Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran

[neurosport]

Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.

A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.

THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.

Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.

To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.

In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.

Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.

I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.

Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.

The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.

A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election

you can be the first one to go to Iran.

knock yourself out.

in fact pack up your shit and go already. why do you need to be "asked" to go ? no ifs no buts just go.

show them animals !

let us know how it goes !

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now? What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran? A regime worse than what they already have? Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory? It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits? Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?

Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever. We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation. There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.

There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war. And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

 

[geauxtohell]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement. In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.

People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been. No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now? What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran? A regime worse than what they already have? Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory? It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits? Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?

Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever. We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation. There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.

There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war. And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.

Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.

There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for? There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.

It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene. If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently? After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power. Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.

So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory? It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits? Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?

Propping up a military dictator didn't work out for us whatsoever. We earned the hatred of the Iranian citizens and had to deal with the hostage situation. There are always unintended consequences for what we do around the world.

There's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, only the same kind of propaganda that we heard prior to the Iraq war. And no, it's not worth the price in blood and treasure, especially considering we don't know what else could go wrong on top of that.

Propping up the Shah, if that's what we did, did work out for us; not propping him up in 1979 is what got us in trouble.

There's lots of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but it's not an airtight case, if that's what you mean, however, is that because there is no nuclear weapons program or because Iran refuses the IAEA the full access to its nuclear programs it is asking for? There are only three reasons I can think why Iran would continue to deny the IAEA the full access it seeks: there is a nuclear weapons program, the regime wants the world to think there is because it makes Iran look tougher, stronger and more dangerous or the leadership is either stupid or crazy.

It's true that we don't know what might go wrong if we do intervene, but we also don't know what might go wrong if we don't intervene. If we had known in 1979 what not intervening to keep the Shah in power would lead to, would we have acted differently? After all, Saddam would not have attacked Iran if Iran still had the support of the US, and millions of lives could have been saved if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power. Arguably, Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if not for his failure to make any gains from the years of war with Iran, and had he not invaded Kuwait, we would not have become involved in the first Gulf War, and we would not have had to increase our presence in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia, to contain Saddam afterwards and one could argue that it was the increased US military presence in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam that fueled the growth of al Qaeda and that led to 9/11 and our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan.

So, on balance, what could have gone wrong if we had intervened to keep the Shah in power in 1979?

We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.

 

[toomuchtime_]

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

We can't base our foreign policy on what-if doomsday scenarios. Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

 

[rhodescholar]

Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge. You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?

Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?

Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme

"October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."

Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.

Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.

A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.

6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon. Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.

Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.

 

[geauxtohell]

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

Missiles from two third-world countries could not kill millions of Americans, especially not from Iran.

Nuclear missiles from Iran landing in NYC or from North Korea landing in LA could certainly kill millions of Americans. Of course, this would require technologies that are still at least a few years away, but that is precisely why we should not wait a few years to consider acting.

As I said, perpetual war to prevent possible future war seems like a dismal future to me. No matter what, we can't stop every rogue nation from getting nuclear weapons.

On a side note, thanks for being able to discuss this issue without use of the words "idiot", "fuck (or any derivative thereof)", "****", "jackass", "dumbass", "pussy", etc.

 

[rhodescholar]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

What a lot of ignorant, leftist trash here conveniently fails to mention is that Mossadegh had turned towards the USSR for support.

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory? It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits? Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?

At this point, all I seek is 3 goals:

1-stopping their nuclear weapons program
2-containing their funding and use of terrorism outside their borders
3-stopping their attacks against iranian civilians

At this point, we could put Genghis Khan in as president there, and he'd have more credibility than their current regime.

As long as we (and by "we" I mean the West, not just the US) install a republican democracy, and have a strict timetable to exit, there would be less of an insurgency than in iraq.

Look boys and girls, its either deal with them now militarily when the West can, or deal with them later when they have nuclear weapons. A penny spent now can save 1,000 later...

 

[L.K.Eder]

You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
..

I could not read any further.

 

[rhodescholar]

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

It is hilarious how the luddites and isolationsists want to turn back the clock to 1750, when life was so simple, and there was no threats of today's magnitude. Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson, if they were alive today, would have probably slaughtered 1/2 of the world by now if they were facing the level of threats we do today...

