If you immediately reestablished full diplomatic realations with Iran it could be possible to create a nuclear weapons free zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Bay of Bengal. That would require Israel,Pakistan and India giving up their nuclear weapons. All of the nations in the region could sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treay, if they haven't already done so like Israel. You could do all of that without firing a shot. Peace

There is a very good cat fight between Juan Cole at: http://www.juancole.com/ and Christopher Hitchens at www.slate.com on the Iranian crisis.

Any type of embargo or attack on Iran will only rally the Iranians to the government (national pride). It always happens that way.

According to the Managing Director of National Oil Derivative Production and Distribution Company (NODPDC) of Iran:

"The total refining capacity is 40 million liters daily where as the gasoline consumption is estimated to exceed 64.5 million liters daily this year. "Hence, we have to import 24.5 million liters daily"

Thus they can refine about 2/3s of their needs. Blocking the Straits of Hormuz would have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on Iran than the rest of the world.

You say that Iran is weak vis a vis the US. Do the Chinese and the Russians, the latter to who we depend on to pay for our wars(Singlehandedly they have financed Iraq and Afghanistan. Would they be willing to apy for a war with Iran, too?)), and our now democtrized allies, the Russians,(Who provided Iraq with its nuclear capability.) share you point of view.
What do you think the American public will do when Bush whose approval rating is at 34% for 3 dollar + a gallon gas will do should this crisis lead directly to 5 or 6 dolar a gallon gasoline?
I woulod like to see the Iranians disarmed as well but what portion of the American publo is going to pay for all this? going to pay for all this?
Oh, and we've got an army tied down in Iraq.
It's a good thing we're as powerful as you say we are. I wonder what will happen if we have to prove it?

This is true. But don't count on Iranians to give up so easily!

FLASH! Moussaoui Verdict at 4:30 PM ET!!

Barney,

No, it doesn't...remember, what you see of Iran on the TV is what the mullahs want you to see...aside from the theocratic elements, the Iranian government is also quite totalitarian. You can get 100,000 Iranians to shout "death to America" in Tehran and it can't be taken as evidence that the Iranian people, as a whole, want America dead. The only way we'll ever find out what the Iranian people want is for them to have an election.

As for US action against Iran - it is just as likely that an attack on the leadership structure of Iran will delight the Iranian people as outrage them.

But even if we could be assured that 100% of the Iranian people will rally 'round their corrupt mullahs upon a US attack, then we will still have to do it - the mullahs MUST not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and I doubt the courage of Bush's eventual sucessor to carry out the necessary action.

He got LIFE.

Mark,

If Israel is the country being threatened, why can't they be the country to strike Iran, and not us?

Mark,

Bushs public approval ratings are at 34% for 3 + dollars for a gallon of gas. How will the public react if this crisis leads to 5 or 6 dollar a gallon gas?
Whose gonna pay for an all out war if that what it comes to? The Chinese? Our democritized allies the Russians?
Sailors are being trained to replace the exhausted ground troops in Iraq because not enough civilians from other government sectors are volunteering for service in Iraq. This is happening,as you said, because they are all Clintonites who want to see Bush fail.(Good News From Iraq.)
I would like to see the Iranians disarmed as much as you do, but these questions must be answered before embark on another military adventure: How much is it gonna cost and whose gonna pay for it?

You could do all of that without firing a shot. Peace

Yeah, and monkeys could fly out of my ass without firing a shot, too. What the hell did you take before you posted this, Stevie?

What really needs to be done won't be, so what we really need to do here is have congressional hearings and determine just how close Iran is to having a nuke. It seems that every other day, someone comes out with a new estimate--six months, ten years, two years--and I'm getting dizzy. I'm beginning to believe that Ahmedinijad is somewhat of a blowhard. Also, I have all the confidence in the world of Israel's capability to take care of itself.

