Why Not Just Bomb the Qom Facility?
Beyond the obvious conflagration of war that bombing the nuclear facility at Qom would likely ignite, senior administration officials are saying military action could be counterproductive in two other ways.
One: The goal of the U.S. government is not to close this one facility at Qom, but rather to convince the Iranian government to end their nuclear weapons ambitions writ large.
Second: Bombing the facility might only make the Iranians more determined, whereas if Western intelligence agencies catch them violating their agreements every time they cheat — and this is the third time since 2002 — the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for a nuclear weapon are futile.
We took a look at this issue and others on World News last night:
- jpt
UPDATE: My friend Olivier Knox of AFP reminds me that in May, former Bush State Department official Nicholas Burns testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Iran, and said: "Some continue to argue that the only way to halt Iran’s accelerating nuclear research effort is through American or Israeli air strikes. But, there is no convincing scenario where such use of military force would work effectively to end the Iranian nuclear program. Even worse, air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill’s maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end. An America that is already waging two difficult and bloody wars should be wary of unleashing a third. Choosing military power at this stage would surely be precipitous and unwise."
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly took an interesting in-depth look on military options last month; check it out HERE.
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Catching them every time they cheat only works if each cheat doesn’t represent a progression toward nuclear arms. If Iran is caught at stage 1 and then later at stage 2, etc., we’re not stopping anything. We’re just pressing pause on a bad movie and then allowing it to continue.
Posted by: Concerned | September 26, 2009, 9:20 am 9:20 am
“…this is the third time since 2002 — the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for a nuclear weapon are futile.”
We see how well this approach has worked. More likely they draw the opposite conclusion – “this is the third time since 2002 — the Iranians conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations of stopping them from developing a nuclear weapon have been futile.”
Posted by: Concerned | September 26, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am
Bombing one hole in the ground and/or catching the Iranians cheating will not dissuade this Iranian regime one iota from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. As Ahmadinejad’s UN speech made perfectly clear, he and his cohort only accept a higher authority than that of man. The only way to accomplish what must be accomplished, is to bite-the-bullet, and topple this Iranian regime, once and for all. And then destroy their nuclear capability.
Posted by: Charles Smyth | September 26, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am
Could we try this paradigm elsewhere?
“Eating fewer cheeseburgers might only make you hungrier, whereas if your scale records your weight gain — and you’ve put on 30 pounds since summer — you may conclude, eventually, that you’re Mr Olympia.”
“Locking Bob the Axe Murderer up might only make him angrier, whereas if the police simply identify him every time he murders somebody — and he’s had five victims this month — he may eventually get tired of it and become a chartered accountant.”
Posted by: bgates | September 26, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
Making a nuke is very difficult making it able to fire from the top of a missle even harder. Now it is just not as good of news if you tell the whole truth. Keeping the image of mad max apocalypse is just so much more interesting. The only problemis you stir up those that love the drama or don’t understand. But what do we have to worry about it is not like we have ever invaded a country without all the facts is it? We have time to see this out. This Hatfield and McCoy crap we have going on has to stop.
Posted by: Jay | September 26, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am
My thoughts are what goes around comes around. If we bomb them then there will be some so-called blow back. In addition we are currently experiencing an economic decline that is temporarily stalled due to massive stimuli and bailouts. If our economy were to implode, our adversaries that are rising such as China and their buds may treat us as we have treated our adversaries in the past. Our favorite weapon has been sanctions. Remember the million that died in Iraq due to sanctions? Sounds like terrorism to me. Anyway think of the consequences before doing something stupid.
Posted by: Huh | September 26, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
The Iranians are laughing at Obama – they know he won’t do anything meaningful to stop them, just more blah, blah, blah. Sanctions won’t stop this fanatic regime, only military action will work. It’s Jimmy Carter all over again.
Posted by: Terry | September 26, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
Worked on Japan.
Posted by: Judith Imes | September 26, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
“Bombing the facility might only make the Iranians more determined, whereas if Western intelligence agencies catch them violating their agreements every time they cheat — and this is the third time since 2002 — the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for a nuclear weapon are futile.”
Dear Lord, what manner of idiot thinks like this?
Posted by: Nevada Tom | September 26, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
We’ll simply go to the UN, as was done with Iraq, pass countless,worthless resolutions and wring our hands when something awful happens. As with Iraq there were people making money off the oil for food and I dare say there are many making money in Iran as well. Sadly many of them are American companoes joined at the hip with our Government.
