Centerfield

You can't stop them, but you can cripple them economically and impose a very heavy price on them. If *I* can think of a way to do that--and I can--with minimal loss-of-life in targeted bombing raids on specific targets, you can bet the Pentagon also can. Example: They have limited domestic oil refinery capacity, and a very limited number of oil export channels funneling through specific key choke points. And they REALLY REALLY rely on the funds from oil exports for their key imports.

The question of that being "stopping" them if it works is a philosophical one.

The bombing of Libya failed to stop anything

Libya reined in its worst offendors after the bombing raids under Reagan, and their terrorist activity sponsorship diminished notably, especially that against us. Not to mention their sudden eagerness to give up certain weapons programs earlier in this decade. What encouraged that again, exactly? ;-)

Now, attempting to INVADE Iran would be a military blunder. But invasion is not the only means of force available.

As Tully says, it's pretty easy to come up with ways to smash Iran's economy without making the mistake of an invasion. More challenging would be coming up with a way to damage the folks who currently run Iran, without damaging the overall economy. In short, to hit the rulers hard, without significant harm to the ruled.

If it worked, it would be damned impressive. And, especially if there was a possibility of something similar in concept (if not in detail) happening elsewhere, the whole game would change in lots of places around the world.

Tully, your response is tons better than many comments I've seen, since at least you give a possible mechanism by which a strike could lead to a decrease in funding. Or it's also possible Iran may decide it's worth the cost to continue to get back at us.

And, I tend to agree the bombing probably served to predicate his withdrawal from the rogue-regime list following the invasion of Iraq. BUT that's after twenty years, and his primary sponsor vanishing.

BUT, although Libya helping a bit was welcome, Libya's also known to have INCREASED support for the IRA after the attack, presumably in revenge for UK involvement, or maybe chosen because the UK's such a close ally. And, of course, there's Lockerbie.

I'm also concerned with the addition of goals because all the intelligence points to the nuclear strike being tricky to arrange to be effective, and that's far and away the most important problem that needs solving. One thing at a time, I say.

What WJ said.

Hitting the mullahs without hurting the country would be quite a trick. Wish I knew how.

I don't know that Iran would think losing that much infrastructure an acceptable price. We make the mistake (I do it too) of not remembering that the mullahs are themselves troubled with internal factional dissent, and that the government there is under heavy pressure from parts of the population to loosen up. Slapping them around makes it easier for those internal revolutionaries to tear at the mullahs. But we wouldn't make friends of the revolutionaries--they would want those facilities intact.

Stragely, the very type of infrastructre damage that is non-fatal but painful and costly without being long-term crippling, such as pipeline sabotage, seems to be happening rather regularly to the Iranians. I'm not gonna speculate as to WHO is actually doing that, but I have been paying attention.

One more item for "intel" rumination. Iran has been snapping up leases on oil storage tankers. Not for delivery, but for bulk storage. Your own mileage, but it looks like facility & pipeline-loss insurance to me. (No one really wants to bomb floating tankers--the damage to the Gulf would be too great, and those world financial owners a bit peeved.)

Yeah, good and interesting points.

On the one hand, we give the regime something to point at easily as a foreign enemy to keep the people on their side. On the other hand, we know that plenty of Serbians saw Milosevic' attraction of NATO bombs to be a real minus. There's evidence that even high-ups in Iran's gummint see things that way WRT President A. So maybe there is some hope from that side of the strike. I hope you're right.

As noted in this discussion is the fact that there are a LOT of young Iranis who like many aspects of western culture. Any attack would alienate us from them and also work to isolate those who are left who support a more peaceful coexistence.

I recommend watching the movie Persepolis or even reading the original graphic novel. My daughter has done both. There's a lot to be said about the binding universal youth culture that is emerging. Seems to me sending over a million wii's and ipods would be a lot cheaper than spending tens of billions on war. Remember some of the things that helped end segregation in this country. Youth culture and the inevitability of certain types of social progress. Now some might argue that Iran is building a bomb faster than social progress. A valid point. But then do you want a bunch of bright young kids into media and life all of the sudden become part of an anti-US/anti-Western youth movement? To me that's more dangerous in the long run.

Anyway here's an interview with the author of
Iranian Blues

enjoy - it's brief.

g9EoSF tzhgunwqfhqb, [url=http://mbnrfdrneyxt.com/]mbnrfdrneyxt[/url], [link=http://awdbfqhxbdgr.com/]awdbfqhxbdgr[/link], http://vqcekgyvbbmo.com/

UNqjrf ziwanwbkbexr, [url=http://hlseeourdpxe.com/]hlseeourdpxe[/url], [link=http://tchydiktdrdx.com/]tchydiktdrdx[/link], http://emyhfraueewc.com/