Patterico's Pontifications

1/14/2006

No Good Options in Iran

Filed under: Current Events,International — Patterico @ 12:08 pm



Michelle Malkin lays out the distressing situation in Iran. She has quotes from numerous sources, including Victor Davis Hanson explaining why it’s not so easy as simply sending Israel to take care of matters with a bombing raid, as was done in 1981 with Saddam.

Not good, folks. Not good at all.

8 Responses to “No Good Options in Iran”

  1. The dead have no friends.

    Enough of the hand-wringing! Attack!

    Medrawt (c06059)

  2. The problems we face with Iran looking to go nuclear are so severe that nothing else matters… we need to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening and can’t freeze because we’re worried about what happens next.

    As I posted, the situation is akin to one’s house catching on fire… you worry about putting out the fire and not about whether your neighbor is going to object because the siren woke them up, the fire truck left tire tracks in their front yard and the water run off ruined their prize orchids.

    Unfortunately, Bush seems unwilling/uncapable of recognizing that Iran is not just ‘a’ problem, it is ‘the’ problem…

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  3. what is Iran really up to?

    Is Ahmadinejad playing a bit of redirection? After all, what is really more of a threat to the Mullah’s regime in Iran: Israel, or the two budding democracies on Iran’s border, Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  4. Everyone knows that Iran’s lifeline is its oil exports. Why don’t we mine their oil terminals? Sure, oil prices will spike, but they won’t when (not if) Iran lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv?

    piper1 (ef0643)

  5. “Everyone knows that Iran’s lifeline is its oil exports. Why don’t we mine their oil terminals? Sure, oil prices will spike, but they won’t when (not if) Iran lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv?”

    Why would they do that?

    actus (85218a)

  6. Actus:

    Oh, perhaps because three years ago, their then-President said they’d come out ahead in an exchange of nuke shots with Israel, giving at least some people the idea that they’re actually looking forward to doing so.

    Or perhaps because Israel is the country they currently support terrorism against – and why do that unless you want to see Israel disappear?

    Or maybe because they’re just as crazy as one can be, so crazy that they wouldn’t think twice before launching a weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands of people (we might do so, but we’d at least stay up nights thinking about doing so).

    Of course, throwing a nuclear bomb or two Israel’s way would make a good part of Israel inhabitable for anyone, including the Palestinians the Iranians claim to support… but getting rid of Israel has never been about the Palestinians, has it?

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  7. “Oh, perhaps because three years ago, their then-President said they’d come out ahead in an exchange of nuke shots with Israel, giving at least some people the idea that they’re actually looking forward to doing so.”

    Do we believe everything they say? You know they are elected leaders who lie to their to get elected too.

    We also have in the past plenty of islamicists talking about martyrdom — so long as others are the martyrs. I’m not so convinced we’re talking about an entire country about to commit suicide.

    actus (85218a)

  8. Iranian democracy: You can vote for who we say you can vote for.

    Medrawt (c919e5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0779 secs.