Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

Wow... I'm going to respond to a whole range of posts made here without any quoting any.

Firstly, the suggestion that Iran would abandon its nuclear program if Israel, Pakistan and India could be convinced to do so is both impractical and false. Israel, India and Pakistan will not surrender their nuclear weapons because:

1) They guarantee that they are able to deter any significant attack against them.
2) The idea that countries would relinquish power and influence in exchange for nothing is simply naive.

Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, nations act primarily out of self-interest. Iran's interest at the moment is not to pursue a "peaceful nuclear program" (they have the world's fourth largest oil reserves, for the love of God) but to expand their influence and prestige by being the first Muslim country to obtain the bomb and act as a counter-balance to Israel. In other words, the object is not the bomb itself, but the increase in Iran's power once they posses the bomb. Considering the fact that Iran is essentially a theocratic dictatorship which has called for the destruction of Israel and is funding Shi'a militias in Iraq and Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, increasing Iranian influence is definitely NOT something that any of us want.

Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

My next point is that those of you who claim that America would not be able to fight a war in Iran because it is stretched too thinly or the US military would be incapable of competing with the Iranian military are firstly (quite clearly) not military experts, and more importantly, are grossly underestimating the military capabilities of America. Iran's Arab neighbors, Turkey, Israel and (of course) the United States are all threatened by an Iran that possesses nuclear weapons, and would therefore either look the other way or assist America in case of an American attack on Iran.

Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

The execution of this attack, however, is the key. A ground invasion of Iran is completely unfeasible at present, but more importantly, it is unnecessary and even undesirable when considered in the context of American interests in the region. The attack will have to take the form of a bombing campaign spanning over perhaps a week in which strategic military and nuclear sites will be targeted. The American air force is second to none, and certainly is not threatened by the Iranian Air Force, which is in fact made up of reverse engineered American fighters from the time of the Shah (mainly F-4s and F-5s). The reason that the attack must not exceed a very short time period is that Iran, unlike Iraq, is not fractured and divided, but united by a strong sense of Persian nationalism, and the majority of the population supports the Iranian nuclear program. Thus, a long operation would risk brewing strong anti-American sentiment in the country.

Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

This leads me on to my final point in which (and, forgive me for this) I will make a specific reference to one of the members who posted in this thread. Ashleykennedy, which from my brief flicking through the Middle-East forum seems to be quite keen on Middle-Eastern politics, suggests that an American operation would:

1) Topple the Iranian regime
2) Bring into power a more radical regime

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American interests in the Middle-East, and also of the Iranian people and nation. Firstly, it is important to understand that despite America's harsh rhetoric, it has no interest in toppling the Iranian regime. If anything, America has an interest in ensuring that this regime stays in power, but does not pose a threat to the security of the pro-American Sunni Arab states. In other words, America's objective would be to weaken Iran, but not to destabilize it politically. This is because, while there is some degree of Iranian power in the Middle-East, American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will remain firmly in the American camp out of a desire to ensure their own security.

Originally Posted by MenB";p=&quot

Secondly, an American bombing campaign on military targets and nuclear installations would not topple the government's grip in the country, and even if it by some bizarre chance did, the new regime would not be more radical than the current one. The fact is that despite the aggressive anti-Western rhetoric employed by Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad is merely a puppet in the hands of the Ayatollahs, and the majority of the Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs with a passion. In fact, if the Iranian theocracy were ever toppled, you would likely find that the regime that would replace it would far more pro-Western than the current one (assuming it was genuinely democratic). However, as I pointed out earlier, this is not in the interests of the United States at this point in time.

It's all a very complicated issue.