Either war, or the bomb

Haaretz ^ | November 30, 2004 | Shmuel Rosner

[usurper]

We already control their eastern and western borders.

LOL, That’s a bit optimistic. We don’t even control our own southern or northern borders.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Just like the US was at war with al-queda (without acknowleding it) for many years, Iran and the US have been at war since 1979. The war has been fought, mainly, through surrogates but now the US has a fairly large air/sea/land strike force based in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iran is in the process of building nuclear weapons. I think this war will heat up very soon and it won't be just surrogates fighting it.

Very interesting, on point link: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6718

[Reza2004]

The administration today is talking the same talk in parallel and is doing the same politics as the past; and the common folks here and there are unaware of the real politics that brings and keeps them at this point. Iranians throughout the history have found ways to adapt to the events of the day so they will eventually stop complaining and get with the system. Rest assured if left to their own devices, they wont remember their good time buddies in another propaganda fed generation. All the worries of what mullahs are going to do with the bomb, which is probably nothing physically and a lot financially and in power mongering, is missing the plight of 69 million innocent people. They were fooled in the Past by friends and present deeds aren’t enough to convince anyone of any genuine change, indicating future steps will more than likely be the same talk and insufficient actions as well. For Iranian people to be free, they must have nothing that anyone wants. Not likely anytime soon in lieu of oil and England….

[El Gato]

Condi could be the Good Cop discussing the future of North Korea.

Condi as the Good Cop? I don't think so. She'd rather just put a boot in their ... well you know.

[El Gato]

Our history with Iran is not something to be proud of, what with our support of Pahlavi and his murderous dictatorship

The Shah was mild mannered compared to the Mullahs. He wasn't perfect though, and Jimmy the Peanut couldn't have that, so he through out the baby, the Iranian people, with the bathwater (the Shah). The Shah was convinced by the US not to crack down on the Mullahs and their supporters, otherwise his son would likely be Shah today, but a different one, perhaps in the mold of King Hussein of Jordon.

[hippy hate me]

Middle East, 2008

[MHGinTN]

The King of Jordan is a good man. BUT, he is ruling and if replaced, the ruler might not be as good a man. If Iran were to suddenly overthrow the mullocracy, I do believe the Iranian people have the greatest potential (of any nation or people in the region) to make democracy work for them. The Iranian people are smart and educated, the radicalized islamicists notwithstanding.

[Zhangliqun]

I think the 3rd option, related to the blockade, is to arm and otherwise back and support the pro-democratic crowd in Iran. If Iran becomes a stable, friendly democracy, I then couldn't care less if they have the bomb. India is nuclear, but no threat to us.

[Schwaeky]

I agree, a democratic pluarlistic Iran would be a highly stabilizing force in the Middle East, even if it is armed with nuclear weapons. Remember the Iranians greatest threat in the region is not America or Israel, but the Arab countries and Russia. India has, even at the height of the mullahs and the tensions between India and Pakistan, have always had good relations with modern-day Iran. A democratic Iran with nuclear weapons would turn from supporting terror, abandon the terrorists in Syria, and would be a key ally for the U.S. and Israel in the region. Hell with Iran and Iraq, we could tell Saudi Arabia to shove it.