1) Just because Iran wants nukes doesn't mean that its military is weak in lieu of nukes. In fact, there is no historic precedent for a militarily weak nation to obtain nuclear weapons at all.

2) But more important, your assertion that 90% of Iranians oppose the regime in favor of what Iraq has is utter fantasy. Iran is not Saddam's Iraq. There was an election recently between a relative moderate in the Khatami mold and a nut. The nut won by a sizable margin. And his margin of victory came in the smaller, more conservative towns and cities away from relatively cosmopolitan Tehran (where he was mayor). In other words, you are making the same mistake that regular readers of blogs like Iraq the Model make - assuming that everybody in Iraq is pro-Western because everybody able to blog about it is pro-Western. Iran is still an extremely conservative society and support for Mullah rule is very deep in large parts of the country. This isn't like Saddam where he used a small ethnic/sectarian minority to maintain a stranglehold of terror over a majority that never supported the dictator in the first place.

But then there's another point. Even though who don't like Ahmadinejad would run to his support if the country were invaded. Nationalism is very powerful in Iran - much more so than in Iraq where the entire nation was a creation of the British post-WWI. Moreover, all segments of Iranian society, from the educated, pro-Western students to the hard-core Shi'ites want Iran to be a nuclear power. The whole political spectrum supports it.

And then, of course, there is the problem of US force. We have 130,000 troops in Iraq right now - many of them on their third tour of duty. Bush is right to insist that the time is not right for their removal from the country because of the instability of Iraq's military forces and the continuing political uncertainty. So where would the 400,000 troops necessary to invade Iran come from? They can't be pulled out from Iraq. Do you support a draft?

I don't recall that Iraq had superior ground forces, either. Seems they don't need superior ground forces to blow themselves up in a car bomb.

Cross-posted from Random Fate.

---

For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong.
-H. L. Mencken...

As I thought, you are, by your own word, the worlds foremost authority and expert on all matters of Policy, Defense, Matters of State Military, and now on Iran.

No I do not agree with you on most everything because I do not follow your pacifist ideas and way of thinking. However, I do marvel at extreme amount of expertise you have on everything. (choke)

One thing most people dislike, is a "Know It All" and that describes you best.

Could it be that you are a bit "over-educated"

Nope. And I have to assume you agree that an invasion's not possible, because then I would hope you wouldn't be calling for killing tens of thousands of Iranian citizens by "nuking their industries," as you proposed.

Nuking Iran: that will turn the people against their gov't & make them love America!

So now, you are the foremost expert on our military manpower.

Is there no limit to your knowledge and expertise?

Over the past few days, Iran has garnered a tremendous amount of media attention due to its nuclear weapons program, its crazy leader, and the world's apparent realization that that there is a bad moon on the rise in regards

Two indicators are at work here;

The first is the big desire for nuclear weaponry on the part of Iran. This is not the move of somebody who has a superior ground force.

Secondly... by now news of what transpired in Iran and the way life goes following the removal of the Islamic nut bags, has doubtless true reached the Iranian population by now . These two factors type together make a strong case for not having nearly the problem as we did in Iraq . Recent intel from that region Is suggestive that something on 90% of the Iranian population would like to see the current power structure and removed in favor of what Iraq ended up with.

Other factors;

With our people would established bases just over the border, our supply lines intact, and our people now sharpened and experienced as they have ever been (including the reservists about which you'll recall there were some question.....)...

Add to that, the resistance to the radicals now within Iran that will surely come to full fruit once they're given some direction. I'm hearing they're quite large, but Disorganized and best at the moment.

The Intel I've been seeing lately suggests that as a whole the average Iranian is better educated than the average Iraqi mostly by western standards, if not western schools. We're told further that the average everyday Iranian wants the current "government" removed. THey're hearing about the improvements in the lives of the Iraqwis... apparently they hear more of such than do we here in the states...(thanks, MSM)

The situation as a whole is far better than was predicted for Iraq going in. With all these points in place I have no doubt that Iran can be taken care of out of hand.

Indeed, if we are correct about Iran being where all these insurgents are coming from (all along with of course Syria) then, once Iran is dealt with Iraq becomes a more stable place, too. Dominoes, you see, flip in both directions.

However; this can only be true if we move before Iran puts the nuclear chip on the table. If we wait until after they have the power we are lost.

We're pretty close to having them surrounded already. All we need to do is amass some troops in Turkmenistan, get Turkey to move some NATO troops near the border and have some of our guys in Afghanistan move down to Pakistan.

We then just start bombing the the place, come hell or high water.

As soon as Ahemdnigab falls, we get the Shah's son out of reitrement and re-install the monarchy. Hell, it worked in 1953, why not now?

Freedom is on the march!

But surely, we can make a plausible threat that we would nuke Iran if it nuked any of our allies.

In the present content, the argument is that if we're afraid to risk the consequence of war with a budding nuclear power, we'd be even more afraid of the same country once it achieved several nukes.