stuck in Iraq-- and probably wouldn't happen even if we were soon gone.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Israel bought a sub from Germany?

Did they check the ventiliation system out first at least?

On the larger situation, does anyone else get a feeling that the whole Israel "problem" is coming to a head? Iran is saber-rattling, but we also see an increasing sentiment in - especially but not only - European intelligentsia that maybe it's a good idea to nullify the country of Israel.

They've already done it with maps at the UN, as several bloggers have noted.

Anti-Semitism, dressed up and post-modernized as anti-"Zionism" is the rule, not the exception in many universities and a fair amount of governments.

At best they willfully, gleefully ignore Palestinian chaos; at worst, they pretty much say Israel is asking for it. And I think they understand that the US will be very circumspect if it comes to aiding Israel in defending itself.

It all just seems to be building to a head to me.

For those who will snub McCain if hets the nomination, you better think about the problems on the horizon, such as Iran and N. Korea.

Do you really want Hillary! to be leading our foreign policy?

A useful exercise is to force yourself to make a decision, up or down, without a lot of over-analysis. So, you are the President of the United States, or the Prime Minister of Israel, two or three months from now and Iran has a complete fuel cycle running--a bomb is a matter of months/couple of years at most. All right, right now, for better or worse, launch an attack? Yes or no?

Paul Freedman, "do we or don't we" is not the only question. If the answer is "yes," then we move into the hard questions of "how."

That, it seems to me, is the sticky wicket. I don't think anyone here has expressed doubts about the wisdom or propriety of a strike against Iran, only the logistics, and whether or not America as a whole or GWB in particular has the political will.

It may not need troops. We could take out Iran's oil production capability fairly easily. That would break the country economically in weeks, and would probably lead to the overthrow of the regime. Either that or it would launch a spasm attack through in Iran in its death throes, yielding the casus belli we need. The big problem would be if Iran sank enough tankers in the Straits of Hormuz to make it impassable. That would cause a horrific oil shock.

A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel would, almost certainly, be replied to in full (and Israel probably has more warheads than the UK, France and China combined).

I meant a spasm attack through Iraq. Loose shit.

Remember, Iran is currently hotelling most of the top al-Qaeda leadership.

In the long run, I suspect Bush's plan is to have Sistani undermine the clerical regime. Problem is, we may not have that long. Under Rice the policy seems to be "ignore it and hope it goes away" -- we'll see if this changes next week when elections are finally on the books.

The Israelis are a lot closer to this nutbar than we are, and they might just take the "attack or not" question out of our hands. Generally I consider the likelihood of attack to be proportionally opposite to martial statements from governmental bodies. Reason: why telegraph your punch? However, in this case it may be a simple matter of "we have no other real alternative".

There's some people who figure that Iran will inevitably get nukes, and that short of a full invasion we cannot stop them, ergo we shouldn't even try. I think this is dangerous because a) the Iranian president is nuttier than a toddler's turd the day after Halloween, and b) the Israelis are likely to be the target of whatever nuclear ambitions this whacko has. Ahmadinejad gives every indication of being an unbalanced loon, and the Iranian people show no real movements toward rebelling against his cretinous rule. If our government (or that of Israel) is waiting for sanity to return to Iran, they are probably waiting in vain.

So the question them becomes: is a military operation feasible, or likely to succeed? Iran has already decentralized their nuclear production facilities and hardened the sites against attack -- it's unlikely that an Osirak-style air assault would do the job. Thus we come to the unpalatable fact that, if we truly want Iran not to have nukes, we will probably have to invade. And given the situation in Iraq, and the general fecklessness of the Democrats, there's no way in hell Congress would authorize this barring an attack by Iran on America.

This situation is going to be very nasty -- much nastier in fact than North Korea, because the Norks are mainly a Chinese problem. Iran is mainly an American and Israeli problem...and with no obvious solution.

