Per Chuck's Request...

A discussion on Iran....thoughts:

1. The fundamental problem is the regime - not the acquisition of nukes. Blowing their nuke facilities to hell is a band aid solution. If we go to blows with Iran (ie they respond to any attack), we finish the job, get rid of the mullahs and pull an Afghanistan. ("but that's not a post-invastion plan, mister?" "-all right, never mind, let's just let them build nukes you douche bag").

2. Using a tactical nuke to blow their nuke facilities won't be a great public relations move. I don't think getting into the habit of nuking other countries (tactical or not) is a good idea. We should reserve it for the Tony Montana "say hello to my little friend" moment when shit is looking incredibly nasty. (like, for instance, a potential ground invasion of Imperial Japan).

3. Essentially, the Iranian situation is similar to the Iraq situation. Both regimes have blatent interest in gaining WMDs. Either regime having them is undesirable. Iran appears to be emboldened by the fact the US overestimated Iraq's WMD capabilities and has lost prestige in the international community. I favored and continue to favor the Iraq invasion. Things are different now, though, aren't they?

We wouldn't be in the current situation if France, Germany, and Russia had gotten aboard with Iraq and deposing Saddam had been a group effort. But alas, that wasn't the case. Whatever we do with Iran, I believe, needs to be a group effort. We cannot afford another go at it alone project right now.

4. But to be honest there are two problems with this - one personal and one practical. On a personal level, I'm sick of the "dovish" international community and the anti-Iraq (both before and after the war) chorus, who relay on "hawkish" proposals and actions to criticize, as opposed to making a proposals of their own. It's sort of the difference between filmmakers and critics and I appreciate Woody Allen's last level of hell being reserved for film critics (below laywers) in Deconstructing Harry.

On the practical level with respect to the group effort, I doubt any proposal that either originates from the "Left" (from which I still consider myself a part, to the chagrin of my "Leftish" "friends.") or even has consent from the Left in America, France, Germany, Russia, etc, will stop Iran from building a nuke.

5. And lastly: Would we be in this situation if we didn't go into Iraq? I believe that yes, one day we would have been.

UPDATE: I think it's pretty safe bet that a nuke of some sort will be used in the next 20 years somewhere.

UPDATE 2: Here's a perfect example of the type of critic I was talking about above...who rely on "hawkish" proposals and actions to criticize, as opposed to making a proposals of their own. His basic position is that "it's no big deal for Iran to have a nuke," but he won't come out and just say it, instead he couches it in a criticism of hawks, instead of acknowledging the downside of such a strategy.