Personally, I don't think this kind of strike will take place at all. I know it wouldn't if I were the US Secretary of Defense and I wouldn't
recommend this sort of thing if I were at the top of the CIA or if I were Secretary of State.
At one time Iran and its mullahs were totally against the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Indeed there was a fatwa
against the acquisition of
nuclear weapons, since rescinded. However that may have been, if I were Iranian, and rational, as CIA and Defense Department studies maintain Iranians
are, I would certainly be trying to beg, borrow, steal or manufacture nuclear weapons now
in the wake of developments in the region.
Nuclear weapons have done wonders for a crackpot regime like North Korea. Nobody bothers a crackpot regime that has nuclear weapons.
Iran may be Islamic to the eyeballs but it is not a crackpot regime.
American officials are not known for subtlety, so some kind of OK Corral style shootout may indeed take place. Other posters have pointed out that
despite an American victory in the shootout, serious difficulties could develop in the aftermath.
(Irony Alert) Students of history will know that the British collapsed as soon as the Germans started the blitz. Germany threw in the towel when its
major cities were leveled. Vietnam knuckled under when the US dropped more bombs on it than were dropped in all of WW2.
Naturally, the Iranians and other Islamic countries will follow suit. America's popularity will increase even higher than the record levels it is at
now and last but not least, Israeli security problems will be solved. (End of Irony.)
I think the United States should have a different policy in the region. I think it should take care of its economic concerns using traditional
business practices. (Please don't throw "freedom" and "values" back at me.)
If you can't haggle in the Middle East . . . well, let's just say The Lost Art of Haggling
should be back on the Harvard MBA course list.
Having said all that, if America decides to intervene on Iranian territory in the interests of fomenting regime change, with a view to getting someone
in power in Iran who will cooperate in dismantling the covert aspects of Iranian nuclear ambitions, she should go about it in an altogether different
I've posted on this before, and I don't have time to go over details but I think the way to destabilize and topple the mullah-ocracy in Iran is to
start trouble on Iran's western borders with Turkey and Iraq. This trouble will involve the Kurds, who are Christian and seeking their own
independent, oil rich state.
There will undoubtedly be difficulty over this with the Iraqis and the Turks. Kurdish "territory" overlaps all three countries in question. This
region is a geopolitical swiss army knife of multiple uses. There is a lot of scope for measured, cadenced creativity in strategic initiatives in the
region. Its a veritable cornucopia of chaos waiting to happen.
It definitely has problems, the chief of which is that the region is completely landlocked, but let's get real. We're talking about oil
nuclear weapons. This is a long term proposition. My two cents worth.
The most tantalizing and attractive thing about the creation, by hook or by crook, of Kurdistan
is that it will be, right down to the last
mortar round, America's one true friend in the region.
Edit: Just talked to a Muslim friend who told me that most Kurds are Sunni Muslim. I stand corrected but I don't think it really alters too much the
thrust of my argument. It does make some difference though, for sure. Iraq and Iran have Shia majorities which might work in America's favor in
dealing with the Sunni Kurds.
edit on 27-10-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)