should the West invade and/or bomb the fuck out of Iran?

but hopefully they'll just all rattle a lot of sabers, iran will keep slowly trying to get a bomb, the u.s. and europe will keep squeezing it to try to stop it, russia and china will keep playing both sides...i mean, the current situation, as unsatisfactory as it is all the way around, might be the best option for the near future.

I think the biggest difference between this and, say, Iraq (with which this episode is inexorably linked) is that Iran really does have a nuclear program that no one doubts (and that they admit) and really does have very close ties to terrorism. A stall tactic probably would work, given that most observers think that their production capability is currently near zero with no likelihood it'll progress much in the immediate future.

please to place bets as to when the airstrikes will start.

i would say ... june at the latest.

There's no proof that this is true -- the only source of info seems to be the Iranian govt and it wouldn't shock me if they're greatly exaggerating the capabilities of their weaponry.

This is nothing but a power play by Iran to get the UN off its back. You think it's a coincidence that Iran released this information the day after the UNSC passed a resolution giving them 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA? Screw the earthquake, this took precedence.

The biggest potential losers here are the UN. They gave a similarly meaningless ultimatum to Sudan and choked that time too but a lot more people are paying attention this time. Be prepared to say goodbye to whatever little credibility the Security Council has left.

We're just being primed and primed, and then there's going to be some trigger event, perhaps staged, perhaps provoked, and then boom, draft. My brother had better stay in college if he knows what's good for him.

xpost

a draft is not that likely, I do not think the USA will ever fight another meatgrinder war again. Or at least, not one where it's meat is being ground.

as to war with Iran... I don't really see it. Iraq is such a fuck up, and the Iran dress rehearsal in Lebanon did not go that well, so it is hard to see bombing Iran accomplishing anything and hard to see the USA invading.

I wonder will the world just have to learn to live with Iranian nuclear weapons, like it has had to live with those of the USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel?

Ha ha ha! Don't worry about anything, leave it all to the security council. THAT'S a proven strategy, alright.

Political feasibility is not the issue. Military feasibility is the issue. America doesn't have the resources to invade Iran. Bomb Iran, maybe. Invade, no way.

This is a non-starter. America is not going to invade Iran.

The problem being, the Iranian leadership's worldview is even MORE apocalyptic then Bush's. They're like, the Pat Robertsons of Islam.

Iran and the Us are much alike. big democracies, both with faults in their democratic process. Both with a history of state sponsorship of terror (Iran with hezbollah and in Iraq now, the US all over south america in the past, in afghanistan in the 80s the hot wars could be called terror as well). Both have a strong religious leaning, both are naturally conservative with a very dynamic youth culture.

Think about it. No matter how you can point to how the Iranians gerrymandered their last election, a hell of a lot of people voted for Amedinhejad. They made a choice.

*tho i don't think the latter is likely to happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/iran/

-- Ed (dal...), September 21st, 2006.

Sure, and I guess the Constitution isn't that different from the Koran either.

We're stretching things a little though, aren't we?

If a certain elite holds the ultimate veto power on anything and everything, how could their system be described as democracy? it would be oligrachy.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

1. America sending warships to the Middle East (shocking)
2. Partisan hacks denouncing Bush

I'm not convinced.