What would you suggest? Perhaps an ICBM armed with multiple warheads flying towards Tel Aviv?


I see, just ignore them and they will voluntarily suspend their weapons programs. I think not.

Which would be a possible scenario when western states make it clear that they are going to invade Iran first.

I believe there may be other courses of action you are overlooking in your "ignore them" or "bomb them" scenario.

Unclear to you perhaps, not me. Discredited by whom?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912198.stm

That reminds me of Condi Rice's admonition that we didn't want the smoking gun of Saddam's nuclear program to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Of course we do not want Iran to get a nuke, but there are costs associated with assuming the worst about our adversaries. If you don't believe me, check out Iraq.That is also like Condi Rice. In lieu of offering evidence in support of your claims against Iran, put phony arguments in the mouths of those who disagree with you.

Who said anything about ignoring Iran?

I have heard various commentators say that an accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel was not that he wanted to wipe it from the map, but rather that he wished for a day when the "Zionist regime", as he calls it, that runs Israel would be driven from power. In that respect, his comment was similar to just about everything our government says about the Iranian regime.

I am no linguist, so I can't say who is correct about this, but here is one article that argues against your version of what Ahmadinejad said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

On the other hand, inclusion in the "axis of evil" was as clear a threat as it gets.

Saddam's nuclear program virtually ended after the first gulf war. There was no real threat after that.

If you think ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads are phony claims, you haven't been paying attention. Do you really think Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile program aren't related? In my mind 1+1 still equals 2.

Sure the associated costs are high, but underestimating our adversaries determination and intentions would be foolish. [/QUOTE]

What effective proposals do you suggest that would deter Iran from accomplishing these goals in the next few years? How much time are you willing to spend negotiating with Iran before the threat becomes a reality?

I was just responding to the part where you suggested that DieselAddict was calling for us to ignore Iran's nuclear program. I don't see where he said any such thing.I have no idea, but I can think of a few things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't invade Iran, as John Bolton and others have suggested (although the other day he seems to have denied making that suggestion).

Maybe this is a good approach: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.nuclear.talks.ap/index.html

It's like a lose lose situation. If we don't threaten them, they will continue. If we do threaten them, they still continue.

Invade Iran on the ground? That would be stupid. Challenge their Air force and Navy. Take out their missile and nuclear programs . Their ground troops would be sitting ducks in the desert.

One thing is almost certain , doing nothing in the next few years will probably mean a hostile nuclear Islamic state capable of launching ballistic missiles. That is not an acceptable risk IMO any must be eliminated at any cost.

Better pray that Pervez Musharraf keeps surviving those assassination attempts.

1 gone, 1 changing dramatically and 1 still causing problems.

Let's not forget the Libyan lagniappe.

B

iRan is the only country left on the "axis of evil".

http://bp3.blogger.com/_k2nspph1FXg/...1600/irack.jpg

If you offer them carrots for suspending their enrichment and sticks for not doing so, it might work. I can't think of a better approach. But first, we'd need to start talking to them. Ignoring them (other than issuing threats every now and then) is exactly what we've been doing and clearly that doesn't work.

No kidding. I'm a lot more concerned about Pakistan than Iran. Pakistan & Saudi Arabia are the epicenters of jihad, not Iran.

Pakistan's possession of a bomb is bad news, but I have not heard of them being concerned with any country other than India. If Pakistan had a regime change and a more militarily aggressive came into power, India would be likely to respond to that increased belligerence by ramping-up it's own nuke program and so forth. This would undoubtedly force the Pakistanis to focus their attention more on India than anywhere else. They sure as heck wouldn't be interested in developing a hostile relationship with the USA, which has thousands of troops and offensive air capacity in Pakistan's immediate neighborhood. Not to mention the Iranian's interest in the Shiite minority in Pakistan.

It's very complex.