Fred Stone wrote:

Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:uPY0g.5186$Qe6.3773@tornado.southeast.rr.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:7SW0g.1126$7u6.284@tornado.southeast.rr.com:

<...>

Three Reasons Not To Bomb Iran -- Yet

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/luttwak0506.html

Edward N. Luttwak

I

I know of no reputable expert in the United States or in Europe who
trusts the constantly repeated promise of Iran’s rulers that their
nuclear program will be entirely peaceful and is meant only to
produce electricity. The question is what to do about this. Faced
with the alarming prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons,
some policy experts favor immediate preventive action, while others,
of equal standing, invite us to accept what they consider to be
inevitable in any case. The former call for the bombing of Iran’s
nuclear installations before they can produce actual weapons. The
latter, to the contrary, urge a diplomatic understanding with Iran’s
rulers in order to attain a stable relationship of mutual
deterrence.

Neither position seems adequately to recognize essential Iranian
realities or American strategic priorities. To treat Iran as nothing
more than a set of possible bombing targets cannot possibly be the
right approach. Still more questionable is the illogical belief that
a regime that feels free to attack American interests in spite of
its present military inferiority would somehow become more
restrained if it could rely on the protective shield of nuclear
weapons.

In contemplating preventive action, the technical issue may be
quickly disposed of. Some observers, noting that Iran’s nuclear
installations consist of hundreds of buildings at several different
sites, including a number that are recessed in the ground with
fortified roofs, have contended that even a prolonged air campaign
might not succeed in destroying all of them. Others, drawing a
simplistic analogy with Israel’s aerial destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq
nuclear reactor in June 1981, speak as if it would be enough to drop
sixteen unguided bombs on a single building to do the job. The fact
is that the targets would not be buildings as such but rather
processes, and, given the aiming information now available, they
could indeed be interrupted in lasting ways by a single night of
bombing. An air attack is not a demolition contract, and in this
case it could succeed while inflicting relatively little physical
damage and no offsite casualties, barring gross mechanical errors
that occur only rarely in these days of routine precision.

The greater question, however, is neither military nor diplomatic
but rather political and strategic: what, in the end, do we wish to
see emerge in Iran? It is in light of that long-term consideration
that we need to weigh both our actions and their timing, lest we
hinder rather than accelerate the emergence of the future we hope
for. We must start by considering the special character of American
relations with the country and people of Iran...

I think that what we could hope from a military operation is to buy
more time. The question is time for what? IMHO, that must be time
to foment a coup. This is of course tricky, in that a military
action would most likely set back any efforts to effect a revolution.
There aren't any good options here, but I think the optimal strategy
is to do all that we can to try to encourage a regime change
internally before Iran has developed nuclear weapons. A military
action must be the last resort, but if we cannot rid the world of the
current jihadist government first it will become absolutely
necessary. I can think of no worse outcome than seeing those
fanatics in control of nukes. As I stated earlier, I am extremely
mad that Bush does not appear to being doing much, if anything, to
help bring about an internal regime change. IMHO, this is a much
more important objective even than stabilizing Iraq (although
stabilizing Iraq would be helpful in the Iranian effort as well).

The last thing Bush wants to do is to be *seen* to be doing anything
to foment regime change in Iran. Our own media would blow the cover
off it looking for the next big Pulitzer for High Treason.

Point well taken. I would like to think that much more is being done
than I am aware of, but I just don't think that is the case.

The history of the US and Iran hasn't been exactly a bed of roses.

To keep control of the oil, the US and Britain overthrew a popular
elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and replaced him
with the dictatorship of the last Shah.

While the Shah tried to modernize Iran his heavy handed tactics
and made many enemies. Since the US backed him, we were
considered an enemy too.

When the Shah was finally overthrown and Khomeni returned to
Iraq to seize power, he was greeted as a liberator by his fellow
countrymen. The Iranian hatred and disgust for the US led to the
Embassy hostage crisis.

The US also backed Saddam's Iraq during the 1980-88 war.

If people like our "Fred Fester" are in charge, and we go into
Iran, I guarentee that a year from now not one of us will be
complaining about the mismanagement of Iraq & our 2,000
dead there. It'll seem like peanuts compared to Iran.

I see a huge disaster if we go into Iran the same way we went into Iraq.

I am not happy about Iran with nukes either, but I think that any
military action at the present is out of the question.

In article <CNidnZGQepaKwNnZRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Speaking of Iran...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote

I think that what we could hope from a military operation is to
buy more time. The question is time for what? IMHO, that
must be time to foment a coup.

