Striking Iran: Most support, if necessary

It is time to clarify the debate over Iran and its nuclear program. It’s easy to criticize the current course adopted by the United States and its allies, to huff and puff about Iranian mendacity, to point out that Russia and China won’t agree to tougher measures against Tehran, and to detail the leaks in the sanctions already in place. But what, then, should the United States do?
http://www.70news.com/2009/10/06/containing-a-nuclear-iran-it-is-time-to-clarify-the-debate-over-iran-and-its-nuclear-program/

Strike Iran SAP don't wait for Obama's TelePrompTer mumbling.

In other news, 61% of Americans are flipping CRAZY.

Military engagement with Iran? Are you nuts? My God.

So, let me get this straight: Republicans aren't satisfied with the number of dead Americans coming out of Iraq in body bags, so now they want more Americans to die in Iran too? They won't be satisfied with merely bombing Iran - they'll want to invade and occupy Iran too. I guess nothing satisfies a Republican like war 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (just as long as middle-aged white males aren't at the front lines but instead are hiding behind desks in Washington, DC).

Strike Iran SAP don't wait for Obama's TelePrompTer mumbling.

Posted by: Inky | October 6, 2009 11:23 AM

Lead the way big boy!

This has high support because of Biblican Prophecy plain and simple. So many Rapture Republicans want Armageddon.

While seven in ten Republicans say so, and two-thirds of independents agree, fewer Democrats -- 51 percent -- support the idea.

----

Support from 70% of Republicans and 2/3s of "Independents" (code for Republicans too ashamed to self-identify as such).

1. Will it be ok to plan for this financially and pay for it with increased taxes? Or should we just issue Blank Checks ala George W. Bush the MBA President and his Republicant toadies in Congress?

2. Should we reinstitute the draft in order to ensure we can meet personnel demands, or should we lower the standard for entrance to having a pulse (most of the time at least)?

3. What is the factor by which the cost of a war on Iran would exceed the cost of the Obamas' anniversary dinner? Given that you knuckledraggers were so incensed over the latter, I'm sure you're that much more concerned about the former.

Time to put up or -- please please -- shut up, wingnuts. You think it's important to attack Iran? Fine. There are grown ups in charge now. That means actual planning and actual money-raising in the real world, not drunken cowboy/rub-on-tan world. Surely even dimwits like you have learned (are learning) enough from Iraq and Afghan. to know that a repeat of history would be suboptimal.

Iran is run by a madman ArmedinaJihad and the rest of the radical Moulahs that want to wipe Israel off the map and create their own version of Armageddon. Why don't you lefties learn who the REAL enemy is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3642984/Will-the-12th-Imam-cause-war-with-Iran.html

Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

@Gary:

Are you will to have your taxes go up in order to pay for this? Please wipe the foam from your mouth before answering.

Why don't you lefties learn who the REAL enemy is:
Posted by: Gary | October 6, 2009 2:52 PM

We know who the enemy is Gary....our difference comes with how to deal with them. I would have to say that from recent history you would have learned that things are not always what they appear, or not that easy. I would have thought Iraq would have taught you that. Why don't you ask Americans now, how they would supported that war? By the way...you left out North Korea also. Shouldn't we bomb them too? Then China won't like that, so we should bomb China too. Then Russia....is there any end to your madness? If it is a last resort, fine, but until all other tactics fail, relax, take a deep breath and take your finger off the trigger.

Yes Gary. We've been through the whole Madman-In-Strange-Clothing bit before. Scared. Really.

Assuming we all share your terror, are you willing to pay for the military effort by having your taxes go up? If not, how to you suppose we'll pay for it?

Gary, Libs aren't concerned about Islamic terrorists, it is all "multiculturalism and diversity is what makes us great" and apology tours. When it comes to dealing with enemies, give them a hug, smile broadly and put your arm around them. Remember, it is a new day, time to embrace the Marxist dictators and turn our back on traditional allies.

