S-2,
Quote:
|
You dismiss the effectiveness of such strikes in eliminating their primary objective- Iran's means to produce nukes. I guess that you think we've a low chance of eliminating or dramatically degrading their program? Were air-strikes successful, the continuation of a regime which we've tolerated otherwise for 28 years coupled with Iran's demonstrated behavior for terrorism is a very welcome exchange.
|
i'm not dismissing it- i'm saying that we're exchanging a short-term gain for a long-term loss.
Quote:
Further, you assume a greater ability on their part to punish us with terror should we be successful, or even attempt to eliminate their weapons. As an alternative to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? I'll accept that exchange as well.
Nothing to date indicates that we'd lose anything by those exchanges. Has Iran already tried to close the straits? Are they already complicit in Iraq? The GCC? Hezbollah? Hamas? And now Afghanistan? What would change besides method?
|
what we'd lose is the ability to bring down or evolve the regime. iran would be far less riven with internal dissent, and thus give us less openings to exploit.
regarding use of nukes, i personally think they will be used as a deterrent value. i'm not sure about "complete operational freedom"- did the USSR, china, or for that matter even NK act with "complete operational freedom" once it exploded its nuke?