 

[geauxtohell]

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

It is hilarious how the luddites and isolationsists want to turn back the clock to 1750, when life was so simple, and there was no threats of today's magnitude. Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson, if they were alive today, would have probably slaughtered 1/2 of the world by now if they were facing the level of threats we do today...

I am not a strict isolationist, but I do think running into every country that poses a problem for us with guns blazing is disastrous.

Especially when the largest threat to our stability right now is from our economic rivals, and we are already in debt.

 

[rhodescholar]

I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement. In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.

People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been. No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.

Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.

Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?

And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").

The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.

 

[geauxtohell]

Noone is claiming that iran would "launch a first-strike nuclear missile" at the continental US; all they would have to do is hand one off to one of their proxies, known to the West or unknown, and claim plausible deniability.

Let's say they openly transfer nukes to hezbolah, and hez uses one against the US, or another allied country, like france or saudi arabia...then what do you do?

And since the iranian filth refuse IAEA inspections, there is no way to trace the material back to iran if it were to come from one of their reactors (as was shown in the movie "Sum of All Fears").

The leftist dream of applying MAD here won't work for a number or reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of who to track the nuke back to.

That scenario is not unique to Iran. Terrorists don't need to wait for a nation state to acquire a nuclear weapon to try and obtain one.

Our assets are better spent, IMO, keeping our eye on that ball as opposed to others.

 

[rhodescholar]

Iran is an impoverished country that is unlikely to ever get the technological advances necessary to successfully nuke the U.S. North Korea is much further along in that regard than Iran is, or likely ever will be. However, we have the technology to stop any missile they fire assuming said missile even works.

WTF are you talking about? Iran just put 2 satellites into space - read the news lately, beside Communist Times?

And its even more hilarious how, all of a sudden, now the left is leaning back on the missile defense program AKA star wars - the very program they spent enormous clout and effort trying to stop - screeching "it won't work" - for over 20 years.

So, leftist, after decrying the Star Wars program, now you think you can say "hey, I was there all along"? Don't fucking think so.

 

[rhodescholar]

You are a fucking **** idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge.
..

I could not read any further.

Hysterical how douchebags like you are so one-sided, did you take not of that asshole's personal insults on the prior page?

Oh that's right, only leftists are allowed to do that...

 

[toomuchtime_]

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.

One could call it progress.

The founding fathers could not have envisioned a time when missiles from Iran or North Korea could kill millions of Americans in less time than it took them to ride to town or how oil being pumped out of the ground in the ME had a crucial impact on the economic welfare of Americans so they had no reason to think about how the kind of government another country had could effect the well being of the US.

However, if we consider their attitudes and policies towards Native Americans it is clear that they would not have hesitated to use whatever military force was necessary against another nation to increase the safety or prosperity of the US.

So maybe the times aren't so different.

I fail to see how perpetual war to prevent future wars is an improvement. In fact, it sounds like something that is straight out of 1984.

People can do their best to recreate cold war era hysteria by playing the "what if" game, but the reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to their own use as they have always been. No matter how crazy the regime, they know they will be destroyed if they ever launch against us.

Of course the classic argument in support of taking preemptive action is that if we or the western Europeans attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives could have been saved. That would certainly have been an improvement over WWII.

If you believe that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against another country nuking you, then how would you dispute the argument that if a potential adversary has nukes, you must also have them for the sake of deterrence? So then doesn't almost every country need nukes for the sake of deterrence?

If fact, the theory of mutually assured destruction requires that you have a second strike nuclear capability to act as a deterrent to a nuclear attack, so if Iran has nukes and Israel has nukes and neither has a second strike capability, the advantage, perhaps survival, goes to the one that launches its nukes first.

Finally, the Iranian leaders understand that if they launched a nuke at us, a great many Americans, perhaps you included, would argue that it would be wrong of us to nuke Iran because it would kill a great many innocent Iranians for the actions of a few leaders, and perhaps even the madmen who run North Korea understand this. These Americans, perhaps you included, would argue that we should have a more limited response, perhaps, only using conventional weapons to take out Iran's ability to further attack us, thus sparing the lives of innocent Iranians. What more can we gain from a nuclear response? Is revenge a just motive for a nuclear response? Many would make this argument even as millions of funerals were taking place in and around NYC and D.C.

Do the Islamic revolutionaries in Tehran really believe the US would wipe out millions or tens of millions of people, a whole nation, because of the actions of its leaders?