The U.S. may not have the military capability to fight Iran, given how stretched it has become in Iraq.

The thinking of the most hawkish elements of the Bush administration was outlined by Michael Ledeen from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. In an article on August 14, he berated the critics of the invasions of Iraq and Lebanon for "a failure of strategic vision" and declared that a broader regional campaign against Iran and Syria was required. "Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah by fighting in Lebanon alone, just as we cannot provide Iraq and Afghanistan with decent security by fighting only there. The destruction of Hezbollah requires regime change in Damascus. Security in Iraq and Afghanistan requires regime change in Damascus and Tehran. Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan are not separate conflicts. They are battlefields in a regional war," Ledeen declared. Ledeen's remarks graphically set out the logic of unending military aggression that is inherent in the US doctrine of "preventative war" and plans for hegemony throughout the Middle East.

One must recognize that Israel would fight with Iran in an entirely different manner than our intervention in Iraq.

I'm just tuning into today's news, and Wolf Blitzer on CNN reported that Israel has nuclear weapons and may decide to try and take Iran out even if it has to go it alone.

Israel's preemptive strike against Iraq was heartily condemned in Washington and by the United Nations, although privately most governments, even in the Middle East, were pleased to see the setback to Saddam Hussein's ambition. In 1991, Maj. Gen. David Ivry, commander of the Israeli Air Force at the time of the raid, received a framed satellite reconnaissance photo of the destroyed reactor. The photo was inscribed: "With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job you did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made our job much easier in Desert Storm!" The photo was signed by Dick Cheney, then-U.S. Defense Secretary and later Vice President.

To hit Osirak in 1981, Israel's bombers flew in low over Saudi Arabia. In a study published late last year by the U.S. Army War College, Brom suggests that a strike against Iran's facilities could arrive by way of the Indian Ocean--roughly twice the operational radius of Israel's newest strike aircraft under optimal flying conditions. But Israel's fleet of specialized planes for in-flight refueling--five aging KC-130H tankers--doesn't have the capacity to get all those aircraft there and back again. The only way to manage it would be with a covert stopover midway--it's anybody's guess where.

only to be impotent at taking out what could be a real threat not just to hundreds of millions of Americans but the whole world?

First, we would not invade Iran on a "take and hold plan." What we would do is destroy a lot of infrastructure in one or two days of air ops.

"We have our sensors in place in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and most Arab countries. We know ahead of the time when they are coming, and since Mr. Bush has given American democracy along with the preemptive strike as the right of everybody in the world, we are going to use it and use it effectively. We are present in most of the military briefings of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as we see that it is imminent we hit them and hit them hard... Whether the U.S. or Israel attacks us, we will consider it as Israeli attack since we know how much power they have over the U.S. political and decision-making system." If the attack happens, that will trigger the nuclear efforts of Iran. We will definitely go underground and speed up nuclear weapon production, since there will be no choice except to have them and have them soon. Right now we do not need nuclear weapons which are a liability rather than an asset, because we do not have hostile enemy which we cannot smash when we want to. The country has been able to stand on its feet for the last 2,500 years and will do so in the future. Look at the last war we had with Iraq, which by the way, was shortest war we had during the last 200 years.">

Hussein Sharifi is a retired military officer who served in Iranian Imperial Army and Islamic republic army and now resides in the United States.

Don't threten us with your spitball retoric.

From our map we can see that within 48 hours, fallout would cover much of Iran, most of Afghanistan and spread on into Pakistan and India. Fallout from the use of a burrowing weapon such as the B61-11 would be worse than from a surface or airburst weapon, due to the extra radioactive dust and debris ejected from the blast site. In the immediate area of the two attacks, our calculations show that within 48 hours, an estimated 2.6 million people would die.
...
Over 1,000,000 people would suffer immediate injuries including thermal and flash burns, radiation sickness, broken limbs, lacerations, blindness, crush injuries, burst eardrums and other traumas. In the wider region, over 10.5 million people would be exposed to significant radiation from fallout (those in the light green to pink zones on the map above), leading to radiation sickness, future excess cancer deaths, genetic abnormalities in future generations, as well as high rates of stillbirths, miscarriages, malignancies and hypothyroidism. Most if not all medical facilities near the two attack sites would be destroyed, or located within the radiation 'hot zone' and thus unusable. Little or no medical care would be available to the injured in the aftermath of an attack, leading to many avoidable deaths.

Hmm. Perhaps Sailor can explain how Israel should deal with a nation which has stated that one of its policy goals is to wipe Israel off the map?

First, we would not invade Iran on a "take and hold plan." What we would do is destroy a lot of infrastructure in one or two days of air ops. (PPJ)

So TL blames Bush because his war in Iraq renders us incapable of attacking Iran, a "real danger". One would infer from this that she supports the idea of a preemptive war against Iran. (rogan)

this is just another excuse to attack Bush

if he did attack Iran he would be bashed just as much on this site.

When Clinton was in office we bombed Iraq on a regular basis to thwart any attempt at reconstituting or rebuilding wmd.

...and conscious, warm-blooded adultry with his mistresses. a fine statesmen if there ever was one -

who was comparing - I was just adding to his accomplishements!

One would infer from this that she supports the idea of a preemptive war against Iran.

When Clinton was in office we bombed Iraq on a regular basis

One would infer from this that she supports the idea of a preemptive war against Iran.

When Clinton was in office we bombed Iraq on a regular basis

So your case is nukes, conflagration and nuclear winter!? better them then us!

All Things Considered, August 21, 2006 · Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says that Iran has no intention of stopping its uranium enrichment program, despite a U.N. incentives package to end its nuclear program. Iran's self-imposed deadline to respond to the U.N. offer arrives Tuesday.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated on Tuesday that Israel was behind the recent publication of disparaging cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Khamenei explained that Israel conspired against the world's Muslim through the cartoons as a result of their frustration over the victory of Hamas. The cartoons are a ''conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas,'' he said, according to the AP.

couldn't agree with you more Jondee, especially if the "sizable region" stretches from NY to LA. (luf10ent)

Anyone who backs this war drive will look back and regret it forever. Anyone who still wants to get in the car these neoclowns are driving is going to be eternally embarrassed. You're going to think - what was I thinking? Consider this a preemptive intervention. Get out of the clown car and slowly back away. There is still time for you to pretend you were on to them the whole time.*

You can't negotiate with these people, you can't try to talk sense to these people. The only way to deal with them is to find them and bring them to justice.
--George W. Bush

Inherent in the approach is the misguided thinking that shock and awe will convince the people to abandon their leaders

Doesn't anyone remember that aggressive war is supposed to be the ultimate war crime?