Posted by: david | September 26, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
No way will he bomb the site.
Posted by: mike | September 26, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Believing these theocrats will voluntarily give up nukes is naive and foolish.
The best solution is regime change. Too bad Obama was silent in the elections aftermath.
Posted by: SpoutingHorn | September 26, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
Sanctions will not work they didn’t work against Sadam and it won’t work against “mymood I’minajihad” The USA, France, the Brits and Germans along with Israel should bomb these facilities back into the desert.
Posted by: 'Un-Amercian' | September 26, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
Obama is a weak socialist communist liberal. He is another Jimmy Carter. There is no way he is going to bomb Iran and you might as well accept the fact that Iran is going to get nukes and start a arms race in the Middle East. He is a anti war candidate and has no intention of even allowing Isarael to fly over Iraq to bomb Iran nuclear sites. Next election he will be out. He will now have a record to be shown to the AMerican people more than a community organizer record and we will hold him accountable. His socialist views are deterring a economic recovery.
Posted by: mike | September 26, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
No government propaganda media sites like cbs, nbc, abc and cnn will able able to save Obama in the next election. The AMerican people will not be fooled again by state run media. Obama’s socialists pal Chavez is even now helping Iranian scientists look for uranium in Venezuela. I do not need ABC news biased commentators to write a article stating the negatives of bombing Iranian nuclear sites to me. All they are doing is prepping reasons for why Obama will not bomb Iran not the truth which is that he is a anti military option person.With 6 aircraft carriers flying thousands of sorties a day on Iran nuclear sites and relentless bombing, Iran will beg for peace with the threat of their econmic collapse. They must also be held accountable for all of the weapons being sent to Iraq and Afghanastan that have killed hundreds of USA troops. We are weak under this president not in military strength but in resolve and confidence. He would rather make the military option go off the table than bomb Iran which would destroy his picture of a nice new AMerica that he wants the world to see us as under him. Meanwhile Iran gets nukes and may use it on Isarael and its neighbors one day killing 10 s of thousands and the weak Obama will be to blame..
Posted by: mike | September 26, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
I just can’t believe this administration thinks they can just persuade Iran to stop the nuc wanting. It’s a huge joke. Israel is chomping at the bit to bomb the heck out of these sites. Why not just give them the o.k. Obama needs to grow a pair. Iran is already supplying every American hating muslim in the middle east with guns and i.e.ds, so I doubt it will bring any more wrath on our troops over there. We need more troops there anyway to clean up Pakistan, but he can’t even step up to order more.
Posted by: Kurt | September 26, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
Their weakness is gasoline – they export crude but import gasoline due to limited refining capability – I think I read that they have a single refinery. The population is already on edge. Cut off their imports, threaten to have the population WALKING in 2 weeks and see how long the mullahs last…
Oh, but we can’t interfere in another nation’s government, I guess until Tel Aviv is a smoldering, radioactive ruin…
Posted by: NHCameraguy | September 26, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
When the mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, Obama will go on TV, utter sad platitudes that are most stentorian and demand Ahmadinejad sit down with him for the sternest of talks…
Posted by: wnaegele | September 26, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
Well, the main reason we won’t bomb the reactor at Qom is the Weakling in Chief. He will try to solve the situation via his mouth (words and speeches), and as usual, will fail miserably.
Posted by: TxBoB | September 26, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
Why not bomb Qom? Indeed?
Why not Mecca and Medina at the same time.
No matter what you say about him that’s what Joe Stalin would’ve done if the muslims pulled the 9/11 kind of stunt on him.
Because the US has no balls. Oh yeah, the US is courageous enough to drop an a-bomb on Japanese women and children but before the REAL enemy, REAL disease it just ain’t got no balls.
Posted by: Sam | September 26, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
“The goal of the U.S. government is not to close this one facility at Qom, but rather to convince the Iranian government to end their nuclear weapons ambitions writ large.”
Yeah, that’ll do it.
For thirty years it’s all failed but now the ONE will do it?
I think not.
Obama’s projection of US weakness has emboldened Venezuela to talk openly of developing a bomb with Iran’s help and now Brazil is talking nuclear weapons.
This is going to go very badly. It’s what happens when a community organizer thinks the rest of the country and the rest of the world is as stupid as Chicago.
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
“No matter what you say about him that’s what Joe Stalin would’ve done if the muslims pulled the 9/11 kind of stunt on him.”
