Comments on: Hitchens on Iran: A Surprising Verdict

By: Sean P

Sean P — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:08:12 +0000

Hitchens is probably right about the futility of an airstrike, but I don’t see why he didn’t consider option #4: aiding and arming dissident Iranian groups. Not only would this course of action be more likely than airstrikes would be in preventing the current regime from coming into posession of nuclear weapons, it could also probably destabilize the regime in the short term enough to hinder their ability to meddle further in Iraq.

By: dmac

dmac — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:03:42 +0000

Iran’s former negotiator was bragging about how he deceived European leaders regarding their nuclear enrichment program over the years – he penned an article outlining their deceptions in last week’s London Telegraph. Given that the European’s faces have much egg on them, you’d think the least they could do was offer some sort of assistance that was from an origin other than a diplomatic one.

But they have next to nothing in terms of a military capability at this time, so as usual, we’re stuck with it in the end.

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:04:45 +0000

Mark, I actually posted about a fourth option here:
goofusandgallant.blogspot.com/2006/02/ever-closer-to-midnight.html

The only drawbacks to this plan are that it is possibly unworkable, that it would take years and years to implement, and that if it were ever discovered, it would be considered a blatant act of war. Besides that, it sounded like a great plan to me.