As a liberal it is perfectly acceptable to be for a war while running for office and needing to appear strong. As a liberal it is perfectly acceptable to be indecisive once elected and just wait until some force, appearing to be outside your control, forces your decisions.

No, small minded libs can't imagine "military force" meaning anything but a protracted ground war. In their minds they are still the smartest kid in seventh grade. Just look at the fool they blindly put in the white house.

No, small minded libs can't imagine "military force" meaning anything but a protracted ground war. In their minds they are still the smartest kid in seventh grade. Just look at the fool they blindly put in the white house.

Posted by: Hans | October 6, 2009 4:29 PM

You mean a protracted ground war like the 8 year grind that the Republican military geniuses created in Afghanistan? It seems like that was what military force in Afghanistan sure meant to conservatives, wasn't it? It's the folks that don't realize that we are already in a protracted ground war due to Republican incompetence who are the real fools.

@Hans:

No, small minded libs can't imagine "military force" meaning anything but a protracted ground war.

====

Yeah. We're all just nuts, Hans. We've only got the entire history of war since the beginning of time as precedent to rely on in that regard.

Remember "shock and awe," you braindead simp? We we going to avoid a protracted ground war through mighty air power. That was 6.5 years ago and counting, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars lost to show for the effort.

Back to your hole. Now. American can do without people like you, who are hell bent on destroying it.

Assuming we all share your terror, are you willing to pay for the military effort by having your taxes go up? If not, how to you suppose we'll pay for it?

Posted by: a blinkin | October 6, 2009 3:39 PM

Exactly what do you think the world will be like after the next big terrorist attack here in the US, blinkin? You think that the economy won't nose dive if terrorists pop off a dirty bomb in your democrat controlled haven of capitalism, NEW YORK CITY. You leftists cry about wars, (and nobody wants war) but history shows that you either ignore threats until we are attacked or you try and appease which only makes the enemy more aggressive. You stick your head in the sand until you are attacked and then you want to be rescued from the bad guy. Now, after things settle down a little, you decide that the bad guy wasn't so bad, and blame the war on the people that rescued you.

it is all "multiculturalism and diversity
Posted by: Hans | October 6, 2009 4:29 PM

I didn't realize you were Native American. How's Gretel?

Micheal and blinkin - Israel already showed that nuke facilities can be taken out without a ground war. I guess it still hurts that you and a majority of dems were fooled into two wars by the stupidest president in our history. And to show their anger, the dems keep voting to fund these mistakes. Well now your fool, who makes Bush seem like a Rhodes Scholar, has to actually make a decision, only he doesn't know how. He's spent his life surrounded by anti war activists and doesn't know how to evaluate his options. More troops to Afghanistan for an unwinnable war, attack Pakistan, withdraw to the cities, leave altogether, none of his options will make the world love him and he can't just rail from the sidelines any more. Iran is watching and months of indecision is all they've seen. The Iranians have nothing to worry about, this president has Jimmy Carteritis.

I want to go on the record right now;
I do not support striking Iran.

1. Shock and awe does not work
2. It will galvanize hatred of America and add to the strength of the radicals.
3. It will create thousands more terrorists.
4. We will be committed to a third front that is unwinnable.
4A. Americans don't have the will or the $$ to form the draft military of millions required to win this possible three front war.
5. Deterrence will work with Iran, like it was with Iraq before GWB's vanity war.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris | October 6, 2009 6:22 PM
.
I agree with you, but for none of the reasons you cite.
.
I am simply against going to war with anyone who does not pose an immediate threat to our security, and Iran doesn’t fit that criterion. Furthermore, Iran will not likely fit that criterion for many years to come.
.
We should take Washington’s advice, get out of our foreign entanglements and seek peace, neutrality and trade with everyone. The Chinese are getting ahead of us by heeding the advice we have ignored.
.
If the other nations in the area want our help to contain Iran, let them ask for that help. Our interference in their neck of the woods has already caused even our nominal friends to ritually condemn us in the media. In addition, we have no business playing World Cop. It’s too expensive to bear by ourselves, and it doesn’t help our image.

