"It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day."
The whole crux of his article, up until this point, is that Iran laughs at diplomatic/economic efforts, and Barry is too much of a wuss to stomach a war. So the only is to keep using these instruments of "soft" power? Haven't we learned from Afghanistan that the majority (not all) of these people simply do not want democracy and will send their children and ours to the grave to make that clear?
Sanctions and diplomacy can have no effect on a gov't that has NO CONSCIENCE. I don't want war with Iran, but looking at it with a cold eye - is there any other outcome, one way or another? There is no reason to presume that Iran will take control of nuclear weapons for the sake of diplomatic horse-trading. We can only assume they are acquiring them for the sake of using them. I don't relish the options for Israel, but, looking at this with a very VERY cold eye, if Israel fears it's own total destruction is imminent, a pre-emptive, gov't decapitating nuclear strike is not out of the realm of possibility. They would certainly become the most hated nation on earth, but, at this point, it's arguable that they are already, and an alternative nuclear holocaust is an utterly unacceptable possibility to Israel. If they truly felt that conventional strikes could not provide certainty, or merely kick the can down the road, I hazard to say that there is a very SMALL chance that a unilateral nuclear strike occurs. No outcome for Israel is worse than not-existing. If we see a missile test from Israel in the coming weeks/months, there may be no turning back.
God have mercy on us all.
bttt
"Soft" in the sense of creating unrest and revolution in Iran, rather than a direct invasion ("hard" power). The suggestion is actually a pretty good one -- Iran probably isn't all that far from being tipped over the edge; the main thing lacking being a serious core of well-armed revolutionaries.
There are other strategic factors that argue for it as well: Iran is destabilizing Iraq and (I think) helping the Taliban. Iraq might even agree to provide supply/training bases for an Iranian insurgency, as it'd be in their interests.
The problem, though, is that it would be up to the hapless Obama administration to create and nourish a program like that; and to be ruthless in its execution. They haven't a clue even how to start.
Alas, the comparison of Obama to Neville Chamberlain is ever more appropriate; although, it must be said, that Chamberlain was merely deluded, whereas Obama is probably mentally ill.
How to defeat Iran without war? I can only think of one way but even that tool in our bag of tricks has been thrown in the smelter.
Multiple, almost simultaneous assassinations inside Iran in a very dangerous and covert ongoing operation. It would need to be made to look like interior revolutionaries were responsible and we would have to deny deny deny. You would have to get several of the Mullahs and Aquavelvejad on the same day. Sabotage at the nuclear facilities would have to follow with in hours. Many heads of the Revolutionary Guard would have to go.
Why might this work (even though I doubt we could do it)? There is a strong anti-government movement in Iran already. They don't have the resources. But if even they thought this was coming from within, it would throw the nation into instability with in and certainly confusion. It would also encourage an uprising.
The fallout would likely still be war. But it may well end up becoming a civil war within Iran. It would certainly be bloody. There would likely be some other countries involved. But if coordinated properly, it would be the only and last alternative to all out war.