“You say such a strike would only set the Iranians back a few years in their nuclear quest? Even if true, a few years can make all the difference in this crisis. They could easily have their long-awaited revolution by then and by governed by sane people who have no interest in starting a nuke arms race with their neighbors.”
That is the only argument FOR a military strike which is even close to making any sense whatsoever. But what it comes down to is whether the resulting costs, risks, and fallout justify taking military action to delay their nuke program for a couple of years. I’m betting that Bush will not make that determination. I bet he passes the decision onto his successor. And I bet that his successor will do nothing except exert diplomatic pressure. All of these “hints” at a military strike are intended only to ramp up pressure on Iran to come to heel. And that ain’t gonna happen.
To me, it looks like another Cold War brewing. We’re going to spend the next 40 years or so reliving the 1940s and 1950s, except with Iran instead of the Soviets.
A successful operation would set them back far more than just two years. 5 to 10 is more like it.
To me, it looks like another Cold War brewing
Not even close. For another Cold War to take place our enemy would necessarily have to be heavily armed with nukes. ...like the Soviets. The whole idea of taking out the Iranian nuke facilities is to prevent this state of affairs.
In addition, the doctrime of mutually assured destruction (MAD) that prevented the Cold War from becoming hot only works if all the nations involved are run by sane people who value national survival. Needless to say, nutballs who believe in returning 12th Imams and a heaven filled with virgins as a reward for killing "infidels" don't qualify.
If the civilized allows the entire Middle East to go nuclear (which is precisely what would happen if we did nothing about Iran) we'll be looking at WW3 in short order.