I would like to extend my question to PLC1 to you as well. You do a great deal of badmouthing other peoples ideas but present nothing of your own for undergoing criticism. Here's your chance to impress me by showing you have a clear understanding of the complex situation that exists, any idiot can say what the answer "isn't" its time for you to put it on the line and tell us what you think the answer "is" - hopefully without debating the definition of the word "is".
first nice lame 1990's Clinton joke...its 2008
First the biggest thing we have to do it talk to Iran. No trying to act like they are not there or that we can somehow ignore them. Its one of most powerful nations in the middle east, and has a large and growin spear influence, and to ignore this is childish. We could talk to the USSR, we are now huge trading partners with China...but talk about talking to Iran is called appeasing. Hitting diplomacy hard, and at lower levels of government, getting support or at least making clear our real position, to less ideological members of the government threw both back channels and lower level meetings. This would be expanded from the talks that we have had with Iraq regrading the Security or Iraq, and the Iran and the US provided each other with Intel in the fight against Afghanistan, where both sides had reason to gain. SO much is made about Aminnejad, but the fact is its very likely not to far out, he will not be in power anymore, nor is he even the real leader of Iran today.
2. Working harder to get the US message that we only wish to stop the spread of Nuclear weapons gets to as many people as we can in Iran...The fact that many don't seem to know, or choose to ignore, is that the population of Iran is very young, and has been far more pro American then any other nation in the middle east. On Sept 11, people in Iran where in the streets with American flags....not burning them but showing support and sorrow for what had happened. They did this in defence of Iran's leadership. Its is this large and growing movement that we must use to help put pressure on its leaders to end any plans for Nukes, and to work for a peaceful goal and a end to sanctions. Support for the goal of a non nuclear Iran, pushed by the UN, ( Russia being a very key member needed to push this) and the internal push as well must be enough to make the possible benefits worth while.
3.The current tone of talk form the US to Iran, and back has been far far to much stick, and no carrot. Hyberbol like Clinton talking about whipping Iran of the map, and Bush's Axis of Evil ext talk does very little to help, and only serves to amp up the other sides talk as well. Also Clinton's Wipe Iran of the Map , is perfect propaganda for Iran to show its people that Iran the US truly is the enemy and that it is not them who is putting them in this situation. Again , while not a true Democracy by any means, the people of Iran hold much more power then just about any other middle eastern nation. With tone also comes actions that set tone, such as the joint exercise performed by the US and Israel , that was clearly meant as a single to Iran...Iran in return Fired off test missiles to show it would respond ( most likely against US troops in Iraq, and or Israel) This kind of action makes it harder for Iran to back down and save face , thus only provokes them to lash more and less ready to talk. Iran is a nation that while holding relatively smaller power in the world today, still sees itself with great pride, taken from the Persian Empire one must take into account the personality if you will of the nation when it deals with it. In order to reach our goals, we must be willing to accept that in order for us to win, we need to give Iran something that lets them tell its people it won. Also we must make it clear that the US Respects Iran's Right to Nuclear Power.
4. Military action. I would keep the 2nd Carrier group rotating in the Gulf area as a show of force, but not one that makes headlines..but one Iran's leadership will see. I would redouble efforts to watch the Iran Iraq Border and try to find informants if at all possible. The simple fact is, that any attack at all on Iran, means that the United States must be prepared to deal with the reaction or Iran. And when Iran reacts, say hits US troops in Iraq, directly, or indirectly, or it hits Oil interests around the middle east, or it fires back at the US navy with silkworms, and some of of there new weapons....how do we react to the reaction? And the US can not just hope Israel would do it for us for 2 reasons. 1 we take the blame anyway. 2, Israel does not have the firepower to unload the heavy bombing that would be needed at that distance without putting all of its refueling planes in harms way.( I dont have it with me, but the Book, the Persian Puzzle had some good work on this, as well as GlobalSecurity.org) Also Ground troops are not ready in case we needed them , as stated by every US General when asked. Iraq is to much of a drain, and would have to have troop levels moved back a lot in order to have a real force on hand to put into action. Also targets would have to be hit before going active in many cases, in order to keep fallout from effecting large areas of Civilian areas. The attack would most likely at least cause Iran to beef up its defense even more, and efforts to get nukes in some for, be it lose nukes from the USSR, or help from Pakistan. It would also increase funding to Hezbollah try to hit US targets . the effects of these attacks could further Cripple the US Economy, while attacks on Iran's Facilities would have little real effect on there's.
If it came down to a strike , as all diplomacy had failed and there was no reason to believe change was going to happen. I would only do so knowing that Full scale war was possible from such a attack, and that the US was Able to deal with such a burden that would not put its long term Security economically and Military at more risk then the threat justified.
The destruction would be of their infrastaructure and war-making capacity. Lots of people would be killed, but they aren't the target per se. The situation is like WWII, which we WON, remember? Unlike the PC vietnam war, unlike (so far) the PC iraq war.
Are they to trust their neighbors as well?
