As much as I like the idea of internally-generated regime change in Iran, I don't think it's coming anytime soon, considering the moderates pretty much boycotted the last elections in Iran...they knew it was rigged to favor the conservative mullahs.
But I tend to side with this viewpoint in the article. Rather than being seen as liberators, foreign bombs falling out of your sky and onto your country tend to bind everyone together against the foreign devil Great Satan attacker...namely, us.
Originally posted by The New Yorker“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”
Besides, even though Iran's been the biggest Middle Eastern thorn in our side since the Shah fell, we just don't have the troops to do it...let alone having to fight the whole "justification for war" battle over again.
We gotta fix Iraq first...unless Iran gets WAY too close to having a nuke.
Star wipe, and...we're out. Thrillin' ain't easy.
THE THRILL ACW-NWA Wisconsin Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life! (Click the big G to hear the Packers Fight Song in RealAudio...or try .MP3, .AU, or .WAV!)
The irony is that you can make a case for going into Iran more so than you can for going to Iraqi. I do think the United States should do something about Iran's nuclear program, but what is the question? The United States can't fight Iran and keep Iraqi stable, since Iraqi is barely stable now and probably be less after the "elections" or as I like to call vote and probably die. Even going into Iran will lead to probably more of a backlash with the Arab community since Iraqi has been on the outs since Gulf War I, but Iran has stayed close to Saudi Arabia and their ilk. So, going in with a large force is totally out of the question since Iran will put up a tougher fight than Iraqi. I do think special forces are the way to go. I would shead zero tears if someone "accidentally" decided to turn on one of their reactors to metaldown. I just think the administration is slowly digging a hole in the Middle East, that we can't get out of. I wouldn't mind the special forces if Iraqi was a secure, it is not, so we know have to face the idea of fighting a war against a confirmed nucelar foe.
(edited by A Fan on 17.1.05 0825)
"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
I wouldn't bank too much onto way Hersh says yet. While we all can agree that the Iranian regime could use ousting(A Fan is right; Iran was an easier case to make than Iraq) I still don't think anything is going to happen with the troop levels the way they are right now.
GREAT googily-moogily! That's not for the squeemish or people with sight. I like the last sentence though: "Can Hazel O'Leary's "Girls Gone Wild" appearance be far off?" I would oh so DEFFINEATELY buy THAT pay per view.