The story first appeared on Raw Story, a (very) liberal blog/news outlet. Now it appears that The Asian Times has been able to "confirm" that US Combat troops are already operating inside of Iran, and the US has "outsourced" certain aspects of its overall operation to terrorist groups to incite tensions among ethnic minorities against the mullahs of Iran. You can read the whole story here.
Now Newsweek has a short article posted regarding what the neocons want vs. the actual intelligence reports on attempting to create an overthrow of the mullahs in Iran and the current hard-liners in control of the country. I would have to agree with the sentiment that an overthrow of the government simply would not work. Iranians, overall somewhat "sympathetic" to the West, have become far less so with the saber-rattling of the Bush administration, and it truly appears that the US actions are increasing the likelihood of Iran weaponizing its nuclear program instead of simply using it for peaceful purposes. Many in Iran now feel that having nukes would be a sense of "national pride," although I'm betting that many would also feel that the current leaders of their nation should not be the ones with the nukes.
If Bush truly wants a diplomatic solution as he states, why would every action that they've been engaging in tend to bring the Iranians towards confrontation with the West through provocation rather than dropping the threat of a nuclear attack on Iran and ratcheting down the rhetoric to foment peace rather than war? I have to believe that the administration is either unbelievably stupid and thinks the American people are, too, or they have a better idea: they want the war.
I do not believe that the military option should not be dropped from the table, however, under no circumstances should the United States or any other nuclear nation for that matter, should be wielding the actual use of nuclear weapons as an option to end a nuclear program in another nation. And anyone who supports the use should actually do a little background check of what a nuclear attack on Iran would entail, what the "fallout" (literally and figuratively) would be of such an attack, and the response of the world community to our unilateral use (again) of a nuclear weapon (or in this case many weapons).
One point: Fallout from a nuclear strike would effect the following nations (at minimum): Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and possibly parts of China. Now, if we nuke Iran and cause fallout over our troops in Afghanistan and 2 nuclear nations (Pakistan and India), does anyone really think that there would be no retaliation? Afghanistan would turn into Iraq part II, Pakistan's support for the war on terror would disintegrate, and the political reaction in Pakistan would invariably increase tensions with India, which could lead the two nations on a collision course, notwithstanding the potential of Pakistan turning completely against the west and deciding to use its own nuclear weapons. Literally, the strike could trigger the Third World War. It isn't that far of a stretch. And one huge "what if": Since we've not really ever tested modern nuclear weapons in a battle field, and we'd be talking about the use of several nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran, "what if" one of them did not detonate? We will have handed Iran exactly what they would need for a "massive" retaliation against the West. Now, I admit the latter is a bit of a stretch, even for me, but all results should be calculated when talking about the use of force in Iran.
I think the Bush administration is completely nuts for leaving the "nucular" option on the table. It is a dangerous precedent, and Bush should realize that it will NOT increase his approval rating, it would probably sink it to the teens. Just resign now and let us recover. Please...
Nuclear nukes Iran Iraq MiddleEast War Politics Pakistan India Afghanistan blackops Newsweek