Am I The Only One Paying Attention?

Candidate for most redundant headline of the month:

Iran's nuclear program alarms world powers

World powers expressed alarm Wednesday at a critical report documenting Iran's progress toward making a nuclear bomb...

Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming several years ago. In fact, several countries did. The response? Sanction after sanction after sanction. The most likely response to this latest report? Tough talk, followed by more sanctions.

The United States is looking to increase the heat on Iran, including a possible strengthening of existing sanctions (told you so) on Iran's financial and banking sectors and additional political pressure...

The United States also hopes international organizations, such as the United Nations, will take steps to further isolate Iran diplomatically.

Oh, by all means let's isolate the rag-heads diplomatically. That'll put an end to their nuclear program.

Of course, the nation with the most to lose is losing patience with the sanction approach.

Israel, meanwhile, warned it will consider all options to confront its arch-nemesis.

"It's clear that Iran is trying to achieve a nuclear weapon and Iran needs to be stopped," said Tzipi Livni, an Israeli opposition leader and former foreign minister. "Iran needs to understand ... that all options are on the table."

In an interesting twist, one Israeli commentator is suggesting that obama could help his reelection chances by taking direct action against Iran. He makes a number of intriguing points, although I disagree with some of the conclusions he draws.

One year from now, the American people will go to the ballot box to decide whether Barack Obama deserves a second term of office.

If recent polls are any indication, the president is facing an uphill battle.

Of course, a lot can happen in a year and it would be a mistake to write the president off. He is a talented campaigner, has an enormous war-chest and will have all the advantages of incumbency at his disposal.

But a sour electorate, stubbornly high unemployment and a growing sense of malaise at home have all contributed to mounting disappointment with the current occupant of the White House. With little hope of an economic turnaround in the next 12 months, the president’s prospects are far from bright.

There is, however, one thing Obama can do which would transform the equation, both at home and abroad: launch a military campaign against Iran to thwart its nuclear intentions.

On the domestic front, confronting Iran would rally the American people behind him in no uncertain terms. In one fell swoop, it would put to rest any qualms about him being weak or indecisive while underscoring his commitment to protecting US interests.

Not so sure about this statement. It would cost him his remaining support on the left, while probably picking up some moderates. But he likely would enjoy a surge of support, just like Bush did during the early stages of the invasion of Iraq.

Internationally, it would transform the Middle East and stave off the unbearable peril of the atomic Ayatollahs destabilizing the region. Moreover, stopping Iran would create a lasting legacy for Obama as the man who saved Western civilization.

That may be a bit much, but it definitely would appeal to his ego. That shouldn't be underestimated.

The US has all the justification it could possibly need for attacking Iran.The recently disclosed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to Washington by blowing up a Georgetown restaurant was virtually an act of war. No country can tolerate a scheme by another state to carry out acts of terror on its soil, and America would be well within its right to respond.

Moreover, the Iranians have been arming and training guerrillas to kill American troops as part of its proxy war against the West.

The Ayatollahs have the blood of American soldiers on their hands and this must not go unpunished.

Amen to that. But bho is just the person to stand back and let them get away with it. 

Let’s be clear: there is no greater threat to international peace and security than a nuclear Iran.

The possibility of the Ayatollahs getting their hands on a nuclear weapon is simply intolerable. It would enable Iran to threaten and coerce its neighbors and set off a region-wide arms race that would alter the strategic balance of the Middle East.

Thankfully, Obama is already on record as saying that he would not allow this to happen.

On June 4, 2008, in an address to the annual AIPAC policy conference, he stated, “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.”

Obama reaffirmed this position again earlier this year on May 22, when he told an AIPAC audience that, “We remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Now is the time for him to stand by his word. Round after round of sanctions have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear drive. The only option left on the table is the measure of last resort: military force. Nothing else, it seems, will stop Iran from achieving its goal.

I agree with everything in the above paragraph - except the naive expectation that obama will stand by his word. He'll say and do anything that seems politically expedient at the time, but time after time fails to come through when it counts.

To be sure, such a course of action would enrage many throughout the Muslim world. And taking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would neither be easy nor quick.

But it is better to be respected than to be liked. And right now, America is neither.

Sad, but true. Unfortunately, obama is not the person to change that.

Obama’s path to electoral victory goes straight through Tehran. He can salvage his presidency and protect the Western world by thwarting Ahmadinejad’s devious plans.

Though fraught with risk, a US-led military assault against Iran’s nuclear installations might just be the game-changer that Obama – and the world – so desperately need. Here’s hoping that he acts before it is too late.

When it comes to obama, hope in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills up first.

I suppose I should stop taking shots at obama and address the situation. Iran simply must not be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons - period. End of discussion.

After all, this is a theologically-driven society that routinely produces suicide bombers. It venerates savages who revel in blowing themselves up while killing innocent men, women, and children. Its leaders assure their subjects that death in a holy war against the infidels is an express ticket to heaven, complete with 72 virgins. Couple that mindset with weapons of mass destruction and we have the formula for Armageddon.

It is starkly clear that it is in the best interests of the U.S., not to say the rest of the world, to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. I don't see how any reasonable person can disagree with that position.

I am not an expert on military force, but I think it can be done without ground troops. A combination of bunker-busters, MOABs, and BUFF carpet bombing would certainly degrade, if not destroy, Iran's nuclear facilities, no matter how buried and hardened. Even if the facilities themselves were unharmed, they'd be buried under hundreds of tons of rubble. And while we're at it let's take out their power and transportation infrastructure, just to complicate resupply and rebuilding.

Since this would result in a loss of Iranian oil on the world market, it would also be a perfect opportunity for us to reinvigorate and expand our domestic energy industry.

Ah, who am I kidding? Something like this will never happen.

Unless the Israeli's do it...