Posted on 08/10/2006 6:39:41 AM PDT by Pokey78
I don't see how he can stop them in a way that would be politically acceptable, given the current political climate.
There are only two ways to do it. First, he could invade with a conventional force. But that would be extremely expensive and bloody, and would likely send the price of oil thru the stratosphere, which would severely damage the economy, and perhaps shut down the invasion. I suspect he'd be impeached, and you can be certain that Congress would not approve it.
Second, he could launch a nuclear strike, which obviously would not go over well politically. In addition, it would probably result in a cut off of imported oil & ostracization of the US. So that's not going to happen.
Precision airstrikes won't work. Not thorough enough. The best he could hope for would be a short delay.
So the bottom line is that they will get the a-bomb, they will use it, and then the President will have an easier time convincing Congress to do something.
Wish some Dems would take a cue from Netanyahu.....
I doubt it will be the former.....
JMHO: Bush's hands are tied until after the November elections. He can't afford to roil the pot anymore than its already being shaken at the moment.........unless something disasterous happens on Aug. 22......or Aug 11th.......or Sept 11th.
Well...if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we wouldnt be in the strategic position we our now in (having Iran surrounded).
IMHO, it's always been Bush's plan to take out Iran and Syria after Iraq. The only debate has been the time table.
The "moderate" success of the insurgency in Iraq has put off decisive military action against Iran (IMHO), although one could argue that Bush has played the "exhaust all diplomatic options" card before pursueing inevitable military action against Iran.
Afterall, who honestly believes that the Iranian thugs actually want/care for/ or would respect/ a diplomatic solution. We jump through the hoops because we're the good guys.
It will be cause Iran decided to change course so as to avoid Israeli action,or because Israel actually took out the nukes.
Israel is the only country on earth that has both the ability *and* the determination to keep Iran nuke free!
If it werent for the US Europe would already have sacrificed Israel.
Right on that point. No way will Iran give up nukes. Also, Russia and China will not agree to an embargo.
I see Bush with limited options:
1) Seek a coalition to embargo Iran from selling anything, including oil, which would require a naval blockade. Iran would probably retaliate, then we would hit their nuke sites and command.
2) Surgically strike their nuke sites but not command sites in an effort not to go for it all.
3) Strike nuke sites and command sites to do away with their leadership.
4) Use internal dissidents to foment a revolution or coup. I'm not sure this can happen. Iran is a police state, and it would be difficult to create a viable coup without significant intervention.
In America, in 1941, a lot of people thought we should avoid war against Japan. Then came Pearl Harbor. And most people decided that they supported war.
But not everyone changed their mind.
If Iran were to incinerate NYC, a lot of Democrats would decide to support the President.
But a lot of Democrats would refuse to change their minds. And the war would still be difficult for President Bush to pursue in the way he ought to.
Bibi, while I like Bush and agree with most of his policies, I would caution you and Israel against trusting a man or a nation - trust in G-d alone, and do what you need to do yourselves. If the US helps out, so much the better - but don't make the mistake of depending on others to fight your battles.
The same can be said for any other nation. Alliances are wonderful, but not to be utterly trusted - every nation, and every leader, has their own agenda, and it likely doesn't coincide 100% with your own.
It seems to me the monumental gamble would be to allow a nation that explicitly states that they intend to destroy us to acquire nuclear weapons.
What exactly is the monumental gamble involved with going to war with Iran?
That we might face diplomatic fallout with the rest of the world? We would find serious opposition from the peace at any cost crowd and the Islamic militants of the world that appear.
However, we simply cannot afford to join in a suicide pact with the appeasement crowd. The longer we do so, the more lives will be lost when we eventually have to wake up and fight for our survival. History has proven this again and again.
As for the Islamic militants, they keep saying that they intend to destroy us. When are we going to start taking them at their word?
So what about the military risks? Defeating Iran's military is not a difficult task in a military sense. Our military is far, far superior to theirs.
There are risks to the lives of our military, and those should not be taken lightly, however nor should we take lightly that the terrorists Iran supports have been killing Americans for decades, and promise to keep killing more and more.
The risks for the ground war needed to do a decent job of taking out their leadership and their nuclear capabilities is much more significant.
A sustained occupation intended to stabilize the country politically after defeating their military might is even more risky due to the amoral nature of the terrorism.
However, once again those risks are overshadowed by the risks of doing nothing and allowing the threat to continue to grow.
There are also economic risks.
The war in Iraq has cost us greatly. We have had to pay the costs of doing the job that the rest of the world admitted over and over again needed done, but were unwilling to do.
However, defeating Iraq not only took Sadam out of power and removed a significant threat to the world, it also put Syria and Iran in their places for a short while, until the media and the left undermined that success by sapping the will of America to support using force when necessary. They are doing their best to create a defeat from an obvious victory.
They have even convinced the public that Iraq has been a failure despite the fact that the insurgency is foreign funded and to a large extent led by foreigners. That insurgency is also weak militarily. They simply do not have the strength to overthrow the Iraqi government, though the Iraqi government does not at this point have the power to wipe out the insurgency completely.
If we take out Iran, the main source of funding for these terrorists goes away. Syria remains, and other nations aid terrorism as well to a lesser extent, but removing Iran would dramatically weaken their financing and the power flexibility the gain from having such a powerful government sponsor.
The huge gamble isn't going to war with Iran. The huge gamble is allowing Iran to continue do do what it has done since Carter's presidency. It's time for that to end, and Iran has made it perfectly clear that they will not stopped unless they are forced to stop.
We need to force them to stop, and this time we need to bill the country of Iran for the costs of the war. It's time we quit having to defend ourselves from aggressors and then let them off the hook for the cost of what they forced us to do.
The people who will object to that have already proved themselves our enemies in one way or another. Don't ask them for permission, tell them it's how it is going to be and that since they were unwilling to do anything useful, they should stay out of the way.
IMHO, it's always been Bush's plan to take out Iran and Syria after Iraq.
I agree. No, Iraq was not a bigger threat than Iran, but there were other considerations involved in the decision to invade. Having an unsinkable aircraft carrier in between Syria and Iran was, IMHO, THE primary goal of the invasion.
Look at the masterful strategery: Syria is caught between Israel and the US, either one of which can crush its armed forces and devastate its infrastructure in a matter of days. Iran is not only caught between US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it now doesn't have a direct logistic line (or line of communications) with its principle ally in the region, Syria.
Now all we need is the right opportunity to take out one or the other, and the remaining country will become very pliable very quickly. I vote for Syria - and let's let (urge, actually) Israel to do that deed, as it'll solve a lot of that country's problems. In return, we can pledge to KO Iran's nukes and try to cut off Hitler's, uhhh, Ahwannajihad's head.
Come to think of it, maybe this is why Bibi is so optimistic.
"...or else with the monumental gamble that war with Iran would represent."
It is no gamble, we're playing against a stacked deck. Bush has no choice. It's "us or them" time and he knows the Democrats would choose them.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
Every Churchill needs a Chamberlain ...
BTT.....
If we end up bombing Iran, I suspect the Iranian regime will be shocked at how quickly and completely their nuclear facilities are destroyed and how little Iran can do in response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.