http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nucl...ns.html?print=t
I'll let it be known that I'm strictly opposed to any military strikes against Iran unless they strike first against any country. In the link above, a group of concerned scientists have stated that airstrikes will not be sufficient to destroy Iran's WMDs if they do indeed have WMDs. The most powerful Earth Penetrating Weapons (containing small nuclear warheads) can crush bunkers up to 1000 ft deep. However, modern tunnelling technologies can create much deeper bunkers and using EPWs would kill over 1 million people in Iran and the surrounding countries like Iraq and Pakistan.

What the scientists suggested is that if a military action is carried out, conventional bombs will have to be used to destroy any missile launchers on the ground and ground troops would actually have to move in to destroy anything underground. In such a case, the US could provide the aircraft and Europe could provide the troops. And Iran will fight back with everything it has if such a scenerio plays out.

So the question for those who support the option of a military strike is
Would you support the option of ground troops

Would you support the option of ground troops

Anything and everything should be an option. Taking something off the table, particularly one of the options that is most likely to be successful, does nothing but weaken your bargaining position. A very strong bargaining position would be necessary to solve this issue diplomatically, as Iran is holding most of the cards currently. So, in short, keeping ground troops as an option is what is necessary to keep them from being used in that fashion. Removing options is what will most likely lead to military confrontation.

Would you support the option of ground troops

I would certainly support the option of ground troops. As Hobbes says, to remove an option is to limit oneself unduely. Under the right conditions, I would also support the use of ground troops. Always. Thats what they exist for.

The real question ought to be; under what conditions would you support the use of ground troops against Iran?

Most people are rightly concerned that GW Bush has some sort of a plan to use military forces against Iran. Whether or not this is true is just impossible to know. Even for Seymour Hersh.
Afghanistan followed by Iraq, in my opinion does not automatically mean a pattern has been established.

What could actually be happening in Washington is a bluff by the Bush administration. Knowing full well he cannot muster a seriously large invasion force, he could be putting on a show of belligerence designed to fool the Iranians into assuming he is 'just crazy enough to do it!'. At the same time, he maintains various other, more credible military options that don't rely on mass ground troops.

Letting the E3 nations take a diplomatic initiative indirectly supports this possibility since it gave the USA both the chance to play 'bad cop' and gave them time to get ready for what ever might follow the inevitable failure of diplomacy in the face of Iran's stalling.

Like bucket has said else where on this forum, there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians are seeking to become a nuclear power. In their feeble minds they see this both as their right and a means to an end.

In his now closed thread, Genesisblade asked 'Why should the West feel it has the right to tell Iran that it cannot develop its nuclear technology?'

All people have that right. If Iran has a 'right' to develop nuclear technology, then the rest of the world, in order to protect ourselves, have an equal right to prevent them.
And by what ever means are deemed necessary.
Including the conventional use of ground forces.


edited for spelling.

A nice animation of what the scientists are talking about can be found here:

link

That's about all I wanted to post but to keep this from being a one liner...

I don't support the use of ground troops at all. It's going to cost too much in terms of lives and money. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq, Iran has a much stronger military than Iraq, and after "Mission Accomplished" in Iran, the insurgency would be much more powerful than in Iraq. And of course, if we're once again side tracked into going into Iran, Iraq will collapse and Afghanistan will follow, we'll be stretched way too thin.

Thanks for the animation link on the bunker buster nuclear bomb, psyclist.

I think we've done enough in the region for now, more than enough. Our troops, as good as they are, cannot contain the insurgency or the civil war that is taking place in Iraq. This is becoming an exercise in throwing money and lives down a black hole.

Even the most powerful and, arguably, the richest nation in the world has finite resources, and some of these resources need to continue to be "diverted" from military use to be used for the American people stateside.

Just what would we hope to accomplish in Iran: The same stability we're now seeing in Iraq? I don't see the Iranians giving up their nuclear plans without a fight.

What ground troops? The military pool of man power is already strained to support troop rotations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and our other outposts of empire. Neither Europeans nor other countries have given any sign they would support any military attack on Iran, let alone commit their own forces to such an adventure.

