Iran in the bombsights?

[peterwho]

It sounds like the actions being explored are the ones we so successfully used to overthrow the Serbs in the late '90's - bomb the daylights out of them. That action was authorized by a lame-duck president, too. One of the big differences is that the news media wasn't fixated on the message: 5000+ civilian deaths to avenge the estimated 1000 to 3000 deaths attributed to war crimes (I know, the original number was 100000+, but there was bad intelligence...).

Look at it differently, it could provide a whole new opportunity for the candidates:

"I voted for the bombing of Iran, but my first action as president will be to end it".

OR

"I voted against the bombing of Iran, but my first action as president will be to initiate it - I now have access to better intelligence".

[Zeuslax]

When doors are closed, and the public eye is removed, the differences between Dem's and Rep's are very blurry when it comes to foreign policy. Another thing that causes me some heartburn with the leading Dem candidate is that there may be tons of pressure if she wins for her not to be seen as weak. It's going to be an easy viewpoint/argument regarding stereotypes associated with Democratic foreign policy weakness (in a post 911 climate) and with women. Many insiders are saying that Hillary is very likely to escalate and even take a tougher stance on Iran compared to anyone in the entire presidential field (Dem's and Rep's). She has made very poignant statements about her "independence" and "toughness". Could be a very slippery political slope.

There are too many ying-yang geo-financial ties with Iran to allow this situation to escalate into something too large within the UN. In addition, militarily we have Iran hemmed in with troops in Iraq and Afganistan. Financial interests are so interwoven that traditional escalation from outsiders doesn't seem to be an option. If you need an example of this take a look at Darfur and the impact that the Chinese could have and aren't having. Russia, China and France have huge interests in Iran and that is a major counter weight as well.

[peterwho]

Zeuslax

All excellent points!

If only the average American could (would?) read and examine your arguments. Unfortunately, we have become 30-second consumers of all things (products, information, entertainment, opinion, etc.) and have a hard time differentiating between them (Look at all the people who believe Rush Limbaugh is a political figure and not just an entertainer.).

Regards

[Zeuslax]

Russia has major financial interests in Iran and has been the behind the scenes sand-bagger on all issues. Sarkozy just finished meeting with Putin and Rice is on her way to supposedly talk about missile defense. Primarily she's going to negotiate our proposed sites in Poland and Chechoslovakia. I don't believe that for a second. Iran is the topic of these talks regardless of what everyone's saying. I'm sure missile sites will be discussed a little too.
I would expect and anticipate that what ever we hear out of the US, France and Russia in about two to three weeks will be the course of action.

Peterwho.......thanks, sometimes I just wished more people cared. CNN is running Britney as their lead headlines and Bill O has the number one news show on TV! Ales is starting another news channel to counter MSNBC's supposed anti-capitalist and anti-corporation financial news. Ohh yea, the new channel will feature hot women almost exclusively as hosts .