Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
|
Sure sounds nice on paper, but it's not quite that easy. Iran's nuclear program is spread around the country, and cannot be stopped with a swift strike like Iraq's in the 80's.
|
It doesnt need to be swift. Just thorough.
They will need to do enrichment on a large scale to develop enough for weapons. They need every facility they can build. Destroying them can only delay their development, perhaps indefinitely.
It is not a permanent solution, but it will accomplish our goals in the short term. |
Facilities exist all around Iran, many underground, most are not easy-to-hit targets. Iran has done a good job in making their program hard to dismantle. From what I've read, knocking out all of Iran's capacity is impossible.
A temporary delay is not a permanent solution, that is a problem. As long as Iran aspires for nuclear weapons, little can be done about it. When the missiles start flying, Iran is then actively belligerent, and that can include a land-war with Iraq.
It will for sure cause major disruptions of oil supply and shockwaves in world economies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
|
Even if it were hit, it would only be a question of time before Iran regains lost ground.
|
Since we can bomb them at will, they can never "regain" lost ground. Anything they build we can destroy. They cant stop us. |
So, an indefinate bombing campaign? That's feasible...
Less hubris and more reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
|
Like North Korea, Iran has a lever over the US; namely Iraq. Iran could put great pressure on the Shiite majority and increase the amounts of civil unrest.
|
An empty threat, since they are likely to do that anyway. |
I think some sources have overestimated Iran's power in Iraq. (The mullah and loudspeakers quote for example) However, attacking another Muslim country can only have a negative effect on Iraqi stability and terrorist attacks. Iran really doesn't even have to be proactive to cause the US damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
Quote:
|
Enough to topple the government?
|
Probably not. Or they would have already done so by now. |
I agree. It's beyond their capacity by subterfuge alone, and military means are equally unlikely. But increasing effects of the insurgency and disrupting oil supplies are equally effectively weapons.