Stevie wants to have a Middle East summit. Bwahahahaha!!! Didn't Carter and Clinton hold such summits? Didn't Kerry propose summits? These maniacs don't listen to summits!

Keefer

This is sounding a lot like the buildup to the Iraqi Invasion. Rightwingnuts want nothing to do with alternative solutions. They want to go in with guns ablazing. It's the wild west mentality all over again. Oh yeah, don't forget to call me a peace loving pussy.

Mark said: "Just as the USSR was only accorded its weight in the world due to its nuclear arsenal, so Iran would only be taken seriously because of its nuclear arsenal."

Ummm... where are you going with this? The USSR occupied 1/5 of the total landmass on earth (not including its many clients), in addition to thousands of nuclear weapons. Didn't they also vow world domination? Yes, I'm pretty sure they did -- 99.9% sure. But what happened? Where's the USSR now?

In light of all that, how seriously should we really take Iran? I just don't get the meme that "we are now facing the gravest threat we have ever faced". Personally, I'm not inclined to pee in my pants just yet.

Even John Negroponte, Bush's hand-picked Director of National Intelligence, has indicated that Iran is years away from nuclear weapons. Are they a potential threat eventually? Yes. Are they an imminent threat? Very unlikely. If Bush decides to take arms against Iran I think we will see a general insurrection among the military, not to mention Congress, and everyone else -- including the fragile government currently existing in Iraq. You think those generals were speaking out ONLY on personal slights, or ONLY on the conduct of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath? I sincerely doubt it -- but I'm only sure at the 99.0% level.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that Iran is ringed by nations that don't want to see them become a nuclear power. But many of the same are equally willing to see us make a premature choice to invade, so they can take advantage of the mess we make for ourselves. That is the true nature of geopolitics. It always has been, it always will be. Considering that, if ever we want to do the right thing, it is incumbent upon us to ENSURE that do the right thing right. To the extent that we don't, we're screwed. Our invasion of Iraq should have been a shot across the bow in that respect. We'd be fundamentally stupid not to learn the lesson and let history repeat itself.

What I want is a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world and everything that bush and you warmongers have done has increased the number of nuclear weapons. It's time to try a different appraoch. One where Isreal gives up it's nukes and Iran builds none. Then Pakistan and India give up their nukes and Eqypt and Saudi Arabia build none. Nuclear Free Zone. Peace

Ricorun,

You'd be betting not just your life, but the lives of millions of others to say, "well, its 5 to 10 years away, so just let things be". This is the time to strike at Iran's nuclear program - when its really not much more than plans on the drawing board. Cripple it now, knock 'em back 10 to 20 years on development...that allows you some real room to move, and hope that the mullahs aer eventually overthrown.

The USSR analogy is a little strained, but only a little - the plain fact of the matter is that the Cold War started in 1948, but it was 1968 before the USSR actually posed any sort of military threat to the United States...it was only their nuclear arsenal from 1949 forward which allowed them to play a major role in the world...

Finally, I don't think anyone out there is advocating an invasion of Iran - I'm sure not. What is being advocated is an "Osirik" on steriods...not just a pinprick bombing of the prime nuclear location as Israel did back in the early 80's in Iraq, but a systemic attack on teh entire nuclear infrastructure of Iran...something that will really set back their ability to make an atomic bomb.

Just,

The monetary cost of taking out Iran's nuclear are irrelevant because the monetary cost of not taking it out will be much larger...its the difference in cost between unleasing Patton on the USSR in 1945 as opposed to a 45 year long Cold War with the USSR.

maf,

Israel, for all its power, isn't really all that strong...it looms large because it keeps beating the Arabs in war, but Israel lacks the resources for the sustained bombing campaign which would be necessary to severely cripple Iran's nuclear program.

Additionally, while Iran is talking tough vis a vis Israel, the real target is ever and always the United States...we are, as they say, the Great Satan, right?

