I know this might come across as a bit over-cautious - perhaps even pollyanna - but I'm of the opinion that if left to its own internal devices, Iran might actually oust the current President of Iran, Mr. Ahmedineijahd (sp?) on their own, without regard to the US stance on his Presidency or the geopolitics surrounding Iran in the Mideast...

Look at the demographics of Iran. A large portion of the population is very, very young. They do not exist in a bubble. Thanks to the technology of satellite, they see what others have available to them in terms of commercial accessories. They are willing and able to put two and two together to come up with the relative equation as to how come they have little or nothing when so much is available to the rest of the world. A mosque full of mullahs can only repress the population so far. Eventually, the population will begin to question the principles upon which the social order has been structured. The answers that are arrived at will be sorely lacking. The remedy to the question wil, inevitably, lead to a re-appraisal of the status quo. Given that scenario, the current administration of Iran will be hard pressed to loosen its grip on the social and cultural development of the country. An alternative path of social progress will be chosen.

The challenge for the US at this juncture will be one of trading off diplomacy for strategic military intervention. If the United States over-plays its hand by jumping on the military option in a premature fashion, we could easily wind up reinforcing Mr. Ahmehdinejahd's (sp?) position by inciting a backlash to Iranian patriotism... On the other hand, if we wait too long, we risk plunging the world into an apocalyptic scenario of death and destruction.

Not a great place to find oneself as "Superpower," is it?

I know this might come across as a bit over-cautious - perhaps even pollyanna - but I'm of the opinion that if left to its own internal devices, Iran might actually oust the current President of Iran, Mr. Ahmedineijahd (sp?) on their own, without regard to the US stance on his Presidency or the geopolitics surrounding Iran in the Mideast...

Look at the demographics of Iran. A large portion of the population is very, very young. They do not exist in a bubble. Thanks to the technology of satellite, they see what others have available to them in terms of commercial accessories. They are willing and able to put two and two together to come up with the relative equation as to how come they have little or nothing when so much is available to the rest of the world. A mosque full of mullahs can only repress the population so far. Eventually, the population will begin to question the principles upon which the social order has been structured. The answers that are arrived at will be sorely lacking. The remedy to the question wil, inevitably, lead to a re-appraisal of the status quo. Given that scenario, the current administration of Iran will be hard pressed to loosen its grip on the social and cultural development of the country. An alternative path of social progress will be chosen.

The challenge for the US at this juncture will be one of trading off diplomacy for strategic military intervention. If the United States over-plays its hand by jumping on the military option in a premature fashion, we could easily wind up reinforcing Mr. Ahmehdinejahd's (sp?) position by inciting a backlash to Iranian patriotism... On the other hand, if we wait too long, we risk plunging the world into an apocalyptic scenario of death and destruction.

Not a great place to find oneself as the world's only "Superpower," is it?

dbogdan,

The risks of an Iranian nuke far outwiegh and conceivable difficulties of getting rid of it - I had hoped that an Iranian revolution would break out and solve the problem for us, but it seems that the mullahs retain enough support to enforce their rule, and they don't seem at all inclined to obey instructions.

We'll have to go military on this, I believe.

I seriously hope you're wrong on this one, because I can't see a way that military action will "pass the muster" with the US population at this stage - absent a convincing display of nuclear weapons intent on Iran's part. I shudder at the prospect of a fractured 3-front military confrontation no matter how convincing the argument. We can be assured of stout opposition to our efforts on the part of our leftist loonie "friends," but can we count on the support of the "neocon right" in this endeavor, since their agenda has been arguably trashed on the immigration, spending and political fronts?

As much as I loathe the prospect, I am afraid that another 9/11 type attack is the only thing that might make a military option against Iran's nuclear ambitions fly for the American public...

Much as I placed my trust in the Russian population during the 1960s and 1970s, I feel that I have little choice but to place my hope and trust in the emerging population of Iranians to "see the light" and move beyond their present system of government. The trick will be doing so without a worst-case scenario of mushroom cloud dominating the discussion...

I honestly don't feel that in its present state the United States is willing or able to effectively advance its geo-political agenda upon Iran. We're nearly at the breaking point with Pakistan. General Musharrif (sp?) is really sticking his neck out with the ongoing military offensive in Waziristan province with very little payback in sight. Couple that with the banshee of Cindy Sheehan wannabes here in the USA, the upcoming election cycle, and a media that's foaming at the mouth to trash any and all policies by the White House, and you've got a potent combination of disincentives for pre-emptive action on the Iranian nuclear issue...

And we thought Iraq would be a "slam dunk..."

Oy!!!

dbogdan,

I think that if it comes to a fight, the American people will rally 'round the flag...we won't get the 90% approval that we had at the start of the liberation of Iraq, but we'll probably get up in to the mid-60's of support.

At any rate, even if only 1% approved, President Bush will do it - he has to, he knows it, and he's going to do what he thinks is right, regardless of consquences. Right makes might.

I happen to think that the mullahs can be brought to their knees rather quickly - we just need a steady nerve and the right strategy. My preferred strategy is to blockade Iran's oil exports, open up the Strategic Petroleum reserve (which will allow us to replace Iran's contribution the world oil market for at least three months - and that without any other oil producers upping production to take advantage of the absense of Iranian oil), and start bombing not just suspected nuclear sites, but those parts of the Iranian infrastructure which help the mullahs maintain control.

I think we could have it down in three weeks, if done properly. Of course, that is just the opinion of a blogger - we'll have to see what sort of plans President Bush, et al have developed.

Pardon me if I get a bit queasy here, but are you actually endorsing an outright military option without some unassailable justification? I'm definitely on board with President Bush's War on Terror, but I have serious reservations about forging ahead in Iran absent some compelling, incontrovertible proof of imminent danger. I don't want to spend the next several years blogging about "he said, she said" like we've obsessed with the Joe Wilson/Niger Yellowcake controversy. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes. I don't share your gung-ho attitude regarding how the mullahs "can be brought to their knees rather quickly..." without a substantially solid rationalization for the purposes of engaging these "mad mullahs" in Iran...

Our options, as Iran's options, are becoming more and more constrained... Blockading the straits of Hormuz, and opening up the Strategic Reserves to replace any perceived losses is one option, but have you considered what ramification that might have on the world economic markets? My 401K would be in for a challenge, that's all I'm willing to say...

As much as it pains me to state this to you, I feel compelled to do so: Please don't welcome the advent of military hostilities against Iran with such bravado. Just as we were told that the Iraqis would be welcoming us as liberators, throwing rose petals in the street as we advanced, we could easily buy into your patriotic arguments to buttress an assault on Iran. Absent a compelling reason, we would unnecessarily expose ourselves to the withering criticism that we understand would be forthcoming...

On the other hand... if a mushroom cloud were to develop anywhere related to Iran, I feel that our political leaders would have little or no choice but to respond to the clear threat to the world order. Mullahs and disenfranchised citizens nothwithstanding, are we willing to take this extraordinary step to "liberate" the citizens of Iran even as we "secure" our geopolitical position?

Iran does not have the material to make a nuke. Once it has gained allthe material, it would take five to ten years before they could develope a weapon. There is no need to rush to war.
The only real nuke threat is that Bush is planning on using a tactical nuke against Iran during his bombing campaign?

A large portion of the population is very, very young. They do not exist in a bubble.

This is a good thing. Unfortunately, a large portion of our very-young population do exist in a bubble. I'm concerned that if we do not get the Iranian problem corrected soon, it won't happen until it's too late.

Liberals and their philosophy WILL GET AMERICA KILLED...

Liberals do not live in the real world. They live in some theoretical utopia created by their liberal teachers, professors, and "leaders" who sit behind their desks in their warm institutions and contemplate what a utopian world would be if all were good and perfect. This is the message our children are taught in our schools, colleges, and universities.

Liberals do not learn from history because they are no longer taught real history. They are taught some revised and sanitized version that has been edited and rewritten by liberal educators to convey the liberal views and ideology. This is the history that our children are indoctrinated with today. Ultimately, they or their children will be forced to relive and relearn the lessons from history because they aren't taught them by our schools. Our liberal schools are more concerned about condoms and cucumbers.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not taught by the left's liberal educators. They do not read the left's liberal books or adhere to the left's liberal theories. They do not live in the liberal utopia where all is peaceful and good. Other nations live in the real world, and given the opportunity, they will develop the capability and resources to destroy, kill, and conquer those around them, including America if they are allowed to do so.

It is America's strength that as maintained relative peace and allowed the world economies to grow and prosper. A weak America will not create a world at peace. Diplomats work best if they are backed by strength, not weakness.