As discussed elsewhere in these forums, the whole idea of a military attack on Iran at this time is insane. We should be talking face to face with the Iranians and offering some real concessions in return for some tight international oversight of their nuclear program. If that fails, after a few years, the world should consider serious international sanctions. If they fail also, we should be prepared to contain a nuclear armed Iran - not initiate nuclear war to destroy it!

This administration's policy of hard line confrontation with states considered nuclear proliferation threats has been a total failure. The example of Iraq goes without saying, confrontation with North Korea played a big role in pushing them into refining fuel rods into plutonium and the likely construction of one to six nuclear war heads. If we can live with a nuclear NK, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran? Is it the oil? Is it the influence of Israel on US foreign policy? (See This Article).

What confrontation in North Korea? Was it when we withdrew all the north-facing nuclear warheads from South Korea in the mid ninties? Took our forces out of the DMZ? Scaled back and withdrew forces from Seoul? Or was it when we offered them the lightwater nuclear reactor deal?



Well, if we can live with a nuclear North Korea, gee...why can't we live with nuclear armed Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, and Sudan? Because nuclear weapons in many hands exponentially increases the likelihood that they will be used, especially for unstable and/or authoritarian countries.

I'd say no to the ground troops in Iran idea, and yes to international sanctions. Of course, we do sanction Iran already what we really need is for the rest of the world to play ball too...and I doubt that China or Russia ever will. If Europe is willing, it could make a difference though.

(Mrs. Pigpen)

We can debate the NK proliferation elsewhere, I will merely state here that the hard line approach adopted by this administration when a uranium enrichment program was admitted to by NK led to its withdrawal from the plutonium reprocessing agreement reached in the Clinton Administration and to a much shorter path to sufficient fissile material for a nuclear device.

I agree with you about the dangers of more and more nuclear states. That is why I opposed spreading nuclear technology around the world with research reactors and "atoms for peace." It is also why I support all the provisions of the NPT, including those requiring existing nuclear states to reduce the number of existing warheads and eventually eliminate them. More and easier to use "bunker-buster" devices are as much a proliferation threat as new nuclear states. Letting Pakistan and India off so lightly for their proliferation was also a mistake.

Your logic should also have been applied to Israel when it began developing nuclear weapons. A simple threat to stop our economic and military assistance unless Israel ceased its program would have probably done the trick. It should have been obvious that a nuclear armed Israel was going to promote nuclear armed Muslim states.

What I don't agree with is threatening countries with regime change and military attack (particularly not with nuclear weapons) in the interest of preventing proliferation.

(Edited to add this link I just discovered to an important speech by Representative Ron Paul that makes many of the same points. Ron Paul is a conservative Republican with a Libertarian bend. The quoted introduction is from the UFPPC.org website).

Ron Paul Speech

While I would want to have the “option” of troops or whatever is required this is clearly a job for the UN and the IAEA. IMO they do not have the will to deal with it but that said we should not have to do anything but support the Europeans who are as much against this a we are. Time to let FRANCE step up to the plate or the corrupted UN SC. I say we stay the heck out of it. First countries to get nuked are in the region (like Israel). Our strategic interest is in the supply of oil, which would be severely disrupted, if Iran attacked anyone, and the WMD to terrorists issue, but with nukes we can trace it back to country of origin more easily then say Bio/Chem WMD.



You know this weapon does not exist don’t you? And the development is not even funded – so if it were funded today (unlikely) we would have it in about 3 years or so. Far too late to be even an option for Iran or anywhere else.

In addition there are many good reasons to develop the weapon. Negotiations (including the extreme which is war) is all about the ability of a country to safeguard its strategic weapons esp. WMD and the existence of deep underground facilities is an important part of the equation today. Saddam had a German made deep bunker that would take at least 16 direct hits by cruse missiles to damage (see link below). Melosovich had one as well and all the bombing we did there didn’t even scratch it. Certainly the North Koreans have even better bunkers. The existence of these bunkers means that countries can safely keep their expensive WMD programs out of the reach of superior air power and essentially force a ground war invasion to eliminate, for example, the nuclear weapons program in Iran. The nuclear bunker buster takes that “chip” off the table since the deep bunkers would be vulnerable to it – even the newer very deep bunkers

