There are two possible ways to persuade Iran to bend to world pressure and abandon efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Neither solution is guaranteed, but each in different ways has a chance of restoring sanity to that country whose leadership seems hell-bent on provoking Israel to attack its already extensive nuclear capabilities.
As things stand at the moment, an Israeli air attack on Iran's known nuclear sites seems inevitable. Two things mitigate against success for Israel.
It doesn't have the huge bunker-buster bombs the Americans have, nor the means to deliver the bombs. Apparently, the Israeli bombs on its strike aircraft can only penetrate 20 feet underground, while Iran's nuclear facilities are capable of going 200 feet underground. Or so we are told.
So an Israeli air attack would have limited effect.
As well, a nuclear war with Israel doesn't much intimidate Iran. It is a large country and could survive an Israeli nuclear attack, while tiny Israel could not easily survive an Iranian nuclear attack.
Even so, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, it likely wouldn't be Iran that used them against Israel, but a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah. Regardless, Israel simply cannot let matters drift and hope for the best.
The first of two ways to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions might be for the U.S. to give Israel the wherewithal to knock out Iran's deeply embedded nuclear facilities. That would mean giving Israel the bombers and the bunker-busting bombs.
Iran might gamble that the U.S. wouldn't launch an attack, but it knows the Israelis would -- and will -- if it's a matter of survival.
A threat that's more a certain might dissuade Iran's leadership from pursuing the course it's now on. Again, no guarantee, but it increases the stakes and the risk to Iran.
Another solution might be more feasible -- and effective: Assassinate Iran's leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the symbol of Iran's nuclear intentions, yet his status seems somewhat undermined these days by criticism from the ruling mullahs, about whom we hear little.
The big boss of theocratic Iran is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israeli (and Western) intelligence agencies surely know which leader wields the greatest influence. And intelligence agencies know -- or should know -- that an abrupt change of leadership (like death of the incumbent leader) automatically changes the dynamics of a country run as a dictatorship.
Look at Iraq. It once was fairly stable under a king. When an army coup killed the king, the dynamics of Iraq changed instantly. Then when the leader of the coup was in turn assassinated -- another army colonel took over and again the country changed.
And when that colonel was killed, Saddam Hussein took over, and again the county changed directions. The Americans forgot this when they deposed Saddam, and instead of leaving Iraq, stayed too long.
The principle of removing tyrannical leaders instead of waging war has worked elsewhere. Removing Idi Amin changed Uganda. Ousting Hosni Mubarak changed Egypt (not necessarily for the better). Retiring the colonels changed Greece. Mao's death changed China. Bouncing Milosevic changed Serbia. Hoxha's death changed Albania. And so it goes.
If the Iranian leadership were to vanish -- not just deposed, but eliminated -- it's likely the goals of the replacement regime would be different, as Iran "changed" when the shah was deposed.
No guarantees, but a possibility. And better than launching another war.
We all remember the reasons given for justification for the Iraq War:
1) Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction
2) Iraq had links to terrorist's (before the war, that is)
3) Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks
Anyone over the age of majority in 2003 who believed any of that nonsense, were gullible in the extreme - and in fact, the American Iraq Study Group itself, concluded that all of those reasons were invalid and totally without merit.
To those who are trying to whip up another war in the same region, we already know what you are up to. You are trying to again humiliate, embarrass and cause a loss of prestige to America and her allies - just like you did the last time.
But this time... you'll go to jail for it.
John Brian Shannon
Which is why it pains me to totally and completely destroy the argument you have made in this post. I'm sorry, I just can't let this pass unchallenged.
First off, it is illegal in every country and under the auspices of international organizations such as the UN and the Criminal Court of Justice in the Hague, for any member of a government or military to suggest or conspire to commit murder - for that is what assassination is. It is murder for a political gain.
Second, it is illegal for any nation-state to kill any leaders of any other nation-state. It is a feature of international law - which is an integral part of what we call civilization.
To murder a citizen of a foreign country, a country which is not at war with our country or any other country for that matter, is barbaric - falling below the standards of people like Genghis Khan, who although barbaric, had certain standards (a warrior's code) to live by.
I fully realize that President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad says many things that the West does not like to hear. But words are only words - and those words are aimed to have the desired effect on his domestic audience.
There's something called international law and Canada at least pretends (not so successfully recently mind you) to believe in them.
A simple, self-serving solution. What you bright lights forget is the unintended consequences of such an action! In spite of the propaganda eminating from mis-translating Iran's sppeches, Iran has threatened no one. So, do you really think that the murdering of its leaders will turn Iran into a happy-go-lucky American puppet like it was under the shah?
I'm not even going to bother getting into how it violates international law. I'll simply reply in kind: What if Iran ends up resenting whichever country/faction that attempts to instigate regime change (and presumably extend its economic and political influence after)? Simply put: what if the long-term gains are not there?
The damage would be minimal. Every analysis I have read on this subject the reprecussions would be enormous almost WW3 or WW3. Israel would be flanked by missles from the north from Hezbollah. US bases in the region would be under fire. The troops in Afghanistan and Iraq wouldnt have any place to go. The Russians and Chinese both threatened to help Iran if attacked. You have Russian troops/ships in Syria. Iran has surface to surface missles which would destroy most of the US aircraft carriers. The Straits of Hormuz would be mined and closed off thus skyrocking the price of oil killing Western economies recovery.
Shame we never hear any talk of that thing we used to be recognized for: DIPLOMACY.
I am much more afraid of the government of Israel that I can ever be of Iran's.
It would be totally illegal, against international law and useless .
What kind of world do you live in ?
This post in an incitation to murder and I even think you should be prosecuted for this.
If Iranians were to promote the assassination of Harper, what would you think ?
Iran has no nuclear weapons either.
This article is worse than offensive - it's stupidly offensive.