Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it?
|
Too generic. You could ask this of any military manuever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility
|
The Iranian nuclear program itself? Setting it back a decade would probably end the chances of a nuclear Iran for another 15 years, if at all. Strategically, that's a huge bonus when one considers that two of their neighboring nations are a bit up for grabs at the moment, with Syria/Lebanon on the verge as well. I'm not entirely sure we should rule out a strike from other neighboring nations though. This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?
|
You think Iranians want to go to war over this bomb? Look, Iranians are incredibly proud and loyal to their country - but this Islamic revolution hasn't really paid off. The interests in Tehran aren't the same as the country-side. Take a look at the US and you can see how war itself can be polarizing when you're not entirely trusting of your leadership. I'm not suggesting it's a good reason to bomb, but I wouldn't rule it out out of fear it would strengthen a country already ruled by totalitarianism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move.
|
Well how far do you want to take that logic? Disband the military? I think your assumption is, we strike their nukes, it results in a full scale war against Iran. I think that's hysteria built around military analysis and other intelligence type research which predicts the worst possible situation. My personal guess would have Iran using the opportunity to make a move for Saudi Arabia instead. This issue with Iran is more to do with a Sunni-Shia conflict then the great satan, and the little satan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.
|
What use does that international case have? US/Israel are accused of everything under the sun already. If they want provocation, they can manipulate it on two different fronts which aren't even directly at their borders...and they have been doing that effectively. So what are you arguing? That public opinion will lean towards Iran? Probably, but remember, the Osirus attacks were condemned by everyone, including the US, and that opinion changed over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.
|
Ultimately, I see diplomacy and even sanctions being the better way to go... but I don't see any of this as being very persuasive arguments against a targeted strike.