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=367822003

Sometimes I have to wonder whether faulty military intelligence and people's apparent separation of concern is the best device ever created to kill young American boys. No I would not support ground troops because they would be dying for nothing just like they did and are doing in Iraq at this moment.
First of all, all sane sensible military commanders know full well that air power won't win a war, short and long term. Bomb whatever however much they want, the fact is that once the planes are gone, the living emerge and continue their lives just like they did in Germany, Japan, China, Britain, and every other country which suffered under heavy air bombardments. Without men on the ground, that ground is not under your control, and control is the only way you can gain the peace after a destructive war.
I laughed at the comment "we'll bring the bombs and others bring the troops". Almost as if it's a sharing game where all levels are equal. And that was in reference to underground complexes which would definitely lead to a likely 10 to 1 casualty rate, and NOT in the GI's favor.
If I could ask a question of my own: Why aren't Americans confused by the US plans for nuclear attacks on Iran in corelation to the US's insistence that nukes are a bad thing? It's no different from someone telling you not to hit black people...while hitting a black person. Why aren't people upset about that?

Allow me to be direct:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

Why in the hell would I trust the same idiots who dragged us into Iran and haven't finished the job in Afghanistan to send American troops into a country that has four times the population of Iraq?

After his record of failure in Iraq why would I trust an arrogant, clueless egotist like Donald Rumsfeld to wage another war?

During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote was: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php

It is a point of interest that while the Bush Administration beats the war drums for a strike against Iran for what they might do, they ignore North Korea, another rebel nation that HAS a nuclear weapon.

It's amazing what failed presidents will do to prop up their sagging political fortunes. Disgusting too.

This might be off topic but I have noticed (and this probably because this is Bush year 6) that the debates are becoming increasing one sided here at ::. That's part of the reason I haven't been around as much lately. The poll is 12 to 4 that the military should not even be an option. Regardless of the politics involved, here that's just ludicrous.

It also explains some of Iran’s actions. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the US lacks the popular will to accomplish any task let alone military action. This is a separate debate but the left in this country has basically resigned from debate and opposes every aspect of the current administration. I'm not even sure what the Left's strategy is at this point. I guess the war would have ended in Afghanistan(or maybe it would have never started), Saddam would still be in charge, and Bin Laden would likely still be at large. That being the case, what threat is there to Iran? Why should they stop their nuclear program, fear of economic sanctions? Yeah, that’s very effective (see: north korea).

I don't think this is at all ludicrous. There are three elements preventing military action.

Back in September you were arguing that Bush's poll numbers were a fluke of some kind. Six months later, his poll numbers are worse.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=11019&st=0

Not only are his job approval numbers low, but people seem to have lost trust in this president.



http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271

Is he honest and trustworthy?

No=55%
Yes=44%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...qwar_030606.htm

Why not militrary action?

Reason 1. Bush does not have the political capital to engage in a war in Iran. Why would anyone trust a president with another war when he's made such a god awful mess of the one we currently have in Iraq?

Reason 2. The Iraq war pretty much has our military tied up.

Reason 3. Further drain on the U. S. Treasury would make war with Iran less than palatable.

Interesting. You say that you haven't been around as much lately because the debates are becoming increasingly one-sided here. I would suggest that your absence is contributing to that one-sidedness. So please, stick around!

I would disagree with you that the left has "basically resigned from debate". But I would suggest there is a certain (high) level of frustration experienced by the Democratic (allegedly Left), other-side-of-the-aisle members of Congress. They can suggest alternatives until they're blue in the face (pardon the pun), but as long as Republicans run the show in both houses, they're banging their heads against the wall.

But what if the Democrats, or "left" as you call them, did currently agree with the President's policies in Iraq? Would there be less insurgent activity, less killing, less overextension of our military forces overseas? I doubt it.

I also doubt that having Congressional Democrats just sit down and shut up would make Iran any less in-your-face with the United States about what they perceive as their right to enrich uranium for peaceful use or otherwise.

George W. Bush was given carte blanche in his GWOT. His "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" speeches accomplished the desired goal, to quelch Congressional opposition and make it possible to wage war and engage in nation building.

Now Republicans and those of similar mind are saying that the Democrats don't have any good ideas, that they just criticize. Well I'll tell you, it's easier to salvage a meal before, rather than after, it has been ruined by another cook.