Does this iranian leader think the israelis are just going to sit there and let themselves be destroyed? im no expert on the capabilities of the IDF, but I have no doubt that if iran takes out Tel-Aviv, the israelis easly have the power to turn Tehran to dust.

But Mark, don't you listen to Rantin'Ranty Rhodes? She explains to the faithful on a regular basis how all the conservatives want to do is start wars, invade countries, etc.

You see, according to Rantin' Ranty, conservatives don't have families they love and want to keep safe---they just want to go out and KILL KILL KILL !!!

Acoording to the Air America airheads, conservatives don't care about anything but power, body counts, blood flowing in the streets---and, I quote, "I just hope someone is left alive at the end of all this..."

So if your only source of so-called "information" is those truly depraved talkies, of course you might buy into such garbage as "...They want to go in with guns ablazing." Because liberals have cornered the market on simple values such as peace and love and concern for the safety of the world, standing as the last hope as the conservatives try to destroy us all. Ranty will tell you all about it, and so will Al, if you can sit through one of his meandering babbles and figure out what the heck he's trying to say.

I just suggest that those who buy into this fantasy world, people like steve (peace) who plaintively cry "Why can't we all just GET ALONG??" and think that merely wanting Iran to stop building nukes is all it will take for them to stop building nukes, all take a look at 1939 and 1940. Look up the term "Peace in our time." Find out what happens when the head-in-the-clouds guys make policy while madmen grow unhindered.

And, Canadian Observer, you be sure that when we are fighting back, we stop at our border, because you for sure don't want us accidentally protecting your sorry butt by mistake.

(Actually, my friends in Alberta despise the whiny weaklings like CO who make the whole country look bad, so I apologize for implying that CO is representative of more than a few limp-wristed weenies back east.)

I keep hearing folks say we don't have the manpower to take on Iran. They say were all tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are we really doing in those counties now? Does anyone think if we weren't there in force the governments there would fold up and blow away?

No, certainly not. Both nations are strong enough now to suppress the terrorists. Iran is in the unenviable position of having significant numbers of US troop on their eastern and western borders with less to do every passing day. With a landing from the south via the Arabian Ocean the straits of Hormuz can be secured in days. Then it’s just a matter of months before the Iranian mullahs find themselves in the same position as the Taliban, Bin Laden and Saddam.

There are those who will say, but the terrain is mountainous. Yes, it is. So was much of the terrain in Afghanistan what your point? With (total) control of the skies and satellites coverage it is extremely hard to sneak troops anywhere let alone for them to dig in and hold a mountain pass. So, when they try, as they must, we drive them back using air support, take the high ground and pick off the stragglers as we move toward Tehran in a three pronged pincher maneuver from the west, east and south.

Why is it success has made us afraid to assert ourselves? In less than six month of active military operations in country, with less the 1500 casualties, two governments were removed and two democratic nations were born to replace them. No matter your opinion of how things have gone in the aftermath of theses governmental overthrows, militarily, it was an unparalleled success.

In the late seventy, we trained the Iranian military here in the US. They were clowns then and they're clowns now. Destroying them militarily has never been the problem. We can reduce Iran to rubble in few months. The problem is the lack of political will here in the US to deal harshly and decisively with our enemies.

The left knows, that if we, here in the US were left to feel good about our success, the right would be able to go in and end the threat of terrorism once and for all. Hence, all the defeatism emanating from the left, as the Democratic Party knows they would never regain power, if they allowed the republicans to attain a complete victory; therefore, victory itself must be forestalled.

Allow me to indulge in hyperbole. As I understand it, this is what you guys are proposing: We bomb Iran and hope that the mullahs are overthrown... eventually. Oh, and we should cut off their gas supplies.

Almost everything proposed seems to be in the hope of slowing down Iran's nuclear program, with nobody really addressing how to get rid of the mullahs and how to foster the democratization of Iran.

