re: #243 lostlakehiker

Agree with almost all of this. But I think everyone understands Iran’s intentions. They understand also that sanctions won’t prevent Iran getting nukes. But what a sorry list of options we have! We could acquiesce explicitly. We could say again and again we shall never consent, while consenting. [The current policy, from Clinton through Bush to today]. We could disrupt the Iranian program with air raids, but swear off all-out war. That wouldn’t stop Iran either, and would be just a variant of consenting while pretending not to. Or, we could launch a preemptive war with the war aim of occupying Iran, destroying her nuclear program root and branch, destroying her civilian economy thoroughly enough that there would not be funds to reconstitute it for a long time to come, and killing off the leadership and replacing it with men we like better. What would that cost? Would we succeed if we tried it? This last policy has all sorts of hazards, and even if it worked it would be terribly expensive in blood, treasure, and reputation.

Thinking of Iran as a game board, with the pieces where they are, you can search in vain for a handy winning move that settles the problem adroitly.

My guess is that every country, including Israel, has already accepted that Iran will have nuclear weapons. Once it became apparent that neither China nor Russia were seriously committed to preventing this (and assuming this will be their future policy as well,) the only way to stop Iran is by force. IF IT IS TRUE that airstrikes can’t stop Iran or delay Iran for any significant period of time, then the only other sure options would seem to be invasion or preemptive nuclear strikes. I don’t think the US has or ever had any intention of invading, much less using nukes.