| You argue like there is only two alternatives -- total war or that Iran's junta gets hundreds of nuclear weapons on strategic missiles. It just isn't true. 1. mc32 adressed this, so the historic precedent stands. You acknowledge that you have no clue how Iran's junta is -- or how it will be in the coming ten years. (Sure, no one else has a clue, maybe not even in Qom.) The president do seems out, he didn't take orders well enough. We just cannot rely on sanity in the Iranian junta over the coming decade, since we just don't know; if the junta wanted peace, they can get it tomorrow. 2. There were occasions close to buttons pressed in the cold war... A nuclear race in the unstable Middle East is NOT a good thing; many millions might die. (Already Assad threatened the whole Mid East, to stop regime change!) 3. No one will use many billions of dollars on regime change to protect the Iranians from their present regime. Even if it is the humane thing to do. Dictators today rely on this. But to leave the present situation alone is just not an alternative, because the next crazy junta will go for nuclear weapons with that as a motivation (South America?). Iran's junta can be dealt with. It is a matter of motivation. At present, Russia support any large weapon customers; given enough motivation, they'd change tune. The West can change Russia/China on this. Then you can start by e.g. finish destroying the Iranian economy. If they can't sell oil, the junta will react. It is just a question if you want to pay a price now or maybe millions of lives, later. I can't do the evaluation; I hope that Obama is not too preoccupied with the next election. |