Right winger praises Stalin and apparently wishes he was in charge of the US post 9/11
The sickness grows…
Posted by: Ryan C | September 26, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
“now Brazil is talking nuclear weapons.”
Hmmm that sounds strange…
Oh you mean this.
“Jose Alencar, who also served as defense minister from 2004 to 2006, said in an interview with journalists from several Brazilian news media that his country does not have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should: “We have to advance on that.”
“The nuclear weapon, used as an instrument of deterrence, is of great importance for a country that has 15,000 kilometers of border to the west and a territorial sea” where oil reserves have been found, Alencar said.
Alencar aide Adriano Silva confirmed the comments published by newspapers including O Globo and O Estado de Sao Paulo. But he said they were personal opinions and not a position of the government.”
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie
Posted by: Ryan C | September 26, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
I actually expected Obama and Biden to open the ‘White House Beer Garden’ back up, and have a ‘teachable moment’ with Achmadinejad and Netanyahu.
THAT’s how we handle big problems in the U.S.!
Posted by: Elaina | September 26, 2009, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
Bill O’Reilly was talking with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (an intrepid Obama defender) last night, and when Bill stated that sanctions wouldn’t work on Iran, Dr. Hill said, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘Yes, because Achmadinejad knows what was done to Saddam Hussein’.
So, what was that? A confession that Bush’s STRENGTH might have had a good influence in that region?
But I thought the Dems were all strictly opposed to that war. Which is it?
They’re fiddling while Rome burns.
Posted by: Elaina | September 26, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Obama is holding back on troops for Afghanistan because he knows he may need every one of them after Israel blows up Iran. I believe Israel let him know in no uncertain terms either he exposes Iran now and gets the job (whatever that is) done) or they fire at will.
Posted by: dianne | September 26, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
WE HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME – THEN, BOMBING WILL BE THE ONLY ANSWER. IRAN IS NOT THE SOVIET UNION. THE LEADERS IN IRAN DON’T CARE ABOUT LIFE, EVEN THEIR OWN. AND……. WITH OBAMA, THEY FIGURE WE ARE BLUFFING AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. LOOKS LIKE ISRAEL WILL UNFORTUNATELY BE FORCED INTO MAKING THE DECISION. OBAMA………. DO NOT SHOOT THEIR PLANES DOWN!!!!!!!
Posted by: Temagami | September 26, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
What Baloney! The Iranians “might” end their nuclear weapons program? What planet do YOU live on? The Iranian nuclear program has only one goal in mind…to drop nukes on Tel Aviv. This stems from religious hatred and fanatacism, and that is NOT going to go away. If the Iranians want nukes so badly, we should send them a couple, airmail. Otherwise they will continue and we and the world will have to face the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of religious nuts in the future.
Posted by: capnmike | September 26, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
WHEN WILL LIBS GET IT? IT IS NOT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, IRAQ NOR PAKISTAN. NOW, WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE….. Hmmmmmm.???
Posted by: Temagami | September 26, 2009, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm
The anti-war protesters are nowhere to be seen since Obama took office. Why is that?
Posted by: Mary | September 26, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
Oh, for Pete’s sake. I’m tired of all the negotiation. Throw about 12 tons of explosive at that one site, then dare Ahmedacrazy to start a war. We’ve got plenty of bombs for them. None of this Iraq kid-glove stuff either, just drop ordinance on them until the planes run out of fuel or we run out of targets.
Posted by: Dave Mishem | September 26, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
The idea of solving a situation by trying to talk “peace” is admirable. BUT IT IS UNREALISTIC. These terrorist have an agenda and that is to take total control or wipeout the United States all together. We are showing our weaknesses to these terroist with all the friction within our own borders.
Posted by: d | September 26, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
Thanks, Jake. Good article with excellent links. I really appreciate stuff like this.
Posted by: SjB | September 26, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Iran is doing this just because everyone wants them not to. There is no benefit for them. Iran is simply of a confrontational nature. It’s a case of trying to be the little mouse that roars, in a world that is intent on not rewarding bad behavior in this instance. As a result Iran will have more time to be more confrontational, and who knows where it will all lead. I am glad that we and our allies, who Iran threatens, have shown such enduring restraint for so long that if it does become necessary to take Iran out, it will be clear that only Iran is to blame.