Let's not ruin another "meal" by committing ourselves to warfare with Iraq, ground troops or otherwise. At least let the UN try to find a solution first.

BOF, let me clarify something here. The poll question and the thread question are different. The thread askes "would you support military action." I don't expect Democrats to support that, but the poll asks should it be an option. I don't care who the President is, military action should always be an option. This problem existed during the latter half of the last administration. The opposition completly lost the concept of reality. History does in fact repeat itself.

Please spare me poll numbers. Has Bush lost an election of any kind since he's been President? According to rasmuessen he's at 45% right now (his low of 40% on March 30). BTW this is a survey of adults and not likely voters, so you can tack on about 3% for club bushy. In other words, so what? The only obstacle to military action is the political will of the US. There is no question we have the military might to roll over Iran.

We've seen how sanctions go, yes, but not in North Korea as they are not under international, UN imposed sanction. Their largest trading partners have continued to trade with them. Sanctions worked with Libya. They worked with Sudan (those were bilateral). Iran's economy is based almost entirely on oil. If they can't sell it, they will have pain, and they don't corner enough of a market on the world's oil supply to make demands. The entire middle east is responsible for only 40 percent of the world oil supply as it is (if memory serves...I haven't looked it up in a while).

Yes, sanctions would work in their case, and I believe they would work quickly as we aren't asking for much. It's a cost to gains equation, and they would have much more to gain and less to lose by abandoning their weapons program. On the other hand, it's a cost to gains equation the other wway, too. Ground troops (or any military response at this point) would be catastrophic. We simply don't have the money or manpower to take over Iran. Before you decide to start killing people and sacrificing your own, you'd better be damned sure it's worth the price. At this point, it would be sheer lunacy.

I am not so sure that sanction would work. There has been several articles in Newsweek and Time mentioning how popular Ahmadinejad is among population, including educated, secular Iranians - because he is seen as someone who stands up to pressure from the West and pursues national interests.

Link:


Unlike Iraq, Iran is a very homogeneous nation with 2000 year old history - nationalistic feelings and fervor can run very high there. I don't see Ahmadinejad bowing to pressure and stopping his program because of sanctions - rather I see the country unifying behind him even more, the harder we squeeze. He built his existing political capital on it, how can he let it go?

This administration's policy of hard line confrontation with states considered nuclear proliferation threats has been a total failure. The example of Iraq goes without saying, confrontation with North Korea played a big role in pushing them into refining fuel rods into plutonium and the likely construction of one to six nuclear war heads. If we can live with a nuclear NK, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran? Is it the oil? Is it the influence of Israel on US foreign policy? (See This Article).

[/quote]

Couldn't disagree more. Actually Bush's hardline stance has been very productive. He faced down the North Koreans, kicked Sadam out of Iraq, put a leash on Khaddafi. One couldn't hope to be more successful in the foreign policy arena. Now the previous president, Bill CLinton, he was a total, out and out failure in foreign policy, the worst of all time. He and the charlatan Jimmy Carter were fooled by the North Koreans, Clinton bungled Somalia, flopped in Palestine. Now that I think about it, in eight years, besides his intern, what the hell did Bill Clinton do, never was less done in more time.

Geez, as if oil price is not high enough already. Look, China has $10 Billion and Japan has $3 Bil invested in the oil fields in Iran. If you take that production out, you will be looking at $120 per barrel of crude, that translates to about $5 per gallon of gasoline for those you who's not good at math or have doubts about the greediness of oil companies.

Militarily, ground force is not a problem; Politically, it's probably not a problem either; but please, do think about the poor people driving their gigantic SUVs.

By this logic, the invasion of Canada should be an option the next time we're discussing North American trade issues with the Canadians. Now that would make them take notice.



Really, do you think that Iran desires nuclear weapons for the purpose of pursuing a military confrontation with the United States? It think it rather preceives nuclear weapons as a potential means of avoiding such confrontation. It's not Iran that's been rattling sabers over the whole planet, or invading countries on its borders. Have you notice that the one "evil" country over which the U.S. hasn't rattled its sabers is North Korea? Hmm, now I wonder why that is?

