Bombing Iran? It's Not So Bad, Really

nation ^ | 6/13/08 | Robert Dreyfuss

[Flavius]

The Nation -- Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, two Iran experts at the pro-Israeli thinktank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, have published a primer for bombing Iran that looks at the costs and consequences. It's called "The Last Resort," but it might have been called "Making the Unthinkable Thinkable." ADVERTISEMENT

They make it look easy.

Would Iranians "rally 'round the flag" if Iran is attacked? Maybe, maybe not, they say. "One cannot assume that a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would necessarily prompt a nationalist backlash."

[Perdogg]

The Iranian people want us to take out the mullahs and the nuke program.

[RobinOfKingston]

"Tehran has not always reacted swiftly to foreign attacks to assuage nationalist passions--and it has sometimes not responded at all."

Sounds familiar. Marine Barracks, Lebanon; Mogadishu; a goodly hand-ful of others.

[FFranco]

That this article is being published now is a good sign. It’s part of the publicity build-up for the coming attack on Iran, probably in October. A third front will be opened in the War on Terror.

[PhilDragoo]

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I've read that one thing that made the 1979 revolution against the Shah successful was nationwide communication. That was accomplished because the mullahs backed the revolt and nationwide communication kept people on course through the mosques.

After the revolution relatively few wanted an "Islamic Republic" but it was too late. The Ayatollah Khomeini had his people in place to conquer the opposition but I don't believe he had anything like majority support.

Iranians today are just as brave and self-sacrificing as in the 1970s -- a better question may be would "Iranians "rally 'round the flag" against the Islamists if effective nationwide communication was available?

Some have said yes they would and have suggested ways to accomplish it.

[Fichori]

Nice pic.

Photoshop or CG?

[dennisw]

Waste ‘em!

[dennisw]

Your Natanz photo was flipped  (I think)

[txhurl]

Oddly enough, somebody polled Iranian folks about 6 months ago with the question: are y’all OK with the US bombing your country?

Results: if to remove nukes, NO.

If to remove the Mullacracy, YES.

Dang if I can find the thread.

[MWS]

Iran is a must-hit target in the War on Terror.

A decision by President Bush to make a move against Iran in his last few months would blow the minds of the liberal establishment. Politically speaking, a move on Iran at this point, with troops involved in Afghanistan and an unpopular war in Iraq, would be considered folly and would relegate President Bush as the least popular president of all time among the cattle that are the American people.

Yet it would be a smart move. Iran plays a central part in destabilizing our efforts in the War on Terror. We would be able to move in from the East and West, pushing forward with a two-front attack that Iran could not hope to stand against. An occupation in Iran would give us a unified position in the Middle East which would allow us a great amount of leeway when positioning our forces to deal with terrorist threats, both within and without the countries we have liberated. In short, it would be an awful move politically and yet a great move in the War on Terror.

Short of another catastrophic attack on the US, however, I do not think it is a move that President Bush will make, precisely because of the political concerns during this election year. With all that is at stake regarding Barack Hussein Osama and the Democratic Congress, I cannot say that I would blame the president for avoiding war with Iran. This country has a lot to lose whether we go to war with Iran or not.

But if President Bush decided to make a war with Iran one of the last major decisions of his presidency, I would support him one hundred percent, and he would certainly forever be a hero in my eyes. It takes major guts to put concerns of real danger over mere political expediency, especially when you know that there is a real chance of your presidential legacy being tarnished for years to come. I personally believe President Bush has the guts to make just that sort of sacrifice for the good of America, if such is truly necessary.

I personally don’t envy President Bush for the decisions he has to make in these last few months of his presidency.

[Polybius]

It's called "The Last Resort," but it might have been called "Making the Unthinkable Thinkable."

A conventional "Shock & Awe" air campaign (we have already been there and gotten the T-Shirts in the Gulf War, Serbia and the Iraq War) is "Unthinkable" but nuclear armed Islamist fanatics who believe in suicide martyrdom, advocate the destruction of Israel, consider the U.S. a Greater Satan than Israel and who are seeking ICBM's is, by default, "Thinkable"?

[Cobra64]

Well, let’s bomb ‘em, and I guess we’ll find out.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Would Iranians “rally ‘round the flag” if Iran is attacked? Maybe, maybe not, they say. “One cannot assume that a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would necessarily prompt a nationalist backlash.”

It’s worth a try.

MOVE ZIG!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

[sionnsar]

ping

[bruinbirdman]

" 'One cannot assume that a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would necessarily prompt a nationalist backlash.'

It’s worth a try."

Nuke facility near Haft Juy, Iran? Each containment vessel is 260 ft. in diameter.

yitbos

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Nuke facility near Haft Juy, Iran? Each containment vessel is 260 ft. in diameter.

1,000 Points each, with 5,000 Bonus Points if you hit all three.

MOVE ZIG!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

[snoringbear]

“The Iranian people want us to take out the mullahs and the nuke program.”

Your comment seems to be the current wisdom. But, if true, why don’t “the people” rise up and overthrow these scum bags? Maybe the truth is they are not as disgruntled as we are led to believe?

[Recon Dad]

I tend to agree with you over the folks who think the populace will be thrilled if we attack. I've seen no evidence over the last 30 years that there is massive discontent.

[Recon Dad]

I tend to agree with you over the folks who think the populace will be thrilled if we attack. I've seen no evidence over the last 30 years that there is massive discontent.