Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot9sep09.story
MAX BOOT
Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran
Max Boot

September 9, 2004

Hyped reports about an Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon are falling apart faster than the Kerry campaign. It now seems likely that the analyst in question was, at worst, guilty of mishandling a classified document, not espionage. According to news accounts, the memo he's accused of passing to pro-Israel lobbyists called for U.S. support of Iranian dissidents trying to overthrow their dictatorial government. This may not be spy-novel stuff, but it does raise an important question: Why hasn't President Bush implemented the recommendations reportedly contained in the Pentagon paper?

The case for action seems overwhelming in light of Bush's oft-stated warning: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." There is no question which side Iran is on.

The State Department calls Iran the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world." Much of its support goes to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but the 9/11 commission also reported that Al Qaeda members — including eight to 10 of those involved in the airplane attacks on the United States — were allowed to use Iran as a transit route to and from training camps in Afghanistan. A number of Al Qaeda operatives remain in Iran, ostensibly under house arrest but in all likelihood allowed to carry on their deadly work.

Iran has trained and armed Muqtada Sadr's militia, which has been attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the cleric who now heads an influential government council, makes no bones about what his country is up to. In an April sermon, he declared that the situation in Iraq posed "a threat because the wounded American beast can take enraged actions, but it is also an opportunity to teach this beast a lesson so it won't attack another country." <snip>

[demnan]

1. But what about Saudi Arabia?

Ask Bob Graham which one is worse.

[ixion]

2. most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world is:

the paranoid US of A. :-(

[Martin Eden]

3. WE can't afford more Bush "action"

What kind of action can be taken against Iran? "Preemptive" regime change in Iran would make the Iraqi misadventure seem like a picnic.

Who could blame Iran for doing everything they can to acquire their own nukes? Bush listed them among the "axis of evil", then proceeded to take out one of the three right on its own border. Nuclear proliferation is first and foremost driven by a perceived need for the ultimate weapon, and Bush's foreign policy is escalating international tensions.

I don't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, but I would not support an invasion under any circumstances. If diplomacy and the threat of sanctions fail, airstrikes could target the facilities.

The last thing we need to do is urge Bush to take "action" against Iran.