I am simply against going to war with anyone who does not pose an immediate threat to our security, and Iran doesn’t fit that criterion. Furthermore, Iran will not likely fit that criterion for many years to come.

.

Posted by: John W. | October 6, 2009 7:55 PM

The difficulty is in determining what is an immediate threat. Do you wait until the missiles are in the air? on the pad? in the factory? warheads tested? Or do you wait until Isreal decides it is in immediate danger and starts lobbing missiles?

Apparently, even the messiah is beginning to wake up to the fact that Iran may pose a danger to our interests sooner rather than later.

I hope we aren't relying on our intelligence services to make our assessment, we didn't even know of a processing facility until Obama decided to apoligize to Iran at the UN.

I am disheartened that the nation's best brains fail to fathom the obvious when it comes to the Iran Conundrum.

Sanctions wont work. Tehran has two patrons -Russia n China- not adverse to black-market dealings, plus a small port town called Dubai which smuggles in anything petrodollars can buy. If Iran survived the crippling embargo of the 80s during war w Iraq, what makes Washington think the wily mullahs cant hold out under 'tougher' sanctions now?

Military strike is a no-go. Iran didn't choose the holy city of Qum as a nuclear site for nothing. Bombing Qum would be an outright declaration of war on Shia Islam - does the US want to hedge bets on how that will play out with marytrdom-mad Shiites scattered across Iraq, Lebanon, and Pakistan? Nevermind that Iran's parallel army, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, are able to operate independent of centeral command in cells near border areas with Iraq and Afghanistan, which means they will put up a far more painful fight than Saddam or the Taliban. And then, theres the little glich of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz ...

There is only one viable solution to eliminating the danger posed by Tehran. And its one that the Iranian people will embrace, and the world -who was witness to this summer's atrocities by the hardliner faction now dominating Iran - will laud America for.

Fund, support, empower the pro-democracy opposition Green Movement in Iran. Such a policy tool is no longer comprable to Bush's "regime change" agenda. The young populace of Iran has already cracked the pillars of the regime's rule, and need only the final push for evolution from within to occur. In that case, the US wont need to bang its head against the wall for a solution, because the problem will be erased.

-- a Washingtonian

Is someone keeping the record for C. Morris? And will you be sure and record 4a. With which I agree somewhat. So, the alternative is to sit here at home and wait. They won't stop. Heck, it only takes a couple hundred $$$ to make a peroxide bomb. And, it is so much better to have them come here and bring their lovely brand of Jihad to us.
By the way, the article above declares that the majority of Americans Still agree with Bush's idea of preventative strikes. No, it doesn't say that, but that is what it means.
And wasn't it great to see the White House decorated with all those Astroturf Doctors? Man, that makes me trust Obama and his plan. For the next photo op, BO should have hundreds of mini Obamas all reading from the teleprompter in sync. Led by Nancy (the Queen of Astroturf) Pelosi.

Gary:

You wouldn't answer my question because you don't have an answer. Assuming for the sake of argument that we all agree it's a good idea to attack Iran, how do you plan to pay for it? The answer is you don't know and don't dare utter the words "tax increase." As usual, a Republican who deals only with emotion and is entirely lacking in substance.

Hans: I opposed Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I was right. You and Murderer Bush were wrong. That any number of cowardly Dems supported the war indeed speaks poorly for them, but they were supernumeries anyway. These wars were started based on Republican lies, and have no end in sight due to Republican incompetence. One lesson we've certainly learned from these two fiascos is that if you want something run well, you don't let a Republican anywhere near it.

To those who are alarmed by this article, take comfort: the likelihood of Obama ordering a military strike against Iran is about the same as Obama cutting taxes -- nonexistent.

