1) We can, without a doubt, roll over Iran if we want to. It wouldn’t be very difficult even with the present condition of the military. However, it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain stable enough control in order to secure oil access. Anyone who says oil shouldn’t be an issue hasn’t been paying attention to what powers the economy for the past 80 years. If we don’t have oil we *will* end up, to put it politely, fucked. Economically, socially, militarily. War is inherently risky and no right thinking leaders stumbles into it blindly. We have example afetr example of wars, both ancient and modern, that didn’t go the way people thought they would. Do not think that the United States or the West is somehow immune from this.

2) My feeling is that Iran is actually trying to develop nuclear power stations – in addition to nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is an acceptable endeavour and something the west should probably be encouraging. If they reduce the domestic demand for petro-products it means there is more petro-product to explort. What is not acceptable is dual use nuclear technology. Admittedly any nuclear fuel or waste could be use to enhance a conventional weapon but that genie has been out of the bottle for decades. Control and not prohibition is the answer.

3) If military action *is* decided upon the best thing to do would be to find a proxy agent to undertake limited striking action. Russia – traditionally an ally of Iran would be a good choice. Even better would be Saudi Arabia – no love lost between the two anyway. However, the United States shoudl not go in there except as a last resort because the long term consequences would likely be devastating. It would make 1973 look like a hiccup.

This is beginning to sound a lot like the Cold War: “Oooh! They have nuclear weapons! We can’t ever be confrontational with them!”

Fast forward to 1990 == “The Soviet what?”

The basic premise is that it probably impossible for the US to stop an Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, short of a full-scale invasion. And once Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will simply be a matter of time before Arab states follow.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf

“an ever more nuclear-ready Iran will try to lead the revolutionary Islamic vanguard throughout the Islamic world by becoming the main support for terrorist organizations aimed against Washington s key regional ally, Israel; America s key energy source, Saudi Arabia; and Washington s prospective democratic ally, Iraq.”

Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon could mark the final end of efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and provide Islamic terrorism with a nuclear deterrent. Islamic terrorism will literally be a Great Power.

Um, did I not answer the question? Like I said, anyone who doesn’t come out and yell from the mountain tops “Bomb them now!” is being soft on terror.

“I only see Drs. that are good enough to be busy. You don t
seem that busy.”

ROFL.

We are all waiting to hear how that independent
thinking works in answering your own questions. Give us the
benefit of your keen intellect and cite the simple solution for
the problem of Iran.

I think you guys just have a hard time with independent thought. Until the talking points come out, you have to fill the space with smarmy comments.

Weak…..

BTW my patients love me. Heck YOU may have even seen me…you never know…

Exactly what I have come to expect from the lefties. The problem is, it isn’t leadership.

I have been reading more of OW’s headlines, and it is just overwhelming how inaccurate he is. Media matters has nothing on the yellow journalists of years gone by.

No Quaker, I want you to put your skinny little ass out on a limb and tell me a GOOD idea.

I gave you a GOOD idea. Spread freedom and democracy. Stay the course. Blow up the brown people.

Surely, you don’t mean to tell me you don’t think that’s a GOOD idea?

Drink!

Good lord, if I were actually playing this game I might be dead of alcohol poisoning before I left work.

Um, who was president when they did that? Who wasn’t looking?

So how do we make the process transparent enough for you to approve of?
When do the Iranians deserve a couple of Mk XXX bombs dropped on their facilities? What are the CONDITIONS that you would deem appropriate?

Inspections….you mean like north korea? Like the what clenis did? Where they just fired things up when they thought we weren’t looking?

Also remember, the iranian president has called for israel to be wiped off the map, and denied the holocaust ever happened.

all I am looking for is a set of conditions you think will be reasonable to perform a military strike. I want to be able to come back here when you are ranting about Bush hegemony and point out that you said it would be ok.

Nothing Bush has done in the Middle East or on nuclear proliferation in general ahs done anything to moderate the Iranian position. Indeed, Bush’s rhetoric has only served to isolate Iranian moderates and intensify Iranian nationalism. All the saber rattling that you idiots love has done is to make a difficult situation worse. So what happens now? The saber rattling continues apace. No doubt we’ll be hearing from Pedro soon that my support of targetted strikes on Iranian is too qualified and not vociferous enough. It’s too much to ask that military strikes actually, really be the last and only option. No, that’s the limit the powers of the president and endanger us all. The same goes for not yelling loudly enough. No you’ve got to make a joke out of it (so clever Frank) and holler “Yee Haw” afterwards before you can be considered serious on terrorism.

“George Bush is changing the Middle East for the better, Yee Haw!” Brilliance may go in Frank, but it’s total idiocy that comes out.

You mean the grown ups who singlehandedly isolated the reform movement in Iran and gave the hardline nationalists all the propaganda they needed to foment anti-American/Israel policies? Those grown-ups? Right.