Anyone who believes that a fanatical nation like Iran or North Korea will keep their "promises" and live in peace if only they are allowed to develop "defensive" nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them are not even remotely living in the real world. Bill Clinton believed North Korea's and Iran's promises and look where those countries are now.

North Korea and Iran "promised" in the past that they would not use their nuclear technology for weapons. They promised their nuclear programs were only for peaceful purposes and energy. Their promises meant and mean nothing. It only serves to divert attention from their real objectives until it is too late to stop them! Those who once again believe their promises of peace had better extract their head from wherever it is they have it stuck and wake up before they see big mushrooms growing in their cities and backyards!

Conservative Americans at least do not want to see America destroyed just to prove to liberals that THE LIBERAL WAY IS THE WRONG WAY FOR AMERICA! Peace is not achieved through weakness!

In the meantime, Conservatives should start organizing and working to stop the liberal agenda. It will take many years, and generations to repair the damage liberals have created.

AAR

As said above, the demographics are important. A large portion of the population is young, and literate. They are aware of world politics,and don't always buy what the mullahs are telling them. They are intrigued by the West.

The religious leaders of Iran will supress the people for only so long. The mullahs cannot distract them forever from the economic and social changes that need to take place.

In the meantime, the U.S. needs to be firm but step lightly when confronting the clerics who are in control of Iran. An all-out military campaign will not meet with the same token resistance as it did in Iraq. On the other hand, the U.S. cannot be seen as weak and undecided -- the mullahs will take full advantage of it.

You want to have Peace in Iraq and no nuclear weapons in Iran? Then immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran has already done. Peace

RE: "... if a mushroom cloud were to develop anywhere related to Iran, I feel that our political leaders would have little or no choice but to respond to the clear threat to the world order."

I disagree! It is not the job of our President and our "political leaders" to strike Iran AFTER THEY DESTROY one or more of our cities, those of Israel, or any other country.

It is the job of our President and political leaders to do all they can to stop terrorists or any country BEFORE they destroy our cities!

If America waits until all liberals have the first hand, undeniable proof they want that Iran will use their nuclear weapons, millions of Americans, Israelis, or other country's citizens may have died. That proof will be flattened cities and millions of incinerated bodies! We are not talking about spears and arrows. We are talking about real weapons, and real destruction.

America and the world can not wait until liberals can see in gruesome detail the undeniable proof they say they must have. Why did Saddam Hussein not develop the nuclear weapons he wanted? Because Israel took out his nuclear facilities with military force, and America's military force along with some help from a few other countries stopped him. Do you actually believe that Saddam would not have developed nuclear weapons if he had not been stopped by military force? Do you actually believe he would not have developed them at some time in the future after sanctions were removed if President Bush had not removed him. We didn't go to war just to stop Saddam from using the WMD the entire world believed he had, we went to war to stop Saddam from developing and using them in the future.

On the other hand... but let Iran develop those weapons and destroy an American city and we will hear the screams from liberals that Bush should have done something to protect Americans BEFORE their cities, friends, family, and relatives were destroyed!

RE: "...Blockading the straits of Hormuz, and opening up the Strategic Reserves to replace any perceived losses is one option, but have you considered what ramification that might have on the world economic markets? My 401K would be in for a challenge, that's all I'm willing to say..."

Do you think that blocking the straits or an economic embargo is going to stop Iran from expediting their development of nuclear weapons and missiles? No, they will work even harder. Do you think that will stop them from using those weapons, on Israel if nothing else? No, it will likely only irritate and encourage them to do so.

What do you think the destruction of even one city by a nuclear attack will do to the world economies, even if it is "only" Israel that is wiped off the face of the earth?! Look at what happened then the World Trade Center was destroyed. Look at the impact that had on the world's economies and the stock market, and that is nothing compared to the aftermath of a nuclear attack.

Your 401K won't just be in for a "challenge"... it will likely be wiped out along with the cities that were wiped out by a nuclear attack. Once the world and investors wake up to the real likelihood and possibility of a pending nuclear attack by Iran or North Korea, your 401K could decline dramatically!

RE: "A large portion of the population is very, very young. They do not exist in a bubble."

They don't live in a bubble, they live in a VACUUM! The don't know or learn from history. They don't understand the facts of life. They don't live in the real world. They live in a utopian world that has been taught to them by the liberal education system and perpetuated by their liberal Democratic "leaders".