Now, what do we know about humans?

For one thing, they tend to pull together during a crisis. For
another thing, they tend to support their leaders when attacked
from without.

True. In times of trouble people tend to band together to protect
members of their own group. Nationalism is not dead and any invading
force, no matter how much it professed good intentions, would be treated
as hostile.

It should also be remembered that Iran, like Saddam's Iraq is a police
state. Potential opposition has been mostly eliminated or would be too
cowed to revolt. I recall that the Iraqis were supposed to rise up when
we invaded and greet us with 'flowers and sweets'. Didn't happen.

This is one reason why normal people hate George <spit> <spit>
Bush so much. Not only did he ***** up & allow the 9/11 attacks
to take place, but he rewarded the American people for getting
behind him by ramming through an off-the-scale right wing
agenda.

In other words, he took one look at the trust & support the
American people gave him and raped it.

Exactly. He took advantage of the tragedy.

But, most importantly, Bush did get that support.

The same would be true in Iran. If we attack Iran that is not
going to result in a coup. The people aren't going to look at
their fellow citizens being killed by foreigners and decide to
topple their own government. It's not going to happen. If anything,
an attck would promise to heighten nationalistic fevor inside
of Iran, gaining support for the present government.

Besides many Iranians don't like us.

The history of the US and Iran hasn't been exactly a bed of roses. To
keep control of the oil, the US and Britain overthrew a popular elected
leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and replaced him with the
dictatorship of the last Shah. While the Shah tried to modernize Iran
his heavy handed tactics and made many enemies. Since the US backed him,
we were considered an enemy too. When the Shah was finally overthrown
and Khomeni returned to Iraq to seize power, he was greeted as a
liberator by his fellow countrymen. The Iranian hatred and disgust for
the US led to the Embassy hostage crisis.

The US also backed Saddam's Iraq during the 1980-88 war.

We know this. This is the model we ourselves have, we ourselves
have witnessed numerous times.

Seriously. Attacking Iran is a big deal. It's a huge deal. It's
not something we can accomplish with the standard "Fred
Fester" approach of ramming our heads firmly up our asses,
denying reality at every turn, and constantly being surprised
by how things work in the real world.

I worry more when our leaders do the same.

If people like our "Fred Fester" are in charge, and we go into
Iran, I guarentee that a year from now not one of us will be
complaining about the mismanagement of Iraq & our 2,000
dead there. It'll seem like peanuts compared to Iran.

I see a huge disaster if we go into Iran the same way we went into Iraq.

I am not happy about Iran with nukes either, but I think that any
military action at the present is out of the question.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:42:25 -0400, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Speaking of Iran...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote

I think that what we could hope from a military operation is to
buy more time. The question is time for what? IMHO, that
must be time to foment a coup.

Now, what do we know about humans?

For one thing, they tend to pull together during a crisis. For
another thing, they tend to support their leaders when attacked
from without.

This is one reason why normal people hate George <spit> <spit>
Bush so much. Not only did he ***** up & allow the 9/11 attacks
to take place, but he rewarded the American people for getting
behind him by ramming through an off-the-scale right wing
agenda.

In other words, he took one look at the trust & support the
American people gave him and raped it.

But, most importantly, Bush did get that support.

The same would be true in Iran. If we attack Iran that is not
going to result in a coup. The people aren't going to look at
their fellow citizens being killed by foreigners and decide to
topple their own government. It's not going to happen. If anything,
an attck would promise to heighten nationalistic fevor inside
of Iran, gaining support for the present government.

We know this. This is the model we ourselves have, we ourselves
have witnessed numerous times.

Seriously. Attacking Iran is a big deal. It's a huge deal. It's
not something we can accomplish with the standard "Fred
Fester" approach of ramming our heads firmly up our asses,
denying reality at every turn, and constantly being surprised
by how things work in the real world.

If people like our "Fred Fester" are in charge, and we go into
Iran, I guarentee that a year from now not one of us will be
complaining about the mismanagement of Iraq & our 2,000
dead there. It'll seem like peanuts compared to Iran.

I understand they are testing explosives in Nevada at levels to mimic
nuclear bombs. If Bush actually tries to nuke Iran, I dunno - my
guess is the riots will start overseas and in the US and the US will
have to withdraw it's embassies from almost every country in the world
and run like a little girl.

I'd hate to be Bush at the point. I'd really be surprised if he
survived it a free man.