If in fact it becomes clear that Iran is enriching Uranium to weapons grade levels (95+% U235), no one can deny that they are then in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty. If one is enriching Uranium for power plant purposes, I believe that the level of U235 is well below 20%. There is only one use for highly enriched Uranium...and that is the Bomb! So, it means that the Iranian Government lied to the EU, to the UN, to the world and deliberately breached its treaty obligations. Would it not be time then to consider (even unilaterally, if necessary) military action to enforce those treaty obligations and close down the illegal state-sponsored activities. An announcement that that was the sole purpose of the operation, and that regime change was not the objective, may allow the EU to participate (but I somehow think it will be a US operation, period). If the Mullahs are embarrassed, and if the military action serves as a catalyst for a broad popular uprising, all to the better. But the goal should be to close down the nuclear program. What a message such action will send to others contemplating similar programs! Oh, and I would not bother to seek UNSC approval...you would never get it! To me, the principal question is whether we have the military resources to mount such a surgical strike, or has the hollowing out of our military throughout the 90's made it impossible for us to take this action?

I'm afraid military action would serve as a catalyst for broad popular anger--at us. Just as in the USA there were no democrats or republicans right after 9/11 but simply Americans. Also military action is highly iffy here--the sites are so dispersed and Iran is so large--a well planned strick might delay things for a while--but I certainly dread the thought of putting troops on the ground in Iran--grrr, tis a grim holiday season when I think about all the bad things that can happen.

"Oh, and I would not bother to seek UNSC approval...you would never get it! To me, the principal question is whether we have the military resources to mount such a surgical strike, or has the hollowing out of our military throughout the 90's made it impossible for us to take this action?"

This kind of attitude is deplorable. It is completely irrational and disregards obvious consequences. Is temporarily destroying the nuclear capacity of one nation worth the war that would ensue? You're not going to occupy Afghanistan, Iran AND Iraq with a volunteer army, no matter how much you spend on an army.

"I'm afraid military action would serve as a catalyst for broad popular anger--at us. Just as in the USA there were no democrats or republicans right after 9/11 but simply Americans. Also military action is highly iffy here--the sites are so dispersed and Iran is so large--a well planned strick might delay things for a while--but I certainly dread the thought of putting troops on the ground in Iran--grrr, tis a grim holiday season when I think about all the bad things that can happen."


So they would be angry. So what? They have already made it abundently clear that they hate us. These are the vermin who get their rocks off by getting together in gatherings of up to 1 million and chanting "Death to America." Their government and clergy have invested billions of dollars in teaching their youth to hate America. Under the circumstances, it is better to destroy their nuclear program from the air -- and not be particularly concerned about whether or not the strike is surgical in nature. And to remember the first rule of political hard ball: It is better to the feared than loved.

9/11 was in no small part the result of American paralysis flowing from undue concern over whether striking at al Qaida or other Islamic terrorists would anger the Islamic street. The perverted restraint, which has been the advise of the American State Department for the last 50 years, is a luxury we can't afford when nuclear weapons are involved.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: