My first post in this thread was not a typing exercise, Stormbringer. It is there for a distinct reason: A bombing campaign will not resolve the problem.
Wrecking the facilities that produce nuclear weapons will put an end to their ability to produce nuclear weapons. Your definition of failure seems primarily concerned with them not liking us, if that's the priority then you're right. If it's to destroy their capacity to build nuclear weapons, then you're not You acknowledge that we can indeed wreck their facilities. Which constitutes a success for a military strike.
You're shifting the burden of proof around, I see. But that's alright, because it's a strawman anyway: I've never said they'd be a good member, or that they should gain the weapons.
Once again, I will ask you for proof that negotiations and agreements are going to stop them. Is that truly beyond you?
As for any strawmen, you've continually pointed out reasons we shouldn't worry about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Pardon my if you're sending a seriously mixed message.
Can those proposing military action learn to discuss matters without lying about the opposition's position? Hrm?
And can you for once put forward a clear message? Hrm?
For one thing, they were refining in secret(Or so claimeth the knuckleheads of the media and current GOP), and confirmation came late. Now, if things were known about, maybe something should have been done.
They weren't. Or rather we were aware that they had the capacity and desire to. We had been haggling over their nuclear programs for I don't honestly know how long. It was going on for at least the majority of the Clinton Administration, perhaps even more.
The claim that we never saw it coming is only technically true. We simply assumed it was a way of extorting the usually round of pay-offs. So know one took it as seriously as we should have.
Of course, the fact they've dropped off the radar as irrelevent again, testifies that things worked to some manner of satisfaction. Or that the current pack of bozos left the situation without resolution; a sign against wanting them to have anything to do with a second run!
Not really. But we're unwilling, and thanks to their potential capability, are not able to do much. So naturally it gets ignored. There are the usual Hydra-headed talks but we can't really do anything less they nuke Japan or the West Coast.
Wow. You totally missed the bit where we've got years. Congratulations, Stormbringer: You're functionally illiterate.
You've missed the fact that those three years gives them time to harden their infrastructure, set up defenses, and of course the production time making for more to destroy should it come to that.
You've missed the fact that if we keep negotiating for three years, or perhaps even less, and they don't give up then we can't do anything about it. And of course we may well have less time if they only want a device or two to threaten a few key allies in blackmail.
You've missed the fact that the more progress they make, the harder it will be to convince them of international sincerity when it comes to denying them.
Time is not our friend because every bit of time makes it harder to do anything but talk. They don't take it seriously and international attention and pressure wanes. This is exactly the sort of ploy that wound North Korea up with the bomb. They kept breaking agreements until they had a couple of devices, at which point there was nothing we could do.
So again, I fail to see how it is we have three years to get jerked around. We've been down that road and it was a resounding failure.
Hence why one should take actions to support and aid the reformers. It's not like the US never did that before.
Except for the fact that we don't exactly have the contacts, we don't have willing allies in the political ranks, and frankly the "moderates" there don't have the backbone. The fact that the mullahs effortlessly plowed under the previous "reform" administration should tell you about how much public support there is for those moderates. So tell me, who is it we'll support? How do we get them support? What sort of backing will they really have?
So again, how can we count on political revolution changing the situation? Given the disasterous failue of "regime change" via the CIA in Iraq, do you really think Iran will go so much better?
Congratulations. You correctly surmise that doing nothing will not work. Except it's not been doing nothing, has it? And that's not my position, is it? See above about lying please.
The 'dicking around' has kept them from advancing because they only just got the labels off the refining equipment. They could have done this at 2002.
It delayed them long enough to get a hardline, old guard Revolutionary elected, I'll give you that.
The fact that they're hard at work again, despite promises to the contrary, suggests that it's only a question of when they get the bomb. All this did was delay them, not put an end to it. Negotiations, with no meaningful consequences for feet dragging, amounts to nothing. It's not stopping them and
at best it's only a delay.
Except they will continue to rebuild it; it is the mullahs little prize. Ergo, removing the mullahs by pushing resources and assistance to reformers is the best option. Sooner the better, so it happens before there are nukes.
So what? Let them lord it over their ruined facilities. Let them blather and bleat. Unless they have teeth, they'll be the same nuts but essentially harmless category as Huge Chavez.
As for reform, you've taken that as talsiman. Unfortunately even after decades, the mullahs are still in control. The opposition can be effectively out lawed. And the "great hope" of Khameni is out of office in favor of a good little mullah-soldier. Depending upon revolution in Iran is a foolish thing to base policy on, particularly when nuclear weapons are involved.
As for us formenting one: I will point to the sterling example of Iraq as just how swimmingly that's likely to work. We've got exiles and disgraced blowhards from Iran. That's not the seeds of a meaningful reform.
