No, I don't believe so, though Bush has to get his prioritys straight. The Israel - Hesbolah conflict on a global scale doesn't measure, ditto Turkey. Iraq and Afganistan are also not in a position to threaten globally. Iran and North Korea are the most pressing problems in terms of their ability to threaten on a global scale due to superior technology. China should put diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea who are likely to listen to them. It's in China's self-interest to do this as I doubt they'd be comfortable with an unstable nuclear dictatorship on their doorstep. Iran is a larger problem that seems to be taking a back seat to less threatening problems, though essentially the situation in the middle east at the moment is a war by proxy between the US and Iran.
Iran zigged when they should have zagged. Any rational person would think that, seeing the second Iraq-U.S. war first hand -- the Iranian government would immediately think "Hey, let's make sure that doesn't happen to us." Instead, their reaction seems to be more along the lines of "What can we do to ensure that happens to us?" Truly bizarre. It's like the Taliban after 9/11. They never believed that the U.S. could take Afghanistan. All of the religious zealotry in the world doesn't make you bulletproof. So, the Iranians will nuke someone -- either Israel or the U.S. or both. Then, the United States will suddenly develop the national will to remove the current Iranian regime. That's not a world war, because no other country is insane enough to back Iran in that conflict.
They believe they can make a stronger stance against the US in combat than Iraq did. Which is probably true. Iran managed to develop and improve Russian military technology, a thing the Iraqis never did. They have a bigger and stronger army, they have thousands upon thousands of religious fanatics willing to blow themselves up at a moment notice. I don't think they can win, but as long as they still believe it, the fight will be tough. I also believe the people of Iran are yearning for a regime change even at a cost.
It's not a ground war that America could take on. With the unpopularity of Iraq and the prospect of a hell of a lot more of American deaths than in Iraq I just can't see it happening. Tactical air strikes may happen, but I can't see a ground invasion.
Again, I agree. But you can hardly enforce a regime change using air strikes alone, unless there is an organized coup on the way and the only thing you need to do is stir things up. The best solution would be an internal coup that will bring a new sensible regime that will start paving the way to democracy. I think there is a long way to go but the current theocracy got to go, for the people of Iran for the middle east and the entire world. When that happens the entire region will calm down.
I dont think USA vs Iraq and Israel vs Everyone else over there comes out to WWIII. Besides the US there are no other super powers in the game. But more importantly no one can match or beat the US Military. The problem is no one else has enough cool toys.
I'm not sure a regieme change would be woth the hassle and the cost. Intelligence-led precision airstrikes to contain any nuclear or military threats would be enough, but the intelligence would have to be a hell of a lot better than in Iraq.
I'm not sure how good the intelligence can be, if Iraq was that bad Iran might be worse. Even though, you can never really know if you hit everything or the right targets even with adequate intelligence. In any case, we'll destroy it, they will build it again. It's very hard to destroy knowledge already obtained. Again, the best solution would be a regime change. EVERYONE will benefit from it.
Our intelligence in Iran is extremely limited. Tactical airstrikes cannot be expected to remove, or even significantly reduce, the threat from a hidden nuclear weapons program. Strategic bombing (think Dresden), nuclear bombing, or a full ground assault will be necessary. Unlike the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, the current Iranian regime enjoys significant popularity from the population of youth who have grown up under their brainwashing since the revolution in 1979. This will make tactical strikes unproductive and a ground offensive much more difficult. It also means that our hopes for an internal regime are very close to nonexistant.
Well, of course. We could, if we wanted to. We took Germany by similar methods. We could certainly take Iran. The difficulty, of course, would be in making us want to. We're not so good at generating and maintaining that level of national will. The other question, and possibly the more important question, is why should we? It would be one hell of a lot easier to use strategic or nuclear bombing. The friendly casualties would be significantly lower.
The US certainly has the military and technological might to make it possible, but sociological reasons would prevent them doing so. Since Germany the media and changing attititude mean the general public are less willing to accept military casulties. The media bring home the realities of war to people sitting at home. Vietnam should have been a lot easier to win than WW2 but it was the publics lack of will for a prolonged fight that ultimately prevented victory. The public would be more willing to accept strategic airstrikes, though as I said before this depends heavily on intelligence sources. The only current path of action that I can see is to utilise international pressure and economic sanctions. This would have the benefit of being seen to be more 'acceptable' to the rest of the Arab world. If the situation worsens however it could make things very difficult.
That's why I said it relies heavily on intelligence. Bombing anything and everything won't get you anywhere apart from a lot of argry Arabs and Westerners. The intelligence has to be spot on to even contemplate that. We don't know that until we've tried it. I realy fail to see any logical alternative anyway.
I think we're failing to communicate here. Do you understand the difference between tactical airstrikes and strategic bombing? In a nutshell, you can think of tactical airstrikes as "I want to destroy this building and that building and kill Bob and Ted without harming, if possible, Carol and Alice." In the same way, you can think of strategic bombing as "I want to level this city and that city." For tactical airstrikes, you need exceptionally accurate intelligence. For strategic bombing, you need a map. Tactical airstrikes will do nothing to solve this problem, for two main reasons: 1. We don't have that level of intelligence information concerning the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Literally, we do not know where to strike. Additionally, at least one research facility has been located under a hospital. 2. Many of the facilities we do know about are so deep underground that tactical airstrikes will not have an appreciable effect upon their operation. 1. We have been trying just that, and the Iranians are leading us around by our dicks. They want to play cat and mouse until they get their new weapons online. This is exactly what is going on today. I can not believe that you said "until we've tried it", when that is exactly the 100% ineffectual course which we have been following for decades. 2. You must think outside of the box. The current plan is a complete failure and must be replaced. Tactical airstrikes are not a technially feasible alternative. This leaves us with several potential alternatives: a. Strategic bombing b. Nuclear bombing c. Ground invasion Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of the potential solutions: Strategic Bombing Pros: Less expensive than a ground invasion, less politically unpleasant than nuclear bombing Cons: Least effective solution, still lots of bad press from Liberals and Islamists Nuclear bombing Pros: Least expensive solution, more certain to be effective than any other solution Cons: Most bad press Ground invasion Pros: Most friendly to our enemies Cons: Most expensive solution in terms of both dollars and friendly casualties, less certain of success than nuclear bombing