Yes. Just because something is an option doesn't mean it is likely to be used.

If you disagree with this philosophy, please explain how restricting one's power in negotiations leads to a higher probability of achieving the desired outcome, particular when the other party is informed that certain options (especially those it would be most concerned with) are unavailable?



Do you truly believe they are pursuing nuclear weapons for anything other than projection of power? If so, I think you need to examine politics in the Middle East more thoroughly.




But with nuclear weapons, they could do that, couldn't they?



Because of their extensive conventional weapons. If because of nuclear weapons, then it is indicative of the problem that we are trying to avoid....a 'rogue' nation being able to thwart world goals simply because it possesses 'the bomb'. Neither of these validates Iran persuing such a weapon, from any countries viewpoint besides Iran's.

I wouldn't say that Iran is justified in attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon. I would say that it is understandable.

From President Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech:

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html

Now if the President of the United States names your nation as part of a unholy trinity of terror, wouldn't it be prudent to assume that at some point he plans to DO something about it?

Maybe something like depose the leadership of Iraq and install a government that is more amiable to the wishes of the United States? If you're living in Iraq and you know your history it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has overthrown your government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright said yesterday that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is bellicose and belligerent in his language, but he can look around and see what's happened with the "axis of evil." Iraq has been invaded and Saddam Hussein deposed. North Korea has obtained a nuclear weapon and has said it will use it if attacked by the U.S. Iran is in the process of developing the capacity to create nuclear weapons. One country invaded. Another country with nuclear arms is not. A third country possibly may develop nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad isn't stupid. He can see if you're on the bad side of the U.S. you'd better have the means to keep them at arm's length. Bush's chest-thumping rhetoric has led to greater instability in the world.

Justifiable? No. Understandable? Yes.

Maybe someone can tell me why my quotation scheme, below, fails to work? In the meantime, I've highlighted my responses in bold.



Some forms of power are better held conspicuosly in reserve. I'll grant you are consisent when you say that the invasion of Canada should be on the table whenever we negotiate trade deals with that country, but doing so reduces your position to an absurdity.

Particularly in view of the difficult time that it is having in Iraq, I doubt that the United States has sufficient military power to bend the world to its will by that means alone. To achieve anything really imporatant in the world, the colloboration of many nations is generally needed. Therefore, it would be much more effective U.S. policy to try to achieve its objective by more engaging, constructive means.

The world is already quite weary of U.S. belligerance under this Administration, which has weakened, not strengthened, the ability of the U.S. to actually achieve anything.

Even if, as fancifully imagined by some people here, the U.S. were the Sheriff of the world, one can only run so many "bad men" out of the county before people start to see that the Sheriff, not outlawry, is main the problem.



When I look at the world, I see that a number of developing nations have acquired nuclear weapons, and none of them are using them to "project military power." They all seem to be holding them in reserve as an ultimate means of defense. Secondly, I am not sure how any such nation could use nuclear weapons to project military power, since the threat of use other than as a last resort is, to say the least, not very credible. What, has the nuclear arsenel of the U.S. facilitated its projection of military power?

When I look at the Middle East, I see only two nations making vigorous use military power: the United States and its nasty little ally, Israel.



So could the Pakistanis, the Indians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and the South Africans. And they haven't done so just because nuclear weapons are not really a means of projecting military power.

Also I would point out that since eliminating the possibility of any given foreign nation using threat of force as a means of policy is hardly within the power of the United States, it might be wiser to seek more realistic foreign policy goals than this one.



Oh, come on.



This "we" always amuses me, as if "we" were anyone either making U.S. policy or likely to benefit from it. Or as if "we" were the fandom of the Boston Red Sox. "We" killed the Yankees today! Go team!

Anyway, what do you suppose North Korea's "world goals" are? Utterly obviously, its predominant goal is to avoid attack by the United States. After Iraq, I am sure that is the principal "world goal" of many nations. It might serve some highly militaristic conceptualization of U.S. interest that it should be able to dominate other nations by continual threat of Iraq-style invasion, but I don't think it serves the longterm interests of the American people. Their interests and those of U.S. elites who would seek an essentially imperialist U.S. posture in the world are not necessarily the same.