If we bomb their facilities, they can be rebuilt. Any suggestion that a bombing of Iran will be welcomed by Iranians is severely underestimating the power of Nationalism. Cutting off petroleum supplies does nothing to stop their nuclear program. At best, it will screw over (and piss off) the populace until, say, refineries are built.

Yes, these things will slow them down (as long as their facilities aren't under 70 feet of solid rock). Slowing them down is not a solution. The question is what are you buying time for?

one toke over the line, steve...peace...

it (Israel) keeps beating the Arabs in war

Then maybe we should oughta ask them how they do it. We sure don't seem to know how.

Three years and counting. Were we even in WW2 that long? I'll check.

Rightwingnuts want nothing to do with alternative solutions. They want to go in with guns ablazing. It's the wild west mentality all over again.

C.O. I think it is as much about redistributing the wealth as the western gunsling mentality.

Follow the money:

Who is paying for the war, at least in this country?

Who is reaping the monetary benefits? No hints now (Halliburton, Kellog-Brown, Bechtel, etc.)

Follow the money.

Are you insane Mark? Should we call you the professor? You actually know more than the Generals who have publicly stated that invading Iran will not be a cake walk. When will you have had enough of war and the enormous cost to lives, economies, and world status. Please, for the love of mike, wake up professor. No more war. Period.

Rob,

I may be insane - but do you read what I actually write?

Finally, I don't think anyone out there is advocating an invasion of Iran - I'm sure not.

My preferred course of action with Iran is a air and sea blockade - turn on the spigots at the SPR and prevent Iran from selling any oil for three to six months...that will bring them to the negotiating table quickly. I think, however, that a blockade could be too easily played by the MSM - who will be eagerly looking for the anti-American angle in any Iranian/US conflict - as something which is punishing the Iranian people...so, my guess is that we'll engage in a series of bombing offensives designed not to totally destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but so degrade it that we can have good assurance that an Iranian nuke is at least ten years out...this gives time for change in Iran, and, hopefully, a revolutionary end to the whole mullah problem.

Rob,

Ooops, sorry - you meant the other Mark...my bad.

Mark,

I don't want an invasion of Iran because I view the Iranian people as the natural ally of the American people in that area of the world - if we must have a conflict, I'd like to keep the blood cost as low as possible, and as directed on the mullahs as we can make it.

One day Iran will emerge from its theocratic nightmare, and then we'll want to extend the firm hand of friendship.

Ash,

Ah, but we have beaten them - only in the minds of leftists like you are we in any sort of difficulty in Iraq...

ac,

I think I answered that in my other replies - in the end, we're all just hoping that the bloody horse will learn to sing...nothing is perfect in this world.

Just a couple thoughts:

1) The left wants to play the Iranian situation as anothar war, American military stretched thin, not enought troops, boots on the ground, turning the Iranian people, now an ally, into America haters.

Response: Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no intention of putting boots on the ground. Any action will be strategic air strikes with intensified efforts of enabling the Iranian people to create regime change.

2) Talking with Iranian contact the other who has been stateside for roughly a month. His take: Iranian people, to use his word, "love" American. If you were to visit Tehran you would think you were in an American city. The Iranian people do not support the current government and do want regime change, but they need help.

3) As far as Generals saying an invasion of Iran would not be as easy Iraq. Well...what did the Generals say when we invaded Iraq. I remember then saying to expect a high body count and strong resistance. No General is going to come out and say..."yeah, it is going to be a cake walk." For those who have ever served, you always prepare for the worse and hope for the best.

4) Call me crazy, but if we address Iran sooner rather than later I believe you will see oil and gas prices go down rather than up.

5) With the above said, I am more than will to pay $6.00 gas than to risk the loss of life may or may not happen. If we allow Iran to obtain nuclear capability and that capability lands in the hands of terrorist, the next terror attack wont take the lifes of 3000, it will be tens of thousands.