I hate to say it, but I'm looking for some major military action against Iran sometime very soon, and this could lead to a bloodbath that makes Iraq seem like playtime in comparison.

Ahmadinejad will destroy the regime anyway. He is making the older guard nervous and has already created a split down the middle.

Ahmadinejad is not an ally of Ali Khamenei and instead wants to install his own system. He is a typical pan-Arab militarist akin to Nasser if you ask me. He has no time for Khamenei, Rafsanjani or indeed Khomeini (if he were alive) as he cares more about himself and his ego as pan-Arab leader. Except Iranians are not Arabs!

Ahmadinejad is educated (he holds a Doctorate) and knows EXACTLY what he is doing. He is deliberately getting Iran into trouble to weaken the Mullahcracy leaving the Basiji and Revolutionary Guards the only united and strong force there. They will take over in a coup and Ahmadinejad will:

1. Tone down and compromise after striking a HARD bargain.
2. Try to broaden his appeal and remarket the Basiji as a friend of religious and secular people alike.
3. Abolish the theocracy.

This kind of lateral thinking is clever and shows how an educated man can succeed in fooling the Mullahs and then causing their regime to implode all the while being viewed as a champion for them while knowing full well he wants to replace them! Then, Ahmadinejad - emerging as the sole power in Iran - can negotiate a hard bargain and win over the trust of the West as a Shia policeman who will destroy al Qaeda in Iraq for other incentives. Iran holds a lot of Aces and Ahmadinejad is playing his cards close to his chest.
John.

Quote: "a) the Iranian president is nuttier than a toddler's turd the day after Halloween"

Ahmadinejad is such a conman that he fools everyone!! For Christ's sake, this guy has a doctorate and he is not meant to be suicidal. He is playing a power struggle game in Iran, and knows exactly what he is doing to undermine the Mullahs and replace them with the military (Basiji, Pasdaran). His anti-Israel rhetoric has everyone nervous - especially the IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, who are trying to reign him in and/or are fighting over what to do with him. This is what Ahmadinejad wants, see my previous post.
John.

Once the balloon goes up in Iran, it's gonna be on like Donkey Kong.

And that may not be a bad thing.

Face it: Iran is already engaged (along with Syria) in an undeclared war with us in terms of harboring terrorists and supporting the "insurgency". I am convinced that our project in Iraq cannot survive long term with an actively hostile, Taliban-style Iranian governing regime conspiring with Ba'athists in Syria to undermine the nascent Iraqi democracy at every turn.

I was once an optimist about the possibility of an internal Iranian uprising to throw off the Mullahs, but now? Not so much and there probably isn't enough time anyway.

A nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Period.

Bush's biggest challenge is not "in theater" military issues. It's domestic political backstabbing and borderline sedition. And that means the current Leftist leadership in the dem party puts us all at greater mortal risk.

"Remember, Iran is currently hotelling most of the top al-Qaeda leadership."

This is probably true. I have heard that the Iranians are holding these as bargaining chips under house arrest. When Ahmadinejad wants to drive a hard bargain, he can offer Osama bin Laden (who may be in Iran) to the US in return for whatever Iran wants in return. Iran will announce to the world it has captured OBL, then hold secret talks with the US and drive a hard bargain that will end the US-Iran cold war and make Ahmadinejad the hero for the world, the hero for Iran and a misjudged leader. Ariel Sharon, the hardline Israeli leader called so in 2000, is now - because of his clever policies - the hero of liberalism today. Ahmadinejad can do the very same: if you start off as a hardliner, you can always come down without compromising more than was necessary. That's clever negotiation.

John Power Usher - Do you have any kind of source backing up your claims of what Ahmadinejad wants, or are your comments just pure speculation?

Thanks to all those for commenting. A good discussion.

Please note that I didn't say that Israel couldn't strike Iran. I said that it didn't have the capability to carry out a sustained strategic air bombardment.

