On that score let's do "realpolitik," involving the scoping of a real war. On that theory, the absolutely most effective military tactic, after identifying who the snake is (i.e., the enemy), is to decide to decapitate it, to cut it off at its head. I am told this is absolutely the best method of dealing with a poisonous snake: Kill it at its "root," at its head via physical decapitation.
So it seems eminently reasonable to me: Go for the head of the snake.
Which, regarding the jihadi war on Western Civilization, if I am not very much mistaken is to be found in Tehran nowadays.
The weird thing is we, America, have been in an undeclared war with the "sovereign" state of Iran since 1979. We have so far refused to acknowledge that such a war is on-going; but this very war is the entire centerpiece of current Iranian domestic and international policy, and has been for the past 31 years.
We Americans evidently think we can ignore a war, even if our devoted enemies insist on waging one — against us.
Anyhoot, I'm with you on the requisite military planning issues. To go after the head of the snake (which inspires and funds international jihadism), what we should do is simply bomb Tehran plus all its known nuclear and military sites into smithereens, into total oblivion. [Such an operation would relieve the civilized world of obnoxious scientists and politicians.]
Hopefully we don't need nukes for this. Indeed, nukes ought to be avoided (for reasons of innocent civilian casualties and mass environmental damage).
But it seems to me you could load a whole bunch of bombs down onto Tehran, Dresden style; use daisy cutters and massively penetrating bombs against their nuclear sites — possibly aided by EMP weapons (if the U.S. Military ever bothered to develop them). A massive strike of this scale would probably lessen, if not solve, threats against U.S. national security, and give a breather to our ally Israel.
We could do it. And it would probably work — i.e., achieve the goal. At least in the short run....
But just because one can do a thing, does that mean one ought to do it? I ask that especially because there is a younger generation in Iran that is putting itself at risk by defying the theocratic political order (seemingly of seventh-century mentality and culture) in favor of greater openness to the outside world, and a more congenial attitude toward "modernization." [Meaning: Westernization, not to put too fine a point on it.]
I suppose there would be great satisfaction on the American side if the Mullahs' trained monkey, Ahmadinijadh, were to blow up anytime soon. But I imagine he is expendable in the Mullah's view anyway, if I read that cabal correctly. A-jad is just a front man for organized evil practiced privately by a cabal of experts....
Their biggest worry right now is the disaffection of their own young people, in droves. The Mullahs claim to operate a "'democratic society." This claim rings hollow, false, when we see them persecuting their own young people, for their principled dissent from the "mandatory" assent to the Allah-authorized "powers that be."
They don't have a First Amendment in Iran. Allah would NEVER approve of such a thing!
I just mention all of this, mrreaganaut, because I think that some of the above tendered "observations" may have tactical significance, and also may require our forbearance....
'Tis a thorny problem.... We seek the balance, the true measure....
The price of peace is eternal vigilance.
Thank you oh so much for writing, mrreaganaut! And for your kind words.
I disagree: Tehran is the lesser head of two. Riyadh is the real source of terrorist ideology and money, dramatically outpacing Iranian efforts. We don't see it because the Saudis have spent so much money corrupting the state departments around the world (including our own). The Saudis have the subtlety that the Iranians lack.
10 out of 12 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and 100% of Islamic Studies departments are funded - at least in part, usually entirely - by Saudi money. Nobody in the MSM reports this, because Saudis own large shares in all the networks, including FOX. The commies didn't have a bottomless supply of money, and that's why they lost the Cold War. What can stop the Saudis?