And for the Jacobins in the audience forget the use of airpower as a tool for regime change

I read this utterly sensible analysis and think, "yes, any fool can see an air attack would be a big mistake." And then my blood chills, because the neocons don't seem to be fools so much as they are charlatans. They lie, they cheat, they disguise real intentions. Justification is merely the peanut under their shells:  Look here, it's the bomb! No, now it's under this one, it's mideast stability! Oops, it's this one, democracy! Sorry, Suckers! Ha, ha, pay the man!

We can all agree on the folly of an air campaign, but we agreed on the folly of attacking Iraq, too, and they still did it because there was something in it for them. It's as if logic doesn't matter anymore and repeating it amounts to banging our heads against the wall. The only question that seems to matter is the most dangerous one of all:  what's in it for them? If their greed for power, etc., takes over then we are cleared for take off.

My Website

Pat Buchanan, with whom I agree on nothing, except Mideast policy, wrote a good column on the ludicrousness of this proposed venture. He makes the point that this is a totally artificial crisis. The Iranians are within their rights to generate nuclear power, just not weapons, and they are about 10 years away from nuclear capability, even if they flout non-proliferation regulations. They pose no immediate threat, so military action is unwarranted, and, at present, illegal. We would be doing this to protect Israel and to prevent Iran from having the deterrent capability of being a nuclear power. And, it will be disastrous.

These people are insane. How many times can they make the same mistake expecting a different result? Do they really think the Iranians will bow to our supreme might if we wage a spectacular air campaign? Do they really think that the people will just rise up against the Mullahs? They will fight us. Not only do we not have the troops for an expanded ground war, we don't have the hardware! As my husband, who works in joint operations for the Marine Corps says, "Everything is broken!"

Unless their goal is to bankrupt the US treasury, cripple our military, and unleash chaos in the Mideast, the neo-cons are failures, many times over.

"I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or prostitute." ~ Rebecca West

There are no troops available to invade. That leaves a blockade or aerial bombardment. A blockade will skyrocket already high petroleum prices even without any Iranian retaliation. North Korea and Iranian nuclear sites are in harden bunkers.  

The Pentagon has asked Congress to fund development of nuclear bunker buster bombs as an effective replacement of current penetrating bombs that don't work. They failed to mention that the nuclear bombs can't penetrate too far into the rock. They are no different than surface nuclear blasts. Nuclear Bunker Busters: What's the Damage? Conventional bombs will not work to take out the nuclear sites. Atomic bunker busters will kill millions.

The only tools available to threaten Iran and North Korea won't work and will blow back with untold economic and political damage to the USA.

Just like the Bush adm  way of doing things.

The whole world is nuts except for you and me and sometimes I wonder about you...as the old saying goes.

What now is there to be done.  Am I wrong when Iran is only going after the bonb cuz Isreal is threatening to them?  Is there more to thsi than meets the eye?

If I were a Saudi, a Syrian, an Iranian, an Iraqi, etc., etc., I'd be very worried about Israel's nuclear capability.  (It requires a putting one's self in THEIR shoes because -- I guess -- the prevailing opinion in the U.S. is, well, Israel is as rational and sensible as we are, and they'd never do anything irresponsible with a bomb whereas the Iranians -- oh well -- they're a bunch of extremist nutjobs.

(THAT said, I can see why people might be worried about Iran beause of the fundamentalist influences in that government .. although they do seem, sometimes, to be very pragmatic and political.  But, imagine if our U.S. fundies were at the helm -- Pat Robertson, James Dobson et al. were running things in our country -- the world would be scared sh-tless about what they might do with the U.S.'s nuclear weapons.)

BIG PICTURE:  We all need to be very, very worried about nuclear proliferation.  John Kerry said it is the world's number one problem.  We ALL need to get rid of the horrible weapons of mass destruction.  ALL countries.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

One of the poignant parts of the interview that I recall was her comment that she felt like her work had been a waste because nuclear proliferation is much worse than when she began. Sad ... but she won't be the first or last prominent activist who won't live to see her work realized.

On Saturday, August 20 at 12:00 pm
In Depth: Dr. Helen Caldicott
Watch
Description: Dr. Helen Caldicott is Book TV's guest on the March edition of In Depth. Dr. Caldicott, named one of the most influential women of the 20th century by the Smithsonian Institution, is the author of five books: "Nuclear Madness" (1979), "Missile Envy" (1984), "If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth" (1992), "A Desperate Passion: An Autobiography" (1996), and "The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush's Military Industrial Complex" (2001; revised 2004). She will appear LIVE on Book TV on March 6, 2005 from Noon-3pm ET. You can join the conversation by calling in during the program or by e-mailing your questions to booktv@c-span.org.

Author Bio: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (www.nuclearpolicy.org). For over 35 years, Dr. Caldicott has been active in spreading information about the hazards of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. The organization she co-founded in 1978, Physicians for Social Responsibility, was co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, and a documentary based on a lecture she gave in 1981, on the topic of nuclear war, won the Academy Award for Best Documentary (short) in 1982. Born in Melbourne, Australia in 1938, she currently divides her time between Australia and the U.S. For more information about Helen Caldicott, visit www.helencaldicott.com.

It is absurd, but given the president we have, it is not as ridiculous as one would like it to be.

By the way, one thing we should keep in mind is that there is no casus belli: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly allows nations to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear power. And though one may be skeptical of Iran's intentions, they are not as yet in violation of the NPT.

Soj has posted a very interesting diary on the contradictions of Western nuclear policy, that places this issue in a larger context.

"Blow up the TV. Throw away the Papers." - John Prine

Sea-power might be the most effective of the limited tools available. A naval blockade of oil exports could be easily undertaken. Destoying the Iranian tanker fleet and liberating the three islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs along with their associated oil and gas fields would place tremendous economic pressure on the regime.

And send the oil price to $200/bl... Not holding my breath for that either.

Thanks for a pointed analysis; I fully agree.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

Furthermore, having been to Iran- I can say that the terrain is very nasty and well suited to defense.

Although I do think there are available proxies for an air supported neutralization of Iran, pretty much everything but the Central Plateau and Mazanderan/Gilan could be split off with air power and limited ground support, again IMHO.

If you seek peace and fulfilment rather than wealth and power you must take up the reins of government or else you will be ruled by tyrants