I don't understand Woolsey's comments about the refined petroleum ban that doesn't include oil exports. Both generate revenue for Iran, don't they? The problem with this solution is the global marketplace. If the U.S. refuses to purchase Iranian oil, Russia and especially China will happily purchase whatever they can. In fact, China has a new agreement with Iran to purchase large quantities of Iranian oil.

The point I'm making is that a global economy reduces or even negates the impact of an Iranian oil boycott by the U.S. and Europe.

And because Russia and China both hold veto power over any U.N. Security Council resolution/sanctions, that road appears blocked as well.

While there are those who may be able and willing to pay $6/gallon for gas in the U.S., no doubt that such prices would have a huge impact on our economy, sending us into a recession and inflation tailspin.

Excuse me for not being a military hawk on this issue, but our best option in my opinion is to get out of Iraq, and work on a true Middle East stabilization policy that will eventually put pressure on the Iranians. At the same time, it should be obvious to everyone, even Bush supporters, that our our dependence on foreign oil is a major national security liability and we should be doing something about it on a major scale.

Mark,

Thank you for addressing at least one of my questions directly, placing your answer in the context of a goal which I think is agreed to by most. Iran, along with the rest of the world, doesn't need any more nukes. The question is how that can be achieved.
I agree with you, the cost is irrelevent, however, soldiers and weapons suppliers must be paid. All out war with Iraq is going to be huge undertaking.
Who is going to pay for it? The Presidents approval ratings are at 34% because of 3+dollars for a gallon of gas.What will happen if this crisis leads directly to a protracted confrontation confrontation that leaves gas at 5+ dollars a gallon?
Will the Chinese pony up another 500 billion to finance another war the American Taxpayer refuses to pay for? Especially when they are so eager to take our share of Iranian oil?
In addition to punching ahole in the idea that democracies are natural allies, Russia shows no signs of cutting nuclear aid to Iran?
You keep talking of military force, yet where is the economic force needed to change the behavior of these countries, or support a massive miltary opeeration?
How can we condemn Iran and China, while doing billions of buisiness, helping build up the very military machines our soldiers will be sent to face?
Now that future presidents will decide what to do about the US presence in Iraq, and sailors are being trained to replace exhausted army divisions in Iraq, some on their 4th and 5th deployment, where will the manpower come from to fight a theater wide confict in the mid-east?
These questions must be answered honestly, or there will be no support for any action against the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians or anyone else.
Look forward to your response.

"The monetary cost of taking out Iran's nuclear are irrelevant because the monetary cost of not taking it out will be much larger...its the difference in cost between unleasing Patton on the USSR in 1945 as opposed to a 45 year long Cold War with the USSR."
M. Noonan

How about the cost in lives -- is that also irrelevant?

As for the idea of going after the USSR after Germany was defeated -- it hardly deserves discussion.

Patton was an army commander at the peak of his career. To "unleash" him would have required promoting him over a lot of senior people.

Also, when you consider that the the U.S. had only 16 armored divisions (if you count the French armored div.) and 46 infantry divisions in Europe -- as opposed to a Red Army of 24 tank corps (12 guards) and 13 mech. corps (9 guards) plus about 100 rifle divisions, the task would have been pretty daunting, in the extreme.

I doubt that the alies would have been much interested in joining a war against a country that was impervious to personnel losses.

And don't even bother with the "nuclear" argument -- I'm sure that you are aware that it would have been 1947 before any real nuclear offensive could have been brought to bear -- and no indicationb that the Kremlin would have been any more awed by losing eight cities aper year to nukes than they were to conventional attacks -- in 1950 they would have retaliated against our forces.

Don't hand me the strategic bombing thing either. Germany actually increased production under the weight of allied bombing (as I'm sure you are aware). It was never as effective as its proponents claimed.

Let's face it -- the idea of Patton going after the Russians has been a delusional wet dream of American warmongers and self-styled strategists for 60 years. Our forces MAY have been able to keep the Red Army out of western Europe -- invading Russia was and is a pipe dream. Why would you even forward such a ludicrous statement?

