Display:
Assuming you aren't referring to regime change in the U.S., suppose you do install a new regime in Iran and the population responds by having nothing to do with the new regime (as in the Tobacco Protest), what follows next?

And on the way to the "new regime", consider this

In 2007, former defense minister and IDF chief Shaul Mofaz told The Jerusalem Post that while he wasn't ruling out a military strike on Iran, "The potential for a regional escalation as a result of an attack is great. Iran sees Israel as a target and has ballistic missiles that can reach every European capital. If it responds, then Hizbullah will respond and maybe Syria, and we don't even know how Hamas will respond." Mofaz quickly forgot those words, but if a wave of opposition arose against the war that's looming, he might remember them.
Given Iranian history, that probably means London. Is Cameron really ready for this?
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 12:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that's one where Israeli hawks add a zero to the range estimates to see if they can get traction in an EU that remains resistant to their war drums. It might "convince" the Polish enough to accept a ton of yankee dollars to have their useless missiles in Europe, but that doesn't mean anyone thinks there's a threat, let alone that the missiles could counter it.

Iran has demonstrated nothing of a long range capability up to now.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 12:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're missing the point - Mofaz, like lots of retired generals (hawks or not, and Mofaz is certainly a hawk) is strongly against an attack on Iran. The argument, true or not, is being made as an argument against an attack, not for it.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 01:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series