Well it's nice to be in demand I guess, even if the demand is only to read 3 pages of unchecked negativism and complete disregard for American
objectives which skews the entire discussion.
Let's begin with a simple evaluation of America's strategic priorities relating to Iran. All the touchy feely crap about giving women the vote and
bringing down radical Islam goes straight to the garbage bin. America has no reason to give a rip what the Iranian people believe or how they treat
their wives. What America does care about are the following:
1. Keeping nuclear weapons away from potential aggressors in the Middle East. This can be resolved from the air, with a relatively low number of
2. Destroying Iran's Aerial and Naval ability to threaten access to the Strait of Hormuz, which could be used to cut off oil flow or American naval
access to Kuwait and Iraq. This can be accomplished from the air as well, although it will take more time and munitions.
3. Eliminating the Iranian militaries ability to manuever against neighboring countries, especially Iraq, as well as it's ability to respond with
full effectiveness against a prospective uprising. It need not be entirely destroyed, only deprived of mobility by the targeting of aircraft, fuel
storage, and the vehicles of key units. This can be accomplished by extensive bombing.
Now, the Iranian people may or may not attempt an uprising and may or may not be successful in it, but remember this, Saddam WOULD have been gone six
months after the Gulf War, if the attempted coup had not suffered the same fate as the Bay of Pigs invasion.
An excerpt: "Our programme [Panorama on England's B.B.C.-1] has found evidence that several Iraqi generals made contact with the United
States to sound out the likely American response if they took the highly dangerous step of planning a coup against Saddam. But now Washington
The Iraqi military revolted after the gulf war. If had just given them back their weapons and used our airpower to clear the way for them, they would
have been able to take Iraq. We rebuffed them because we feared the division of Iraq. We didn't want the South in Iranian hands, nor the Kurds
There is strong reason to believe that if we could defeat Iran decisively and destroy their command and control infrastructure that the CIA could
infact convince officers who did not support the Mullahs to make their move, just as the Iraqi generals were willing to seize the moment when we had
Saddam on his heels.
That would be ideal, but is not even really necessary. Truth be told, it is of little matter to us whether or not Iran remains a theocracy, or even a
haven for terrorists. Reducing the strategic threat posed by Iran, as well as increasing our ability to carry out small scale operations against
terrorists in Iran can be accomplished strictly from the air. If Iraq has proven anything it is that a half-hearted occupation of less then 300,000
troops doesn't do as muc as we would like for exterminating terrorists. So why put them there at all, when simply weakening them would allow us to
make special forces incursions or airstrikes on targets as they appear, without putting a large force in country to be sniped at?
The only real concern over who ends up in control or whether the nation falls into civil war is that it might cut back on oil production, and frankly
I think it would be good idea to let the happen. It would force the UN's hand into putting in peacekeepers and carrying out the occupation for us if
the need for boots on the ground should arise.
So there you have it- the threat from Iran is a strategic one rooted in the technical capabilities of their armed forces, and can be eliminated from
the air. Controlling Iran and rooting out every last terrorist and mullah is not necessary. It would be a nice bonus, but if it can't be accomplished
through encouraging an uprising or forcing a civil war which leads to the UN being forced to carry its own weight for a change, then it need not be
undertaken at all.
As I said the first time, occupation is not strategically necessary.
The Vagabond has spoken. If history is any indicator, there is a 50% chance that this discussion will be dead in a day. (I still haven't entirely
figured out why threads die once I give the run-down, but it has this funny way of happening).