I support bombing Iran's nuclear facilities with conventional bunker busters if possible, but if necessary, with nuclear bunker busters. I don't think that there is enough popular support within Iran for a regime change, however, so I oppose any attempt at nation building in Iran. What is your opinion? I appreciate all votes and replies.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Most of those options are not really feasible.

It should ignore Iran.
A belligerent, nuclear, Iran could, and has, easily send oil prices soaring. Far too detrimental to the economy, and far too dangerous to stability. Especially with the US parked firmly in Iraq for the immidiate future, ignoring Iran's nuclear ambitions is not an option.

It should invade Iran.
With what? US groundtroops are already deployed far too thin. To control Iraq the US has already had to deploy far too many reservists (violating their contracts). Furthermore, the Iranian military is no pushover. It has some pretty advanced equipment and is large. Any war would be a high casualty affair, something that an already war-weary US public would not swallow.

It should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities but not invade Iran.
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. Even if it were hit, it would only be a question of time before Iran regains lost ground.
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. Enough to topple the government? Probably not, but surely enough to make governing a very difficult task. And then there's the whole Arab unrest, and disruption of supplies of Iranian oil factor...

Regardless, I'm pretty sure Israel will try it, with US connivance.

It should work through the U.N. to attempt to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.
Heh. Yeah, I'm sure Iran will listen to Kofi. After the complete failure of the UN to do anything about the US invasion of Iraq, the organization has been so completely discredited that it would be a massive political loss for Iran to comply with the UN.
Diplomatic/Economic levers could work, but as long as Russia and China are not willing to use them, any such action would be pointless.

It should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and use diplomacy to prevent conflict.
With the dismal possibility of any other option succeeded, it looks like we are headed towards this. The question will soon be how much of Iran's leaders (no way I'm gonna try and spell that name) anti-Israel rhetoric is populist and how much do realpolitik concerns matter. I still think it is unlikely that even a nuclear Iran is so apocalypse eager as it sounds.
For the first time ever, I'm happy not be living in Israel at this time.

Two gods enter, one god leaves.

Thunderdome!!!

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

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.

Since we can bomb them at will, they can never "regain" lost ground. Anything they build we can destroy. They cant stop us.

An empty threat, since they are likely to do that anyway.

Probably not. Or they would have already done so by now.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Not as long as the theocrats can capitalize on the people's fear of us.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

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.
So, an indefinate bombing campaign? That's feasible...
Less hubris and more reality.
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.
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.

I.Ignore Iran

If we simply ignore Iran then it could damage politically stability in the region. Not to mention, Iran if it gets nukes has deadly potential. Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to provoke fear among us.

II INVASION

Not even possible at the moment. Invasion could cut off oil and OP EC won't have enough supply to meet rising demand. Thus, oil prices go through the roof and it cripples the economy. At the moment the carrot and stick method is sadly one of the few options.

III UN

IMO the one option that at the moment has the chance of working. As Spork said economic and diplomatic levers can work. True. The problem is Russia and China. However, there are ways the US can get them on board. For Russia there is the possibility of luring them in with admission to the WTO. China can be handled due to their dependence on the US. China can be moved with diplomatic way and Bush needs to give Jintao some assurance on this area. The UN can be used and with Bush's new shake-ups we need some serious negotiating.

IV Bunker Bombs

Israel will get the job done if it needs to be. If we do this it can have several affects:

a) Oil Production in Iran drops. Prices Rise. Economies cripple.
b) Push Iran closer to Hamas
c) Political Backlash from Russia and China. Future containment chances look rocky if this happens.
d) Political instability

[/u]

__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that can't be cured by what's right with America" William Jefferson Clinton

Believe me, I thought for a long time about what we should do about Iran. I am no hawk, but for all of the arguments against bombing Iran, there is one argument for it that can't be refuted: If Iran has nuclear weapons, it will use them either directly or indirectly (by giving them to terrorists). Its government is Islamist, and it is impossible to negotiate with Islamists.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

The US has no 'right', either to deny or allow the development of nuclear energy in any other sovereign nation. Whether it has the power and the will to do so may be debated.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

But Christianity and Islam worship the same God.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.