To all those who keep saying Obama is weak, remember Bush stopped Israel from bombing Iran’s nuclear sites once already. It just isn’t necessary yet, but when the time comes it really needs to be clear that Iran had sufficient opportunity to avoid that outcome. Plus , everyone always assumes Iran is the only one benefiting from extra time just because they seem to originate most of the delay tactics, but I seriously doubt that we and our allies are just sitting around waiting for them. Whatever happens will likely be very smooth and well thought out. Remember, we only needed about 30 people on the ground and a month to make regime change occur in difficult Afghanistan. And Iraq, with it’s more modern armies, fell in 2 weeks. I have confidence that we can do whatever we need to do, and I am glad that we show restraint in deciding when we do it, and deliberation in doing it.
Posted by: Dugese | September 26, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
I don’t understand why people want to attack Iran. Nobody dare says lets bomb North Korea because they have the nukes. So we can conclude that USA and Israel will bully those without the nuke. Therefore, if you don’t want to be bullied, make a big bomb.
Posted by: kk | September 26, 2009, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Of course there is a benefit for them.
If Iran’s intent is economic development, building its nuclear capacity makes sense economically. Despite the fact that Iran has a lot of oil, using oil to make electricity is not the most valuable use of the oil.
If Iran’s intent is security related, building its nuclear capacity also makes sense. Given that the US has said that we don’t want them to have nukes because then we can’t attack them, it makes perfect sense for them to build nukes. They would be insane not to.
Posted by: Flash Override | September 26, 2009, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
“I actually expected Obama and Biden to open the ‘White House Beer Garden’ back up, and have a ‘teachable moment’ with Achmadinejad”
Gesundheit.
“and Netanyahu.”
Gesundheit.
Posted by: Rudy | September 26, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
Why not just bomb it?
Are you kidding me?
The reason that civilized people don’t commit acts of aggression against other nations is because its uncivilized, and is “the war crime that creates all other war crimes.”
Posted by: Flash Override | September 26, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
Since Iran is actively opposing us in the two present wars, attacking them only clarifies the situation. It isn’t another war, just another front in the war we’ve been fighting all along.
Posted by: Ronsonic | September 26, 2009, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
“whereas if Western intelligence agencies catch them violating their agreements every time they cheat — and this is the third time since 2002 — the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for a nuclear weapon are futile.”
Why on earth would they conclude that? There are no consequences when they are caught cheating, no one will do anything that will punish them in any meaningful way. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and there is no disincentive to prevent them from getting them. Do you really think they are bothered by all the ineffectual finger-wagging from the West? Yeah, right.
Posted by: mbs | September 26, 2009, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm
“Second: Bombing the facility might only make the Iranians more determined”
Really. Surprising that it would constitute an act of war against a nation strategically placed to intervene in your other two ongoing occupations doesn’t rate higher than this.
Posted by: Kilo | September 26, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
“Given that the US has said that we don’t want them to have nukes because then we can’t attack them, it makes perfect sense for them to build nukes. They would be insane not to.
Posted by: Flash Override | Sep 26, 2009 6:42:39 PM”
WTH? I don’t know who you are listening to, but I’ve never heard anyone say we don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons because then we can’t attack them, You may not have noticed, but Iran’s supreme leader is a psycho who wants to obliterate Israel first, and then who knows who will be next? That would be why it’s a bad idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Posted by: mbs | September 26, 2009, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Start a war with Iran? The only reason to start a war is if you or an ally is attacked. Now Israel on the other hand does not have our constitution, it has been under siege by persons directly supported by Iran. It could be said Israel is in a de facto war with Iran. They are fee to act as they wish. Could they borrow a B2? or 2. Yes I know the history and motivation of Iran’s hate of the US. Why they hate the Jews? I do not know. They are forbidden by the Koran to hate Christian’s or Jew’s. But I went to a Baptist church in the 1950′s so I know church leaders just make up stuff and say God or Mohammed told them. Just a bunch of lies.
Posted by: BillWilliam | September 26, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
What a stupid question. You don’t just go in and bomb a country before taking other measures first. Haven’t we learned anything from the previous administration’s answer to keeping other leaders “in line”.Although it’s debatable as to the real reason they started the war with Iraq in the first place. But,needless to say, we’ve started a war and created more violence and chaos, not to mention a breeding ground for terrorists by bombing Iraq. Diplomacy and sanctions first. And compliance and compromise with our Allies. We can’t go this one alone.
