I wonder how many MOAB's it will take to discourage Iran from making any nukes...........

Jesse Helms, please call your office.

Maybe the EU needs more cow bell?

Other than that, no - I have no ideas.

I have been am a firm believer that we are the enemy.

We knew they weren't going to do anything.

Anything that boxes us in is fine by them.

Two words: covert war. Why wait around for fluffy diplomacy, the UNSC and the 'political leverage' for overt military action? I say give the CIA paramilitary units in the Directorate of Operations a nice work-out.

Wait until the European approach is completely discredited, or the Iranians are on the verge of being able to build a nuke.

Than bomb the hell out of the Iranian government- not the nuclear sites, and not oilfields. Go for a 'decapitation strike' like the one that was tried on Saddam, but without giving any warning whatsoever.

I daresay it'll be a lot easier to kill the men telling the underlings to build the nukes than it will be to destroy the production sites.

Big Ideas or out the f()cking box?

1. Offer to fence the Taiwanese coast with nukes.
2. Cancel all foreign aid to countries other than Iraq.
3. Use savings to fund, aid, and otherwise help a) Iranian revolts, b) Muslims agitation in eastern China and plant evidence of Iranian influence.
4. Flatter the UK's intel groups into helping out with #3. Face it, we suck at covert stuff; the Brits invented it.
5. Address the U.N.: "Goodbye, f()ckers!"
6. Start Union of Democracies.
7. Smoke a bunch of Cubans during victory lap around the solar system.

Well if I understand the War Powers Act (I may not) the answer is simple. Does the War Powers Act not give President Bush sixty days in which to act? That is what, three days to try for Rosignol's decapitation strike while the Stealth Bombers and cruise missiles knock out Iran's Air and Anti-Air capabilities. Then fifty days in which to keep working over the government while the Zoomies and maybe the Rotorheads go after anything in the Iranian arsenal bigger that a beebee gun.
That gives Dubya seven days to decide if we have to make Iran into a sheet of radioactive glass. I hope we don't have to do that, I would miss the oil. Otherwise I would not care much, anybody that does not think this lastest clown would set off a few here is living in a dream world. Rule number one...the well being of just one of my grandchildren is more valuable than every single Iranian.

Oh, come on, just because Russia and China will act in their own self interest and block any action by the UN Security Council doesn't mean that it's all over. If we would really, really hard for next two years, we can probably get the UN to forward our concerns to the Special UN Committee for Writing Very Strong Letters of Protest. (Meanwhile, Iran will be working really, really hard to produce a bomb.)

Then we send in the big guns: let's have former President Jimmy Carter go to Iran to negotiate! Hell, maybe they'll take him captive. I'd pay cash money if they'd keep him.

Let's face facts, ladies and gentlemen: the West is failing. In a world where the majority will do anything to have peace, violent, determined people with evil intentions can win simply by threatening the peace.

We probably will have to accept the idea that Iran has nuclear weapons. I don't like it, but our current President is too weak; without the us, the EU3 won't do anything; the UN is useless; the American people don't have the guts for even a Kosovo-style air war; and there is no legal basis under international law for military action.

Kevino, you need to either stop drinking or have a couple, because you're far too pessimistic.

Up to the point that Iran actually has a functioning nuclear weapon on top of a missile it isn't too late for airstrikes. I for one would prefer a few days of fudge factor on that. Even if the airstrikes don't destroy all of Iran's nuclear program they will destroy large sections of it. Uranium enrichment requires huge amounts of power, wich requires powerlines to nowhere or buried power plants. Plutonium requires used reactor fuel cells. Any disruption to critical nodes such as fuel production will buy us time. Time we can use to effect regime change, invade the country directly, or develop those bunker busting nukes.

Airstrikes would not require much more than what we have in the region right now. What little extra force needed could be concealed by normal turnover of units.

Bush told France and Germany to take a flying leap 3 years ago, he can do the same to China. China isn't going to risk nuclear annihilation for an oil deal. Especially if we agree to help them negotiate something else.

MMDeuce:
For one thing, President Bush won't be president when Iran gets close to developing a weapon. Also, while it is true that he told France and Germany to shove it, but he paid a political price for it, and he's not in good shape politically now.

Consdier the election. Iran told the EU3 to shove it before the 2004 election because they thought that Senator Kerry would win. About a week after Bush won, Iran runs back to the EU3 to stall. Why? Because they were afraid of Bush. Today, Iran is telling the EU3 to shove it again. Why? Because Bush is so week politically, they know he won't invade. They aren't afraid any more. They certainl aren't afraid of airstikes. That is a minor inconvenience, and it will rally people inside and outside of their country to their cause. (The recent pact between Iran and Syria is an example.)

For another thing, air strikes won't work because Iran won't offer us a couple of targets to hit. Sure, we have the equipment: we can hit any point in the globe from bases in the US. What we don't have is real target information, and Iran is apparently splitting up their operation into dozens of small well-hidden facilities.

Sidebar: Iran's leaders are students of history. Nazi Germany, for example, maintained significant industrial capability even after the allies established total superiority.