Talk like that is why they fired the nut case.

First, let me say that this is the other Mark.
Second, let me say I am not advocating invading Iran at this point. I do, however, believe that if the US were to do so, it would be over very quickly.

No, I am not insane. Those generals to whom you refer must take the political situation at home, among a host of other factors, into consideration when recommending a course of military action. They surly learned that lesson in Viet Nam. Not to do so would be irresponsible. Again, let me reaffirm that it is not a military problem, but a political problem.

The biggest political mistake the right has made in its prosecution of the war on terror is in letting the left define victory! This was done first in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq.

As I see it, the reason for invading Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power; thus, denying Al Qaeda a sovereign nation from which to conduct operations.
Victory was achieved when these goals were attained. The left, however, has been effective in redefining victory, in this case, as ridicules as it may seem, as dependant upon our capturing one man, Bin Laden. When was the last time the US military was mobilized and transported half way across the globe to capture a criminal?

In Iraq, our goals were two fold. First, remove Saddam from power and second, ensure Iraq neither possessed WMD nor the capacity to produce them in the near future. Both goals were accomplished very quickly, but again the left redefined the victory by insisting Saddam be captured. Once this goal was achieved the insurgency was in full swing and again victory was redefined as quelling the insurgency and capturing Zarqawi.

Once again, let me say the problem it is not one of military capacity, but a political one. The problem is the lack of political will here in the US to deal harshly and decisively with our enemies. The politics of winning elections in the US is the problem.

The monetary cost of taking out Iran's nuclear are irrelevant because the monetary cost of not taking it out will be much larger...its the difference in cost between unleasing Patton on the USSR in 1945 as opposed to a 45 year long Cold War with the USSR.

Just curious, Mark. Are you merely using this as a (flawed) analogy, or do you really think that attacking the Soviet Union in 1945 would have been a good idea?

To the first Mark:

That is exactly my point. Bombing their facilities and then relying on hope to bring about real and definite change in Iran is not a coherent policy. It is a delaying tactic or a short term fix at best.

To the second "other" Mark:

You are conflating the search for Bin Laden and the invasion of Afghanistan. The latter is considered by most a success, while the other is a failure. You seem to suggest that the man hunt was a fabrication. This is not the case.

In Iraq, our goal was not to ensure that Iraq did not possess or have the capactity to produce WMDs. Our goal was to remove the possession of and capacity to produce WMDs. The latter implies the former, but they are not equivalent.

Ash,
Ah, but we have beaten them - only in the minds of leftists like you are we in any sort of difficulty in Iraq...

All right Mark Noonan, Mission Accomplished. So let's bring our boys home.

Mark Noonan was right. There I've said it. So let's bring our boy's home now.

Rummie and Bush were right. Let's bring our boys home now!

Okay Mark are we now joining hands and demanding we bring our boys home NOW?

Hallelujah Mark Noonan has proclaimed victory and we can now bring our troops home! Hallelujah

Ah, but we have beaten them-Mark Noonan

Ash,

Did the boys come home from Germany as soon as Jodl signed the surrender papers?

Don't be absurd.

Dean,

It was the only correct thing to do - you attack evil as soon as you can: in May of 1945 we had a superbly trained and equipped, battle-hardened army which could have - especially when backed by our then-exclusive nuclear threat - swiftly forced the USSR to disgorge its conquests in central Europe. It was fool's work to consider Stalin an ally during WWII...our attitude should have been "we'll help him until Hitler is dead, and then he's our next target".

This is, of course, 20/20 hindsight...but it is also excellent foresight.

Me be absurd? You are so full of crap!

AC,

I don't recall anyone suggesting we blockade Iran as a way to bring them to the table. The statements about the traits of Hormuz, and the Iranian dependence on gasoline imports, were to illustrate that their threat to block the straits is bluster.

