[Salem]

hinckley buzzard wrote, "I'm not interested in waiting for that threat to develop. The first Cold War, with determined but sane and calculating Soviets, was bad enough for my taste. Now we are talking about psychotic moslem A-holes playing around with nukes, who consider a retaliatory strike from the West as causing mere "damages."

Neither am I, or I hope the rest of the sane world. The apocalyptic Islamist mindset of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime has been amply explored in recent months in great detail on Free Republic. As LibWhacker wrote concerning previous "international law" on preemptive force, "...Can't be applied to the nuclear era. The old law is inadequate. It's not America's or Israel's fault if international law hasn't kept up with the realities of the 20th Century (never mind the 21st)."

That is reality. The nuclear factor raises the stakes way too high, and old ideas of "containment" and "sanctions" are just impediments to coming to grips with the fact that lunatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only understand one thing: Force. And men and women of caliber willing to utilize that force in a self-defensive manner.

Although I certainly support any reform efforts within the country, the ability of the reformers, at least now, is not a viable option without more overt help from outside.

Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years.

I'm pinging Southack if he cares to contribute.

---

AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review

[Fred Nerks]

"Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years."

First the Saturday People then the Sunday People, remember? Islamofascists must be stopped!

[Southack]

"Outside of that, I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power before 2006 is out, radically changing the face of that whole region—unless the West finds the military, political, moral and spiritual will to stop this insanity. Iran will be a challenge we cannot escape facing, and President Bush's most pressing foreign policy challenge over the next few years. I'm pinging Southack if he cares to contribute."

It's safe to say that something will be done, however, for a mental reference point, if nothing was done, then Iran has a window in which it can't develop a nuclear weapon within the next 6 months, though almost certainly will have one within the next 24 months.

Certainly the Iranians think that something will be done. Since early this year they've been ramping up their domestic production of torpedoes. They've also been buying anti-aircraft missile systems from abroad and building their own shore to sea anti-ship missiles.

So the Iranian leadership is preparing for a blockade (hence the torpedoes) and air strikes.

This also shows that Iran is preparing to go forward regardless of saber rattling. Idle threats aren't going to stop the mad mullahs.

Frankly, the blockade looks like the obvious option...it puts forth the hope of a bloodless victory...gives Iranian dissidents leverage...destabilizes the mad mullahs...cuts off Iranian funding (read: oil) and access to foreign technology (e.g. North Korea).

But if you dropped a military strategist from the 18th century into a map room and showed him that the U.S. has put extensive ground forces on Iran's East in Afghanistan, on Iran's West in Iraq, along with extensive naval forces in the South and allied forces in the North of Iran...you'd get the obvious answer that a full scale ground war option was being given to the current American President.

So factoring in "allied" sputterings, I see: first sanctions and UN condemnation...then a blockade...then airstrikes under some very different circumstances (e.g. students need help in rebelling against the mad mullahs...or nuclear production is reached earlier than intel estimates)...then either a ground invasion or a full scale nuclear attack (Presidential discretion).

And if not by the U.S. then by Israel.

Which is to say that something will happen one way or the other (much to Vladimir Putin's delight re: Chechnya).

Iran will either give up their nukes the easy way or the hard way.

Iran holds no cards. Iran can't yet project force. Tough.

[hinckley buzzard]

and old ideas of "containment" and "sanctions" are just impediments to coming to grips

Indeed. What does "containment" mean, when the problem is a handful perhaps of intermediate range missiles launched from Iranian territory toward Israel, and maybe Europe, by fanatics who don't care if they get vaporized in return? What "sanctions" could possibly mean anything more than a mosquito bite to such savages?