On “Grappling with the Ayatollahs”

This from the Belmont Club:
“John Keegan lays out what sees are the West's options with respect to Iran.
The pressing question is, indeed, what is to be done when a report to the Security Council fails to bring Iran to desist from nuclear enrichment? ... It is much more doubtful whether sanctions would make Iran change its policy. ...
“
Keegan correctly notes that the Iranian’s have the ability and the will to disrupt Gulf shipping. This will throw the EU into economic turmoil and they are not likely to be nice about it. At home, many Americans are not prepared to ‘throw-in’ behind anything that this administration does. It makes the Bush administration look like a ‘lame-duck’ administration. Bush seems to have two options, be meek and wither in effectiveness and popularity, or be bold and go-it-alone.

The Iranians are in an excellent position to play the spoilers in Iraq and would be delighted with a good enough reason to do so I think.

People often note that the Iranian people are young, modern, and are most likely to favor ‘regime change’, but that being said, consider that most standing armies are composed or very young recruits, more so during war time.

“…how far it can let Al Qaeda and Hezbollah go without bringing down the spectators from the stands.”

This is the question. Is it our magnanimity that keeps our military ventures few and narrow, or is it an institutional memory of the early to middle 20th century that we are weary that at some tripping point, the spectators will come “down from the stands”?

Bush is a moderate Republican and a corporate CEO type personality-wise by my reckoning. That is why the continuity of government has been so important to him. In 1998, The Clinton administration devised a policy of Iraqi regime change, i.e.; the disposition of Saddam. That is why the Bush administration set about to implement that strategy, then crystallized that focus after 9-11 and that is the only reason we went to Iraq. That is the only reason necessary, the rest is just window dressing.

It is a well known fact that al Queda operatives work in Iran. A fact. The Iranian regime even admits so, they, however, profess that they are under house arrest.

There are purported to be a small number of 20-40 al Queda members in Iran;

"A large number of small- and big-time elements of al Qaeda are in our custody," Mr. Yunesi told the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).”
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030723-115725-9400r.htm

The Ukraine inherited 5000 nuclear weapons. Some report that some of those found their way to Iran. Iran is not in a position to directly threaten the well being of the US, or are they? Nonetheless, I would suspect that the Iranians would take greater pleasure in destroying Tel Aviv than New York.

As far as the 10 year timeline is concerned, please consider that the erudite analysts in the CIA hate the president, are pissed at the organization for taking a ‘worse case’ view on Iraqi WMD, and will do anything to embarrass, or otherwise hamstring the current administration. Stalin would have had them all shot and their families exiled to Siberia.

As far as Pakistan being more dangerous than Iran, perhaps, but right now the nukes are in a safe place and not likely to be covertly transferred to terrorists. When the time comes, they will be obliterated with extreme prejudice. Be sure of that. The Pakistani parliament does not open every session with chants of “death to America”. The Iranians have been hankering for a show-down and they will get one.