So, we're going to talk about what might have been in 1945. The analogy is flawed because the enemies we were fighting then were largely insulated from our economy. So we could go about destroying Hitler and combatting Stalin, through cold or hot means, and this would have little longterm effect on our material well being. Nor did we bear any direct financial responsibility for the buildup of these war machines. WHATEVER! should have been done to stop Hitler and Stalin, militarily, once their machinations became apparent is a matter of conjecture. What is not is that, however these foes were engaged, they were not being financed by us, and the American were willing to pay for the fight.
With Iran and and China, this is not the case. Our economy is heavily dependent on direct trade with these 2 countries. We continue to buy Iranian oil long after the Axis of Evil was proclaimed by Bush, and Bush fervently hopes that they do not decide to use it as a weapon in a TRADE war. The Chinese, who have been described by Mr. Noonan as corrupt and despotic, are also something else neither the Germans and Russians never were:Filthy Rich with an incredible knack for producing consumer goods, and an insatiable desire for economic domination. The Chinese are all about buisiness. Any military build-up is for extending Chinas commercial clout. (Anybody who thinks China will only gain control of Taiwan through force hasn't seen Hong Kong. Vibrant economicly before the takeover, and it remains so under Chinese rule. No boat people coming from there.)
After 9/11, there was a commercial that said that people who bought drugs were financing terrorism. Perhaps its not buying drugs that funds terrorism, and anti American propoganda (The Saudis Wahabi schools are a fine example of how American petrodollars are used to fund schools where good little boys and girls learn to hate America.), its buying gas. Iranians now want to use their share American petro dollars to build nukes.
And what funds the buildup of the Chinese military machine? Two hundred billion dollar trade deficits, and 20 billion dollar annual interest payments on the 500 billion in US treasuries the Chinese own. The deficit was 5.6 trillion when Bush took office. It now stands at 9 Trillion. Bush has 3 years to go. May be he'll double it. (10% of the national budget is servicing this debt. Hey, deficts don't matter.)
So where do we stand? If we stop importing Iranian oil, the Chinese will buy it. Then extend Bush the credit he needs to finance any military adventures in the region. Maybe even sell us a portion of their Iranian oil.
Who'll come out on top. The CHINESE! Their trade partners will do their dirty work for them. Supplied, of course, with weapons from our natural democratic ally, Russia.
And Russia will continue selling them the technology because we are so busy fighting the middle eastern users of this technology, we don't have the money to buy it from the suppliers.(Remember back in 1991, the US bought five Russian migs in order to prevent them from being sold to the Iranians.)
China is the enemy, and the competition is economic. NOT! military. We can't buy Iranian oil on Chinese credit and hope that our fuming, and hand wringing will bring them to heel.
Adding to this patheticly obvious set of trade connections is how we subsidize our dependence on mid-east oil. There is no tariff for oil imports from anywhere in the world while there is a substantial tariff on ethanol from Brazil. And we have a chronic shortage it seems of distilleries to produce the stuff domesticly(Not that you'd ever notice such a shortage in your local liquor store.)
Now, while even Sean Hannity agrees that dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue, he feels that the solution is a free market issue: Open ANWAR to drilling, losen environmental regulations to build refineries etc. Leaving aside the fact that it would take 10 years from oil for such sources to have an impact on the world oil supply, there is NO! market incentive to significantly expand domestic supplies or refinery capacity.
The oil companies are making money hand over fist with existing facilities with no end in sight to their spectacular profiteering. And that's what the oil companies are supposed to do...make money. Not provide the average American with cheap gas or worry about our national security. And this is where Bush has an Achilles heel the size of a Belgian draft horse:He can't envision a situation where an American company can profit spectacularly to the detriment of consumers and comprimise the nations security.
While the public, and Sean Hannity may feel the need for more domestic oil, and refinery capacity, I think the oil companies feel everything is just fine.(Dedicated refinery capacity for the strategic reserve so that Bush isn't embarrased next time he releases some only to find that cars don't on crude 4 1/2 years after 9/11, and 6 months after Katrina. Not even being discussed.)
Our most fiersome enemies don't wear soldiers uniforms, or Jihadist outfits. They wear buisiness suits, and there out to buy our country. So the question is: Are we willing to make the economic sacrifices necessary to keep them from doing so?
If we don't get away from grousing about what could've been in 1945 or how we can make 1945 into 2006, our countries strength will soon be a thing of the past.
Sorry for the length of the post. Look forward to your responses.

