Is Iran an 'unstoppable train'?

Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:23 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona

Just days after the United Nations declared that Iran failed to comply with a Security Council resolution demanding that Iran cease its uranium enrichment activities, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarked, “Iran’s nuclear program is an unstoppable train without brakes.”

The Iranian “nuclear energy” program, which most analysts believe is a cover for a weapons development effort, is complemented by continued ballistic missile development. Last week, Iran announced that it had launched a rocket into earth orbit - nothing more than a test of long-range multi-stage missile. Iran has constantly reported developments and acquisitions of new and improved naval and air defense weapons.

In Iraq, American forces have detained members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps special operations unit, the Qods (Jerusalem) Force. Iran is providing advanced weaponry to Shia militias, weapons that are killing American troops.

Against this backdrop, the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany are discussing how to deal with this “unstoppable train.” The obvious next step will be tougher sanctions, assuming that the Russians and Chinese agree – they basically gutted the sanctions effort two months ago.

It is doubtful stricter sanctions on Tehran will work, especially against a country that sits on the world’s second largest proved oil reserves and is OPEC’s number two oil exporter. As long as the world runs on oil, Iran will be difficult to cow. The world needs energy and will buy it. Taking almost four million barrels of crude per day off the world oil market is not likely to happen.

Assuming sanctions will not be effective in deterring Iran’s nuclear program, what’s next? We’re a long way from the military option, but the Iranians would be well-advised to realize that a military option down the track is a real possibility.

There is real discontent inside Iran. That discontent comes not only from the minority Azeri, Kurd, Arab and Baluch minorities, all of which have nationalist aspirations, but from the majority Persian population as well. The Persians fear that Ahmadinejad’s taunting of the West will further isolate Iran, viewed by many as a pariah state already. It is this fear that dealt a real blow to Ahmadinejad’s favored candidates in the recent municipal elections. The people are also blaming high unemployment and inflation on Ahmadinejad’s disastrous economic policies.

We should be, and probably are, cultivating these seeds of discontent. Radio broadcasts to these groups have struck a chord, evidenced by continued protests from the Iranian government. We should continue to drive a wedge between the government of Iran and the people of Iran – after all, this is not a government of the people.

Our objective should not be to change the regime, but to change its behavior. If the Iranian people want to change the regime, that should be up to them.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

We have a saying in Persian that "If you visit the judge by yourself, you will certainly come back a happy camper". Your article has some valid points but it's not well balanced. I agree that the behavior in Tehran has to change but what about the behavior in Washington? It seems like two extreme sides are feeding off of each other. Please try to be more objective.

Ali Morad (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:46 PM)

C'mon Francona, there is nothing that the Iranians are doing (vis a vis the "bomb" or otherwise) that the world's other nuclear states aren't doing on a daily basis; just yesterday Pakistan announced the development of a new ballistic missile which could carry its nukes deeper into India. This on a day when Pakistan might not have been (1) selling its nuclear technology; (2) harboring the Taliban; (3) funding madrassas; (4) fomenting Islamic fundamentalism; (5)........ (oh, you get the idea). Iran is a sovereign country, and is entitled to do what the hell it wants (which is how every other nuclear state obtained the bomb). Please tell us: how exactly is what Iran is doing ANY worse than what (our buddies) the Pakistanis are doing, on a daily basis?

Paul Gill (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:53 PM)

buy gold and take the wild ride, we are in for trouble from foreigners and our own govt and the Federal Reserve...... protect yourself from your own government.... terrible isnt it ?

john does (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:56 PM)

How hypocritical. Iran isnt doing anything that every other country isnt already doing. United states, India, Britian, Canada, ect. Are all doing it.

Yusef (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:08 PM)

I think Ahmadinejad is in trouble and the people of Iran will one day boot him out of his office. What is frightening however, even after hearing the voices of opposition in his country and being slapped on the wrist by Iran's religiuous leaders for his agressive rhetoric, Ahmadinejad still plunges ahead with the same agressive, combative speeches. Does he know something we don't know? He needs very careful watching. We may be on the right path however now that Bush and Rice have been forced to invite Iran and Syria for talks regarding the stabilzation of Iraq. We need to welcome there involvment with open arms, make them feel important and big as players in bringing some stability to Iraq. If they bite and help in the stabilization process they will look like heros at home. If not they will look like fools being left behind by their neighbors. The people of Iran do not want to be seen as outcast or wish to act as a rouge nation. These talks are the perfect opportunity to calm everyone down and to bring some semblance of stability to Iraq so we can bring our military personel home. Now if the Bush administration would just get on their knees and ask Governor Bill Richardson to be our spokesperson at these talks for us, all might just turn out well. Otherwise, forget it. A Bush administration spokesperson would end up threatening Iran and Syria across the table before the talks even started.