A conflict with Iran would be a wreckless thing to do (as if we haven't already been wreckless in our foreign policy). The thought is scary. Too scary.

from: San Francisco Chronicle



A pretty convincing argument, if you ask me.

Only if we assume the premise (that the Bush administarion is 'pursuing Iran' without context) is correct. For my part I do not see this as the Bush administration (of which I deeply disaprove in most aspects) being out to get the Iranians for no reason.

Rather I see an ongoing conflict between the Islamic world and the western democracies, with Iran being a focus of Islamic aggression and ambition against the democratic west that must be dealt with in such a way as to neutralise the threat.
If that means using military force, or ultimately using ground troops, then so be it. Unless something changes in the Iranian attitude soon, there may be no other choice ...unless we are prepared to be threatened by a nuclear jihad.

Consider these points:
Link.

Its easy as pie to look at Iran as being a part of something seperate from the 'war on terror', or to refuse to accept the connection between the religion of Islam and the politically motivated terrorism that is carried out in its name. But the truth of the matter is simple enough. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by deeply religious and highly motivated men who are dead set on the destruction of western democracy, and every and any other political or religious system. They aim at nothing less than to force the entire world under sharia law.

No matter what we in the west do, whether we play nice and by the rules, whether we mind our own business, and concentrate all our efforts on humanitarian aid work, Iran will continue to work towards the Islamic domination of Planet Earth. The premise that any one in the west is responsible for the situation in Iran today is a self imposed blindness.

Currently I am being trained for duty in Iraq so I have a strong opinion about the use of ground troops in Iran. In answer to the question for debate my answer would be absolutly. Putting troops on the ground would be the only way to fight a country like Iran but they would come in after months of bombing. Most of the infantry guys I'm aquainted with salavate when posed with the possiblity of this kind of a military action. The US Army is now better prepared for deploying troops and equipment then at any time in our nations history. That said, a war with Iran would be very costly in lives, political influence and the basic bottom line costs.

Iraq alienated the US from NATO which was in my mind the single biggest problem with the invasion. That alliance has been instrumental in keeping the peace in Europe for over a half a century. Unless the international community was fully in support of an action like that it simply would not happen. There is one other problem with troops with boots on ground in Iran, the Army would probably have to come up with a plan for it. Centcom would be the ones to do that and going from a defensive to an invasion stradegy would be difficult at best.

It might also interest some of you to know that the Army has just went through the biggest reorganization since WWII. Instead of gearing up to fight another superpower we can deploy smaller contigency units and you would be amazed at just how efficent the new system is for doing exactly that. Within 30 days the Army could have 3 divisions deployed to any place in the world. Think about the last two major military opperations, Bosnia and Iraq. In Bosnia we were looking for one guy, in Iraq we were looking for a deck of cards.

I think the question is purely academic since, frankly, I don't believe that Iran is that stupid. You had better believe that if such a thing came about troops on ground would be the only way to win.

It is only convincing if you accept the fact that a) the article proposes no real alternatives, doesn't deal with the fact that of all the countries cited as examples, Iran is only one in the politically important Middle East, c) the article doesn't deal with the fact that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons and does have ambitions of filling the current power vacuum in the Middle East, and d) Iran has clearly indicated they would be much happier if Israel simply disappeared (which nuclear weapons would give them the capability of achieving).

But outside of that, then, yes, very convincing. It is always easy to present nice sounding arguments if you ignore all the important factors, and fail to offer any alternatives. Criticism is only constructive if it offers an alternative.

The difficulty of this situation is easily expressed if one considers the following question: How would we (or anybody else, for that matter) be better off if Iran had nuclear weapons? Hard to see how that would improve anything. The problem is that it is also hard to see how that can be prevented.

Clearly, ificandream, you seem to think the administration is pursuing the wrong policy. What, might I ask, should they be doing instead? Do you disagree that Iran having nuclear weapons is a 'bad thing'? If not, then what would you suggest we do to prevent it from happening?

You are right as far as it being costly in lives. But I don't think America or Europe will actually come up with the necessary cannon fodder to make such a sacrifice. Right now there's many soldiers in Iraq doing their 2nd and 3rd tour of duty in that country. And the public will not likely tolerate a military draft.