A nuclear-armed Iran

Submitted by Kevin Bjornson (United States), Jun 22, 2010 at 14:35

Bombing Iran once would delay their program by a few years. Bombing them again would achieve yet another delay. This is better than doing nothing, but the best solution is regime change.

A thorough bombing that would include military and other government targets would be a sustained operation of at least a few days. The regime is unpopular with Iranians. I met a couple Persians a while back, they were both McCain supporters and liked most of my ideas.

Ideally the regime leaders would be attacked while they are gathered together, even at public events.
Also take out their main government offices and their oil-exporting capacity, and the regime is finished.

They may try to block the Straits of Hormuz. We need to get over that fear. Nuclear incineration is far more harmful than high gas prices. If the high prices were maintained long enough, and regulatory barriers removed, the US could develop it's 300+ year domestic supply of oil in shale and sand, as well as in shallow waters. The US would benefit enormously, economically.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".