Just Another Taxpayer

Interesting analysis of a very complicated problem. I agree that the Chinese are looming large in our future as an enormous threat-economically and militarily. They have been quick to move into oil-producing countries (Venezuela, Nigeria) that our administration sees as hostile, and secure energy deals for themselves. They are even drilling off the coast of Cuba--near Key West.
Rather than bogging themselves down in long expensive ideological wars, they are using the money from our inequitable balance of trade to build up their military. I saw a news report that show a clothing factory in Jordan which sold 1B$ worth of clothes to U.S. retailers. The workers were treated like slaves-beaten and forced to work 16 hour days without pay. Owned and operated by.....the Chinese. No wonder the U.S. textile industry can't compete.

ac, this is the second Mark. Are you seriously suggesting the search for Osama has been conducted without any success? While it is true he has not been captured, clearly he has been denied the ability to be an effective leader for Al Qaeda. I’d call that a degree of success.

I never even remotely implied “… that the man hunt was a fabrication,” I flatly stated the left has redefined the military failure to capture Osama as large enough mistake to preclude our claiming victory in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, we were operating under assumptions made through intelligence estimates. I will grant that we thought Saddam had WMD’s; however, intelligence estimates and assumptions are not now, nor have they ever been, considered by the military or politicians to be concrete facts as you suggest. Until we were in control of Iraq we could not be sure Saddam did not have WMD’s. Nor can we now be sure he did not hide or relocate his WMD’s to a second country just before his fall from power.

phnxbmed:

From Mark's blog post: "If its true, then we can grind Iran to a halt in a matter of days simply by turning 'round any tankers from India and Europe heading to Iran with gasoline."

The suggestion is to impose sanctions by not trading Iran gasoline in order to make them bend to international intrests. No, wait. Mark was just suggesting that because everybody gets a kick out of not trading gasoline with Iran. Y'know, it's just funny to watch.

I agree wholeheartedly Just another...well written. Why is this so obvious to some of us and to the sheeple on this site so incoherent? I know, they can't read or see anything because the purple kool-aid is above their eyeballs. I know El Presidente can't get us out of this one. Boy has he really screwed this up.I really hope to see our beloved first daughters handing out doughnuts and hot coffee to our brave men in uniform someday...yeah, and monkey's will fly out of my butt.

Maroons.

The real nut with nuclear weapons is Kim Jong. In fact he might already have them. Iran is the least of our concerns. Every nations is into self preservation, nuclear weapons are only used for this purpose. Iran simply wants nuclear capability to ensure that it won't be attacked by the US like both if its neighbors. Any use of nuclear weapons against the US or it's allies would result in total destruction of the aggresor. Iran is nothing but a paper tiger to deflect criticism from our faliures in Afgan and Iraq. Iran would not even be problem today if it weren't for the CIA overthrow of 1953, history our citiznes no nothing about. In 1953, we traded a democartic country of Iran for Khomeni and the thoecratic rule of Iran today. We reap what we sow.

ac,

No, its called a blockade - something we, as the strongest power on the seas, can impose on any enemy at any time...most of the world's trade is carried by ship, which means that it is actually the United States who determines what goes where. Mostly it is in our interest to allow free use of the oceans - but at times we will need to restrict access...Iran's seaborne trade should be the first target in any US/Iran conflict.