Posted by: Bea | September 26, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
“One: The goal of the U.S. government is not to close this one facility at Qom, but rather to convince the Iranian government to end their nuclear weapons ambitions writ large.”
——-
This “goal” is idiotic, absolutely idiotic. Naive is not the word for Obama. Insane is the word. One has to be insane to think that religious zealots intent on world domination can be “convinced” of anything that is contrary to their sick “religion” of death.
Posted by: tanarg | September 26, 2009, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
Ahmedinajad will ignore the demands. He rightly so the US is run by a weak president who has no stomach for military confrontation, has already proved that by trying to get out of Afghanistan, is beholden to his anti-war groups like MoveOn and has no expereince in military matters. He was and is inexperienced and has shown his ineptness in international affairs with his appology tour. A stronger president would be able to put more pressure on Iran. But since iran knows Obama is weak and the Dems don’t fight, they will ignore him. What will he do if ran exports nuclear building ability to Venezuela.
Posted by: jschmidt | September 26, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
What’s the next step? More than likely the world will wait until Iran fires off a nuclear missle. Unless Israel acts first. Also, what is the world going to do? Starve Iran to death?
Posted by: Mike | September 26, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm
I agree with d and We r wasting time and money on all these negotiations. I am a peace-loving person but enuf is enuf. Show them whose BOSS! They r asking for it.
Posted by: Rose | September 27, 2009, 2:45 am 2:45 am
I wish there was a way to send my tax money straight to Israel. Why are we supporting the DoD to the tune of billions a year? No country is stupid enough to do a first strike on us – the only reason we need a strong military is for situations precisely like this one.
And for all the peace-lovers out there who believe in sovereignty – didn’t you guys learn anything from WWII? Read a history book sometime…
Posted by: Dave Mishem | September 27, 2009, 2:53 am 2:53 am
Get ‘em b4 they get us.
Posted by: Rose | September 27, 2009, 2:57 am 2:57 am
And for all the peace-lovers out there who believe in sovereignty – didn’t you guys learn anything from WWI
Posted by: Dave Mishem
ok mr. history… tell us what you learned that makes 2009 the same as 1930s germany….
and don’t rehash that ‘appeasement’ nonsense
Posted by: peepers | September 27, 2009, 4:54 am 4:54 am
Posted by: jschmidt
i must have missed, what did bush do to prevent this……. oh yeah……..ZERO
why not just bomb it?
that’s exactly Bin Ladens philosophy
Posted by: ike turner | September 27, 2009, 4:58 am 4:58 am
You are just deluding yourself…the only way is to strike at them. The Iranisn have thumbed their noses at us thru the Clinton, Bush and now Obama administrations –they cannot be trusted and they are irrational- you cant be rational with those types. The Iranian people do not want these nukes and they should be warned right before their facilities get bombed due to the irrationality of their mullahs. But as usual the leaders here have positioned these sites near big population centers and they know citizens will be innocently killed. They just dont care about their own people. Enough is enough….if the US doesnt have any cajones then Israel will do it and that weakling OBAMA had BETTER back them up.
Posted by: jimbo | September 27, 2009, 8:55 am 8:55 am
It is precisely because we have 2 wars going on that the Iranians know we are weak. They are taking full advanatge of it. No one likes war but this madman must be stopped…. He’ll nuke Israel and then shut off oil lanes and threaten the rest of the middle east and the west
Posted by: jimbo | September 27, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Comment by Rose:
I wish there was a way to send my tax money straight to Israel. Why are we supporting the DoD to the tune of billions a year? No country is stupid enough to do a first strike on us – the only reason we need a strong military is for situations precisely like this one.
Rose, does Sept 11th ring a bell? Iran is not going to send their military here…They will send terrorists to do their work. I agree that we need to make a parking lot out of that place, but we have too many logs on the fire as it is.
Posted by: Mike | September 27, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am
LongT PROFOUND!
Posted by: Temagami | September 27, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am
I know…let’s have the UN pass a “Resolution” to have Iran do the right thing. Then if they ignore it…pass a second “Resolution”. Sounds familiar? Since we now know the public don’t like 17 Resolution as a magic number, we’ll have the UN pass several hundred.
That’ll show Iran…HA!!!
Posted by: free_dude | September 27, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
I agree that we need to make a parking lot out of that place, but we have too many logs on the fire as it is.
Posted by: Mike
so you want to kill 30+ million people to make your ‘parking lot’..? how very al-queda of you..
