Why do we need to attack Iran's Nuclear program, shouldn't we go after its most vulnerable target,

Why do we need to attack Iran's Nuclear program, shouldn't we go after its most vulnerable target, Its leaders!

My point is if we go after their nukes the people will be more likely to turn on us, hence a full scale war, whereas if we just target their political and military leadership it would be much clearer to the people of Iran that we are not against them but their hate speaking leaders.

*War is always to be used as the last viable option. War always is deadly, it is always ugly and usually there are only a few who win. This argument is a what if situation since we have not exhausted our diplomacy effort with Iran.

Anyone's opinion would be greatly appreciated!

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

ANYONE'S opinion would be helpful?

I think targeting the nuke plants is the right way to go.

Leaders are called leaders because they have followers, so if you attempt to kill the leaders, you have just united the followers against you. And the odds are, if you take out the leader...another will quickly fill the gap, and there’s a good chance that he wont be any better then the guy before him.

We need to use our Air Superiority to our advantage, which means we should use our stealth assets, like the B-2's & F-22's. IF we do strike Iran, we should hit every nuclear related target within the first 24 hours, there’s no reason to think that we cant accomplish that, as long as we use the stealth bombers & fighters & cruise missiles. and just to weaken the nations military might as a whole, I would also bomb normal military facilities, and of course in the first 24 hours, one of the main objectives should be to take out all of their missile sites, and have all overseas US bases within range of Irans best missile, be equipped & ready with a patriot missile system. I would also notify surrounding ally countries with in range of there best missile, like Israel & Europe, but just so leaks dont notify Iran of the up and coming attacks, I wouldn't tell our allies until an hour or so before the "shock & Awe pt.II" began, which should give them enough time to alert there military bases and have them be on high alert.

Considering where these sites are there is no need for a war. There is a big difference between daily boasting about the destruction of America and declaring war upon the USA. If they declared war they would then be lostat sea wondering what we are going to do. Kind of like Hitler declaring war on America for no reason. He spent year's wondering what we were doing while we already knew what we were doing. We also allowed a future enemy ( USSR ) to bear the brunt of the war considering they signed a pact with Hitler and invaded Poland along with Hitler.

Bottom line : 2 am. bunker busters and they will be out of business. All it takes is one crack on the foundation and it is mute. A Harpoon could simply do that. We could even blow a MOAB right about these plants that's the end of it all.

Assasinating their leaders would mean taking out their religious leaders.(The Mullahs) I don't think you would want to go that route. That would incite them more then anything for the majority of the hard-liners.

I'm thinking we could spare the Mullahs, all we really need to do is cause enough fuss in Iran to start a revolt agaisnt the government. There are tons of young Iranians that want to revolt if given the chance. Sniping off or dropping smart bombs on a few figureheads such as their president might be just enough to get the ball rolling.

The less bloody and less destructive the U.S. can be during war the easier the job will be afterwards.

I understand there is a fine line here before pushing Iran over the edge on a specific issue hence bringing the country together to fight the U.S. and brining about a revolution.

I think this is pretty dicey. I don't really care for Bush, but if I thought another nation was trying to target our President, I'd support retaliation.
I may not really care for my neighbor but if a gang of outsiders came in and attacked his house I would help in whatever way I could. I think the Iranians would respond the same, it's generally predictable human behavior.

Since Iran is an active participant in terrorism , it is linked to funding Hammas, Al-Aqsa, and a few others Iran has publicly admitted it is set on the destruction of Israel and the US. Whose house do you think got attacked first? We've already been terrorized, so have many other nations, haven't they already declared war on us?

Right, from our perspective. From their perspective they are doing what they need to do. Right or wrong (from our viewpoint) is irrelevant to them.
I'm just tyring to say, I think, if we bomb them it will turn the man in the street in Iran against us. I don't think it will result in a popular uprising against the national government. If the OP is right, that would be a great coup no doubt. I think human nature will lead to other results.

we aren't trying to win a popularity contest in the middle east, we are trying to get them to stop sending us terrorists.

I dont think there would be an uprising, because the vast majority of Iran agrees withy its leaders....and there thought is: America is invading there land, our military has controll of 2 countries surrounding them, and the pursian gulf below them. They see an attack all but inevitable, and they know the if we go to war with them...they will loose, They know they dont have resources & power that the US has, so there only hope from getting beaten is to get nuclear weapons. cause if they have nukes, its far less likely the US would attack, being that they would then threaten to nuke a major city.

there is a decent majority of the younger generation that likes the U.S. in Iran. It should not be underestimated.