* * * * *
Posted by: Hans | October 6, 2009 8:50 PM
.
First, it is fairly certain that neither Iran nor any other country poses an “immediate threat” in the absence of some WMD (i.e. a nuclear weapon) or a system of delivering it in a manner that threatens our security. As far as we know, Iran has neither at this point in time, and is not likely to acquire both for a number of years (short of buying them).
.
Second, the existence of an “immediate threat” sufficient to bring war has to be more than the existence of a WMD and a delivery system. The Soviet Union had a workable hydrogen bomb by the mid 1950s, as well as bombers that could deliver it to the U.S. These facts, however, were never deemed sufficient reason to go to war with the Soviet Union. That’s probably because we knew the Soviet Union didn’t have a first strike policy. As long as the Soviet Union only posed a potential “threat,” our corresponding potential threat to the Soviet Union (in the form of Mutually Assured Destruction) was sufficient to answer our security needs.
.
Thus, it’s not merely the possession of such weapons, but also the intent to use them offensively and without provocation that constitutes a sufficient “immediate threat.” To date, the United States is the only country to detonate a nuclear weapon on the soil of another country in furtherance of hostile war operations. In contrast, Iran has never indicated its willingness to attack or destroy the U.S. once it has nuclear weapons. Also, there is no indication that Iran would not refrain from using such weapons if we made it clear that a WMD strike would result in overwhelming retaliation.
.
Third, contrary to your suggestion, it is not enough for Iran simply to “pose a danger to our interests” to justify warlike operations. Our “interests” in the world are not coextensive or coterminous with our “security.” Our friendly relations with some countries in the region (like Kuwait or the UAE, for instance) are in our “interests” but not necessary to our security. One could also say that the steady flow of oil or other articles of commerce are part of our “interests.” Would you then suggest that disruption of these things would be grounds for war? (I know that’s a tough question because wars have been had for less.) The point is that protecting our “interests” is too nebulous a basis upon which to justify war. War should be limited to those instances necessary to protect hearth and home, and never merely to defend the power to make money.
.
Fourth and finally, it should be none of our business to worry whether Israel decides to launch its own attack. We are not well suited to decide the foreign policy of other countries. Nor are we the world’s cop. Mutual hostility between Israel and Iran is the problem of those nations and, perhaps, the UN (if that wimpy organization can ever learn to do more than wring its hands). Sticking our nose into the business of other countries has created more hostility toward us than it has amity and esteem.

blinkin, your over the top insults and prejorative comments don't need an answer. They speak for themselves.
Iran has been developing nuclear weapons, while the UN and the rest of the world has done nothing. They can buy the long range missile system to deliver it from Russia. They just were both caught by Israel in a deal that would have given Iran the best ground to air defense missile system in the world.
Regime change is an option, but Obama just let the oportunity for that get away. Threatening sanctions, (how long has that been going on...years now) isn't doing anything. Either cut off their gas supply, and good luck with that since Russia would love to be the only source for Iran, or take action. Decisive action. OH, I forgot we can't make a decision. How about a coin toss then.

Posted by: John W. | October 7, 2009 3:54 PM

Cogent and well constructed comments. I would suggest that threats can take the form of international blackmail, disruption of trade or extortion as reflected in our policies towards N. Korea. Threats can also arise from third party agreements. Iran has actively supported fighters in Iraq with weapons and training and has had close relations with Syria.

A massive disruption to oil deliveries is a direct threat to hearth and home, not to mention the delivery of food and medicine. It is not just about making money although you might have noticed a more than passing relationship between money and our economy. A threat to the economy is no different than lobbing a few missiles at the east coast, in my opinion, although the later would have a positive effect on the political landscape.

Finally, how Israel responds to a threat is important as our foreign policy has never been unilateral and the implications of a war between Israel and Iran would impact the US, EU and APAC countries. We will be directly impacted even if we choose to sit back and do nothing.

Look at the disruption to our economy and the ROW from a housing/credit bubble. It is naive to think that Iran would not exercise its new found power should it develop nukes, even with crude delivery devices. It will also have the effect, through power shifts, to motivate other governments to also develop or acquire weapons.

I would not categorize military action as a first course of action nor should we always wait until it is the only course. To evaluate options now while we still have some is simply prudent. To assume that Iran's nuke capability will remain beneign until they can target US cities is shortsighted and dangerous.