Note that the sustained strategic bombardment designed by John Warden and his Checkmate team for the first Gulf War was lengthy and at the end of the day it still didn't take out unprotected Scud sites nor did it neutralize the RG. In his initial presentation of the plan, "Instant Thunder," Warden asserted that a strategic air campaign that adhered to his Five Rings theory would achieve decisive results in just six to nine days; and no ground forces would be needed. But wiser heads--particularly Lt Gen Charles Horner--prevailed in the debate concerning how we should respond to Iraq's seizure of Kuwait, and it was realized that a ground war would be necessary.

Ever since Douhet wrote on the subject air power theorists have made extravagent albeit well-meaning claims concerning the strategic war-winning capabilities of air power. Only once have such claims been born out by evets: in Kosovo, and that was a special case scenario. And there it took three weeks of sustained air bombardment to force the capitulation of a third-tier military power.

In general too much capability is assumed of air power and the precision munitions currently available. That circumstance may well change, and soon--there is no gainsaying the advance of technology. But as things now stand, with the weapons now available to us, a sustained air bombardment of iran using conventional munitions is unlikely to achieve decisive results in Iran.

I believe that we must reconcile ourselves to the notion that the struggle against militant Islam will be another "long twilight struggle. " We must be clearsighted and brave in facing this challenge. Pessimists might want to gain a bit of historical perspective; take a refresher course on the concept of Original Sin (and if you don't like that term, replace it with "human nature"); and read "Horatius At the Bridge." The last in particular. Bracing stuff.

As God said to Job when He spoke from the whirlwind: "Gird up thou thy loins and be a man."

As Americans would say: "Cowboy up and grow a pair."

The truth is, we can't all get along. Peace is not now nor ever was an entitlement. Evil is constant and presents men and women of good will in every age with a challenge. Militant Islam is the evil that challenges us now. We need to be brave and meet it as needs must.

FYI to all, I'm a practicing Catholic, a military historian, and a firm believer in Just War philosophy and doctrine. Again, thanks to all for your comments.

Ahmadinejad I have read wants many things:

1. He is opposed to people like Rafsanjani who he claims hold all the oil wealth he wants to distribute. Plus, Rafsanjani was his election rival.

2. Iran is not Taliban Afghanistan no matter how much many people like to believe. It is more modern and is Shia and not Sunni. It does not like al Qaeda, or Sunni Iraqi insurgents. It does like Hizbollah and Moqtada al-Sadr though, who do not like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. But, Iran has allowed al Qaeda come into it and then has arrested them and passed them onto Saudi and other countries but never to America. It probably also has al Qaeda under house arrest as said, and it is long known that Iran likes to drive bargains.

3. Ahmadinejad is not a Mullah or Ayatollah. Part of the reason people voted for him was because of this and he can use this when he does do his u-turn from hardliner to reformer (afterall, hardline 1980 US President of Evil Empire fame Ronald Reagan became moderate US President Ronald Reagan who made peace with the USSR). It is all a game, politics is the same the world over: it is all about negotiation and getting the best deal. And if Ahmadinejad can make Iran a superpower while holding onto his nuclear weapons, after forcing the West and Israel on many issues like Palestine and Iraq, replacing the mullahs with a nationalist government and being the king-maker for much of these issues, he will be a hero for his people and for the world like Reagan, Sharon and other "hardliners" were. The difference between a hardliner and a reformist is the former generally gets things done and can change like a chameleon when necessary. The latter can not.

As to Ahmadinejad being "crazy like a fox": I don't buy it. What do his recent "the Holocaust never happened" statements do for his position vis a vis Iran? Most Iranians distrust the Jews anyway, so it buys him nothing internally; all it does is inflame the Americans and Israelis against him even more. To use diplomatic parlance, it seems needlessly provocative if Ahmadinejad is only concerned with consolidating his power within Iran. However, if one takes him to be a delusional Islamofascist goon, the comments make perfect (and rather terrifying) sense.

Clearly there is a game being played here, but I have to wonder if there are any actual moderates in Iran that can stop this trainwreck before it happens.