Posted by: ppp | September 27, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
Assasinate Ajad. Outsource it, stage it or keep it secret and then deny it till the end of the earth.
Then assasinate the next guy that takes his place. And the next guy… Assasinate the Ayatollahs..
After about 10 guys, they’ll get the idea… And the best part is, we use the same tactics that NKorea and Iran are already using: “What? You think it was us? No way, we’re peaceful, we condemn these assasinations.. ha ha!!”
Posted by: Chris H | September 27, 2009, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm
Don’t misunderstand things.
Qom is the center of power in Iran. The mullahs that run the country reside there. That is why the facility is hidden there.
There is no separation between the government and religion.
Posted by: drjohn | September 28, 2009, 7:48 am 7:48 am
The arguments against bombing and in favor of diplomatic pressure or sanctions are naive. We have tried sanctions for years and they do not work because the Iranians can get around them in a way that does not harm the government, and they could care less about the harm to the people of Iran. Diplomatic pressure only works on regimes that have something to lose on the diplomatic front, and obviously Iran cares little what the rest of the world thinks about their ambitions. The only option I see is for the US to launch airstrikes against Qom and any other facilities that are known and then if the Iranians use military force against our forces in Iraq, we use our air superiority to destroy their military. We have no need to invade Iran, we can completely destroy the military in the same manner we did with Saddam’s military in 1991. This will weaken the regime and certainly set their nuclear ambitions back many years. Will Obama do this? Of course not. The shame is that the Iranians may be able to complete a bomb within the next 3-4 years before we have a chance to elect a president who will take such decisive action.
Posted by: Jason | September 28, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
We certainly don’t need to turn Iran or anyone else who oppose us into a “parking lot” there is no need for us to use nuclear weapons in order to deny others a nuclear weapon. The difference between WWII and now is that we don’t have to carpet bomb in order to take out one facility, we can put a few bunker busters in with B-2′s and that’s the end of the story. The lesson to be learned from WWII is that there are evil people out there like Hitler who have ambitions and will not be convinced to stop until we destroy their warmaking ability. Yes, we take a risk at encouraging terrorists if we strike Iran, but if we allow them to build a nuclear bomb and they use that, they will still be encouraged to attack us in any way they can. This is why it is naive to think that we can pressure them financially through sanctions, that they have proven they can get around already, or through diplomacy, which the Ayatollahs, could care less about. They only engage in diplomacy now as a stalling measure until they can get the nuclear bomb. Bush should have bombed the known nuclear facilities years ago and now that we have a president who seems very unlikely to take that step, we are forcing the Israelis to do something that we should have done. If we had done it we would have given Israel cover, but now they will be attacked by the world, and we will still be blamed as being behind the strike anyway. We screwed this one up big time and a lot of innocent people will die unnecessarily.
Posted by: Jason | September 28, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
If we had done it we would have given Israel cover, but now they will be attacked by the world, and we will still be blamed as being behind the strike anyway.
Posted by: Jason
why does Israel need cover…. and since when does the rest of the worlds opinion matter…. that’s what republicans say….
Posted by: TJ | September 28, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
The key to putting Iran in it place is real cooperation from Russia.
Posted by: justsaying | September 28, 2009, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
We should disable their facilities.
A few precision bombs should do the trick with little or no collateral damage.
Posted by: Captain Steve | September 28, 2009, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm
@captain steve
that is exactly the same thinking that led 20 suicide bombers to hit the WTC and the Pentagon eight years ago.
Thanks for bringing our discourse down to the level of our enemies’ ABC
Posted by: Flash Override | September 29, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
The smartest thing to do in this type of situation, is to just go over there and talk it out with the leader of Iran. There is absolutely no reason why we should be so threatened and afraid that we would have to bomb their facilities. We should let them know that we do not like the fact that they are testing nuclear weapons in this day and age, because it could easily spark up a world war. With our economy being in such bad shape already, another war is the last thing we need. Further more, we should weigh our decision with validity and with common sense. There is no need for any more confrontation right now.
Posted by: Micah Burton | October 5, 2009, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
Currently there are many muslims getting bombed by other muslim factions. If we can send these ‘victim’ factions to Iran, we could then expect the Bombing-faction to do the necessary. Or, just plain bomb Qom with victim-factions who in turn get Qom bombed..’wizard idea what ? Old chap. Qom needs bombing alright ! “Lawrence has taken Akabar !”
Posted by: Hugh Jorgan | December 3, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am