Hopefully, their votes and political support for the liberal left, created by their lack of knowledge and understanding, won't cause their deaths and the death of the rest of us!

Liberals and diplomats have had time to fix the problem. There is still some time left, but that time is running out.

We can not wait for history to confirm that liberals are wrong.

AAR

Mark, great post. President Bush said that he will not allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. What part of that do the nuts in iran not understand. President Bush means what he says. Although we all know that within 5 days of the bombing campaign in iran, the dems will say Bush lied people died (it is a forgone conclusion), because they think they may get one extra house seat if they sell out thier country again, President Bush has a backbone of steel and a laser focus, motivated only to do what is good for the USA.

dbogdan,

Yes, the constant anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-Iraq, anti-war campaign from the left has most definitely hurt America's ability to deal effectively with issues like Iran and North Korea. It's time the American public recognizes this. (Back to my point of Democrats providing aid and comfort to our enemies!)

The Iranians watch the news, read the papers, and see the polls. They know that the American liberal Democrat anti-Bush campaign has hurt America, and they are using it to their advantage.

What they for get, however, is that President Bush is not running for re-election and President Bush doesn't react to polls.

I would have to check for sure, but I don't believe President Bush needs approval from Congress, the Democrats, or the liberal left to order a strike to defend America from attack or to retaliated for an actual attack.

If I were Iran, I would really start to worry and look to the skies!!!

America is more than capable of handling Iran at the same time we are dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I have said before... DON'T UNDERESTIMATE PRESIDENT BUSH!

AAR

dbogdan,

I keep hearing the "rose petals" thing, but I've never been able to discover anyone who made that exact assertion about our welcome into Iraq...but, at any rate, I'm not advocating invading Iran, just knocking back their nuclear program by ten years while at the same time putting sufficient personal pressure on the mullahs to mute their response to our actions.

I don't perceive myself as "gung ho" for military action, but just realistic - the tyrants in Iran think that President Bush is on the ropes and all they need do is wait him out...wait until January 20th, 2009 when a new President - of either Party - will start to withdraw America from the middle east; in a way, they are right - I don't know if any possible successor to President Bush will have the plain courage to do what is necessary with Iran's nuclear ambitions. I think President Bush knows this, too...a man running for office has a lot of pressure on him, especially if he hopes to run again. The pressure is off Bush - he can take the action and take the heat without any personal political risk.

The Iranian government must not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons - if they do then terrorism will have an impervious base of operations...a place where they can run and hide, safe from American response...but able to attack outside Iran at will. The risks are too great, and we can never be sure that those madmen in Tehran won't actually use a nuke once they've got one...people who think that God has given them a direct mission of conquest are, well, a bit unstable.

As for how hard it will be to curb Iran - part of the problem, I think, is that you don't quite realise how powerful the United States is. Most people don't - we really could, if we wished, just start ordering the world around as we see fit, and there would be nothing anyone could realistically do to stop us. Those nations which have the population to challenge us lack the sinews of war; those nations which have the sinews lack the population; in worldly affairs, we stand supreme...Iran's actions vis a vis the United States are sheer impertinence...but, then again, so were Japan's in the 1940's...and it took a mushroom cloud to end all that.

I'd prefer we not have to do that again.

Have you guys seen the articles regarding possible tactical nuclear strikes against Iran? It's an intriguing possibility for getting at whatever parts of their program are buried deep underground. Think bunker busters on steroids.

Leonidas,

RE: "Have you guys seen the articles regarding possible tactical nuclear strikes against Iran? It's an intriguing possibility for getting at whatever parts of their program are buried deep underground. Think bunker busters on steroids."

It goes back to that 700 ton conventional test explosion scheduled a couple of months from now in Nevada. Although, that test will be conducted using conventional explosives, I'm not so sure that we are only trying to determine the results of a conventional explosion.

We can probably drop a 700 ton bomb on Iran, perhaps even using airplanes as guided missiles, but we could also be trying to determine destruction a nuclear device of that same "tonnage" would cause. I can see several possible reasons for the test, but I don't think our military is going to tell us what their purpose is. We may yet get to see the results of their efforts though... perhaps by the U.S. ...perhaps by Israel.

As far as I know, the nuclear test ban treaty prevents us from testing an actual nuclear device, but a conventional explosion could still provide us with valuable information our military needs to make plans and adjustments.

AAR

"You want to have Peace in Iraq and no nuclear weapons in Iran? Then immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran has already done."