Or, as Color Sergeant Bourne said in "Zulu": "Steady, lads. Steady. Look to your front and mark your targets when they come."

Also:

Welsh soldier to CS Bourne: "Why us, Color sergeant?"

CS Bourne: "Because we're here, lad. And no one else."

Love that movie.

Zulu is a great film.

Michael Caine's first, if I recall

Big fan of Zulu. (Wasn't there another movie made about Isandhlwana? Can't remember the title, but it was pretty good....)

Breaker Morant was a great war film too. "Shoot straight, you bastards!" Brings a tear to my eye still.

Zulu Dawn. Not as good, but it does tell the story of what happened at Isandhlwana couple of days before the Battle of Rork's Drift, which Zulu is about.

Loved Breaker Morant.

The battle of Isandhlwana took place the day before Rorke's Drift came under attack. The Zulu Impi that attacked Rorke's Drift was composed of married men and had been held in reserve at Isandhlwana for precisely that reason. That these men felt a need to "wash" their spears explains why they attacked Rorke's Drift.

"Zulu" was indeed Michael Caine's first movie.

"Zulu Dawn" is great. An historically accurate re-creation of the Battle of Isandhlwana, as recounted to chroniclers by the few Brits who escaped and Zulu soldiers who were interviewed after the war (they had great respect for the Brits, by the way). The panoramic shot showing the Zulus turning the flank of Younghusband's company--which caused the collapse of the British line--is breathtaking and spot on, historically.

just a day. ok.

been a while since I read "The Washing of the Spears".

"The Washing of the Spears": Great book.

Usuuuuu.....thu!

Small point, but Iran doesn't need missiles to strike the U.S., just a boat and a maybe a truck. ICBM's are for people in a hurry. If you've got time on your hands, who needs a missile?

Same deal as with North Korea, if they invade the South, they just drive a truck with a warhead in it to downtown Seoul (sp?), and dare anyone to do something.

"Small point, but Iran doesn't need missiles to strike the U.S...."

For a terrorist-style attack, that's true. But the best you can do with that truck is put a crater in a makor U.S. city. The rest of the nation is still intact. Thus, there is no MAD principle at work, because although America could be seriously damaged without ICBMs, destruction would be by no means assured.

Iran, on the other hand, could be turned into a glowing parking lot, because we have ballistics. Not a good trade-off, even if you are a murderously insane mullah.

Actually Iran does have ballistic missiles of limited range. It is certain that they are developing longer-range missiles. I can't find the source on short notice but I do remember reading a DoD report that speculated that Iran would soon have missiles capable of striking Western Europe.

As for North Korea: cripes, Seoul is just a stone's throw from the 38th Parallel. The NKs could almost toss a nuke at it with a simple catapault.

ICBMS will eventually be in the arsenal of every big and medium power. All the more reason to develop anti-missile defense capabilities of the sort that are so hated by the left.

Oops. Forgot to sign the preceding post.

"We'd *never* be able to leave Iraq with all the terror attacks direct Iranian involvement would spur."

Iran already is involved directly. They're the ones, for instance, who bankrolled al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. They've been waist-deep into the "insurgency" since it started.

I don't see any way in hell that we can allow Iran to have the bomb. The leaders there, and any leader in the forseeable future is far too unstable. Couple that with a missile-delivery system that can strike Israel (the Shahab-3) and allowing Iran to go nuclear just can't be an option. Russia and China have been selling ballistic missile echnology to Iran just as fast as Iran can pumpo the cash to pay for it from the ground. I don't see any reason why Iran couldn't have a ballistic missile that could strike the US within five years.