I also remember how India and Pakistan managed to test nuclear weapons, and how much it came as a surpirse to policy makers. Our intelligence was not good at all.

Concerning China:
1. France and Germany are has-been powers. China is an economic and geo-policial giant with billions of people.
2. Unlike France and Germany, China plays the game very well. They aren't directly challenging the West: they are setting up other countries to do their dirty work.
3. China is not afraid of nuclear annihilation because they know that the West is not going to use nuclear weapons or major conventional attacks over minor issues. For example, if China refuses to call of their dog in North Korea, do you really thing that the US is going to threaten China with a nuclear attack? Of course not.

I return to a couple of earlier points. If the majortiy wants to preserve peace at any cost, why won't violent individuals win simply by threatening the peace? Wars start because one side thinks they can win. If you won't fight but I will, then I can win. In particular, I can make you give an inch, then another, and another -- until I take a mile. One day you look up and wonder, "How did this happen?"

If the West won't fight a Saddam with all of legal justifications and obvious threats to international security, how will they fight China or Russia or their proxies where the case for war is much less clear?

I also ask what the moral and legal justification is for denying countries like Iran nuclear weapons by war.

Kevino, from what I've read the Iranians will have a bomb within a couple of years. They may hold off on a test until after 2009, but they'll have the capability long before then.

I fail to see how Bush's political strength or weakness has any bearing on the decision to strike. Bush can act up to 60 days within the War Powers act without Congressional approval, longer if he's willing to challenge the act. And a joint resolution authorizing the president to use "all available means" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be hard to vote against, regardless of who is in the White House. Or are you suggesting that Bush would allow a nuclear arms race to start in the world's gas tank so that his party could maintain control of Congress?

The Iranian nuclear program is distributed, and would be impossible to eliminate from the air. However not all nodes are created equal. Some, like uranium enrichment or plutonium production, are absolutely critical and impossible to hide. For example, a single bomb in Oak Ridge during WWII would probably have prevented nuclear weapons from being ready in time to prevent an invasion of Japan.

China has concerns in the region, but they're energy concerns, there's no pride or ideology involved. China could care less what happens in Iran, as long as they get the energy their economy requires. Thus it would be easy to neutralize Chinese opposition by arraigning for China to receive their oil from somewhere else (Iraq, or one of the 'Stans).

RE: “From what I've read the Iranians will have a bomb within a couple of years. “
I’ve seen estimates of more like three years.

RE: “I fail to see how Bush's political strength or weakness has any bearing on the decision to strike.”
“War is the advancement of politics by other means.” He won’t strike without some degree of popular support: he is, after all, a politician. Even if he did, he may create too many political problems at home -- especially for his party. Even worse, any movement toward war before 2006 may cause a backlash that yields a Defeatocratic congress that undermines his ability to conduct military operations at all.

However, that’s just what I believe. What our enemies believe is very clear. Recent events indicate that Iran was afraid of President Bush just after his re-election and ran to the EU3 for cover. They clearly aren’t afraid any more.

RE: War Powers Act
Bush can act up to unilaterally – at his peril and only for a short time. The probability of getting “all available means” authority is too small to be seen with the naked eye.

RE: “The Iranian nuclear program is distributed, and would be impossible to eliminate from the air. However not all . . .”
Air strikes won’t do much of anything if you don’t know where the nodes are and if nodes of value are spread out. Yes, if the fascists had hit Oak Ridge in WWII, it would have delayed development. This is 1940’s technology in 2006. The Iranians don’t need a large research facility: they already have high-level technical help from scientists who have built the Bomb for other countries. Even worse, they don’t need a gaseous diffusion plant like K-25 that covers acres of land. Multiple underground centrifuges will do nicely.

And by the way, let me repeat an earlier idea. You now appear to concede the idea that air strikes will delay but not solve the problem. While you’re delaying the creation of the Bomb with air strikes, the fact that we are bombing Iran makes us the bad guys, rallies their people around what is basically an unpopular government, and opens doors for foreign help. I'm sure that's exactly what the Iranians want.

RE: “China has concerns in the region, but they're energy concerns, there's no pride or ideology involved.”
I disagree totally. Pride is a big part of what’s going on here. And that is also true of Russian involvement. Both of those countries would like to see the West – and particularly the USA – taken down a notch or two.

RE: “China could care less what happens in Iran, as long as they get the energy their economy requires. Thus it would be easy to neutralize Chinese opposition by arraigning for China to receive their oil from somewhere else (Iraq, or one of the 'Stans).”
They are setting up Iran as a proxy to challenge the West. They love the idea. Look at the fun they are having with North Korea.

It is my belief that the UN and the West is nothing without the US. Nothing is ever accomplished without US involvement, and that is especially true when it comes to military force. And if the American people have lost their nerve -- and we are heading that way very quickly -- then we're cooked. This is a Republic. Our government reflects our collective wishes. If the majority believes that Peace is always better, then we have a big problem. Anyone who even threatens the peace wins.

Bin Laden's statements from 1996 may prove to be correct. You don't beat the US by winning battles or occupying land. You send enough of their soldiers home in body bags, and the US gives up.