Weekly Standard-- Military strike against Iran is our best option

TexasLawyer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-26-05 10:31 PM
Original message

Weekly Standard-- Military strike against Iran is our best option

This is a Weekly Standard article, posted on FreeRepublic, so you know where this one's going.

As might be expected, when all possible approaches to the Iranian nuclear situation are examined, the diplomacy-based responses are ruled out as ineffective. But we don't have to invade. We just need to employ the "military strike" option.

As per the Freeper commentary, we can also support the pissed off Iranian people, who will take to the streets and take down their government. Lots of other scary freep commentary, not pasted here, in the "let's do it now" vein.

That most recent Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker is looking more and more like the truth.

The Least Bad Iran Option

Jeffrey Bergner, The Weekly Standard:

<snip>

While musing on this cascade of unlikely events, moreover, we might remind ourselves that there is no evidence that the imposition of joint U.S. and European economic sanctions against Iran would cause it to terminate its nuclear weapons program.

Is there no other option short of invasion? There is a "military strike" option, which would consist of a strike against all known and suspected Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities. In the wake of such a strike, the United States would no doubt be condemned for riding roughshod over European and world diplomacy and for taking Iranian lives. A military strike could also alienate a great swath of moderate, and especially younger, Iranians
who are inclined to be friendly toward the United States and in whom we repose hope for the creation one day of a more decent, secular regime in Iran. Moderate Iranians may oppose clerical rule, but they do not necessarily oppose an Iran with nuclear capabilities. Losing the natural affection of these people would be a genuine setback.

A "military strike" option is thus fraught with risk for the United States from friend and foe. It does, though, have one critical difference from the other options examined here: If it were executed properly, it would eliminate or seriously retard Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Jeffrey Bergner is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The views expressed here are his own.

*********************

Freeper Commentary

DoctorZin: The author provides a clear analysis as far as it goes. But there is a fourth option.

Upon failure of the negotiations the US and Europe adopt a "regime change policy" and begin supporting the Iranian people who are calling for a referendum on their form of government. The people of Iran have been seeking this kind of support for years now and with the recent events in the Ukraine and Lebanon appear to be a real option.

This summer the world will witness the lack of support the regime has inside of Iran. The people of Iran will likely refuse to participate in their so called elections, just as they did in their last elections where only 12% bothered to participate. With united international support the people can take to the streets and bring down this government.

This is exactly what the Iranian people have been pleading for. Will we continue to turn a deaf ear? I think not. In fact, I believe this is exactly the course the President has laid out for Iran, as I have predicted earlier.

I believe it will be a very hot summer in Iran.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351632/posts