So what do we do? I think we pursue a two-pronged approach. Frst, we fully fund any and every pro-democratic movement in Iran. Give them all the money and know-how we have. There are many strong voices that want that government overthrown but they can't get any traction when our own State Department has spent years legitimizing the government publicly. The second approach involves using every diplomatic means at our disposal to destabilize Iran's government. No more praising its elections. No more calling it an honest partner in the nuclear talks. No more softpdaling the cruelty that happens there every day. The next time there's an earthquake, make a point of saying how tragic it is that a nation so wealthy still has major cities made mostly of wood and mud and that free democratic countries are prosperous. Make sure that message gets into Iran every day. Fire up a Radio Free Iran in Iraq and et it running 24/7. Make sure Iranians are prominent on the station and that the Iraqi government is eager and active in that effort.

Just don't stop pressing for the regime to fall. I honestly believe that the Mullahs and the Crazy Man aren't all that far from toppling completely, which is why they've been working so feverishly to get the bomb. We can stop them. It'll just take a concerted effort to do so.

I honestly believe that the Mullahs and the Crazy Man aren't all that far from toppling completely

I've been hearing that for the past 25 years, and it keeps on not happening. I don't think it will happen, at least not soon enough to make a difference. We've got to open our eyes and realzie that the so-called "opposition" in Iran is mainly Western wishful thinking.

Iran already is involved directly. They're the ones, for instance, who bankrolled al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. They've been waist-deep into the "insurgency" since it started.

I work with a lot of military folks, and was hearing 2 years ago that Iran was sending weapons and personnel into the South and East of Iraq. I consider my sources reliable.

This has been a regional conflict from the beginning, and the initial escalations certainly did not come from us. The enemies in the region saw very quickly exactly what was happening 4 years ago - there was a new sherrif in town, and when we went into Iraq, we clearly intended to stay.

This is a very good thing, politically and militarily.

Jimmie, a two-pronged approach might work if, instead of tough diplomacy combined with incitement of the locals, we went with strategic bombing combined with incitement of the locals.

International pressure they can ignore, and while ignoring it, can put down any attempted revolt. But if they're too busy capping oil fires and hosing down burining military installations, then the revolutionaries stand a better chance.

Zulu is a great film.

Michael Caine's first, if I recall

He wrote a touching, self-depricating thoughtful and amusing autobiography: "What's It All About".

I highly recommend it.

Dang italics should have been on the first 2 lines, not just the first.

thanks Lipstick - did not know that he wrote one.

I'd find it hard to believe that the Russians would assist in building this nuclear complex without some sort of surveillance bugging and/or "failsafe" mechanisms included as part of their plan.

The Soviets were extremely good at only a small number of things, and espionage was one of them. Putin is ex-KGB. And Russia runs the risk, in return for the income they've received selling materials and assisting in building the complex, of any nukes eventually being pointed at them. Remember, the Russians have their own pressing militant Islamic problems, and I don't think they'd cotton to leaving themselves wide open to a nuclear power that borders the former Soviet 'Stans.

In a way, Russia might play a role in reining in Iran that China plays with North Korea.

Just speculation, of course...

I wonder if we could find a way to use this Iranian. I mean, I'd be happy if we could collect all the Jews and bring them to America. Well, to be precise, it's the Ashkenazi I'd like to make room for. Average IQ of 115? Yeah, I think the melting pot could use a little more of that ingredient.

Of course, there IS a way for Israel, (or the US) to stop Iran's nuclear program permanently, quickly, and in a way that will make sure the entire program is destroyed: nuclear pre-emptive strike.

Look at it from Israel's perspective: Iran is openly threatening genocide; Iran's leaders are on record as stating that they believe a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran would end in the "Islamic worlds" favor; the rest of the world is doing nothing to help; and everyone on this thread has shown all the reasons why conventional forces and/or regieme change will not work, at least not in time.

One lesson sticks out from the holocaust: when someone says they want to kill you, BELIEVE IT!

If I were in Sharon's shoes, I would be getting every nuke I could get my hands on ready.

One lesson sticks out from the holocaust: when someone says they want to kill you, BELIEVE IT!

Yup. They are, after all, full-grown adults.