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL. (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:09 PM)

The Iranian president has stated that his goal was to wipe Israel off the map and denies that that the Hitler lead Germans never murdered over 6 million Jews. It's obvious that he like many others in the middle east will not be happy until Israel is gone. I hope the sanctions work, but Iran is serious threat and cannot be trusted. If you think they are you should go there after Friday prayer so you can hear the leaders of the chuch lead the crowds in the traditional chant of "death to America" which as been going on for the last 25 years. They may be doing the same things other countries are doing, but at the bare minimum there should be little or no trust of there intentions when it comes to atomic energy. Iran is sitting on top of a lake of oil why would they need atomic energy?

Derek (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:16 PM)

It is difficult for the American Public at large to know of or learn of the truth regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. Other motives (Global economics) are present between the the U.S. and Iran that drives the existing U.S/Iran conflict . Further investigation is needed along the lines of Iran's oil contracts in Euros instead of U.S. $ with China and other countries. Further investigation is needed along the lines of the role Iraq and Iran have played in reducing the emphasis the world place on the U.S $ as a reserve Currency. Further investigation is needed to understand the Impact of petro-Currency recycling as it relates to our national debt, which is around $8.7 trillion. Further investigation is needed to understand the cause of the U.S.$ declining value, and the world's need to reduce exposure.

Mark Gurney, Manteca, CA. (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:23 PM)

You should not compare Iran and Pakistan!!! We are not finding bombs and military from Pakistan in Iraq like Iran are we. Yes other countries have nuclear weopans but as a community we should all be cautious as to who can develop them now especially any country that could be harboring terrorist and that has no respect for the rest of the nations. If Iran did not have all the oil it does I beleive they would have been in big trouble by now. I hate to ever see us go to war again as i feel for the people that have been killed or injured but i think that if things don't change we could be headed for a confrontation with Iran in the future.

Aaron Thacker, Louisville Kentucky (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:23 PM)

Responding to Paul Gill's question - how is Iran different from any other "nuclear state"? - Iran is seemingly being run by a maniac - who has basically threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Iran - as we now know - is shipping weapons into Iraq that are killing our soldiers. Do you think it's plausible (if they actually ever get "the bomb") they would give or sell this technology to Al Qaeda - or the Taliban - or God knows who else? That's the difference between Iran and Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or China,or anyone else who has nuclear capability.

Paul - Omaha (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:29 PM)

If the government of Iran does not represent the will of its people, it still speaks for them. Sort of like the Bush administration. 43's credibility is practically nil. So what's all of this garble about spreading democracy in these countries. We need to clean up here at home first. Then allow the natural order of things to take its course. After all, armed middle eastern countries only threaten the Zionist occupation....not us Americans.

rick rodriguez, corpus christi , TX (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:37 PM)

What is with the threats of military force? Have we learned nothing from Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq?? After 9/11 we had the world with us, now they're all against us. This Country, our great USA, has been around for what, two hundred years?? Does anybody know how long the Perisans ruled? We're like the new kid on the block on steroids, forgetting the history lessons the Persians, Romans, Greeks, etc. have learned, NO COUNTRY is infallible, and if we upset enough people, war will probably be on our soil next time, and I don't mean terrorists. When China, Russia, and Iran (which are united in their views of the USA) decided they've had enough, we will be in real trouble. The point is, we're stretched to thin, trying to tell the world how to act, and threatening them when they don't do what we want. It's okay for India and Pakistan to have the Nuclear edge, but not Iran. So, does that sound hypocritical to anybody else?? The current administration does more "sabre rattling" than anyone, it's no surprise that Iran and North Korea are taking an aggressive posture, look at our failed foreign policy. Want change, vote out every incumbent politician, and make change happen.

Jon Murdis, Manistee, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:41 PM)

I disagree slightly with Mr. Francona that sanctions would not be effective in the short term. Why? Because of Mr. Francona's own argument: sanctions will further sow the seeds of discontent: economic frustration, international isolation (although the Iraq quagmire makes that more difficult), national pride wounding due to that isolation, etc etc ... But that said, I am growing very tired of these taunts and insults and threats from the Iranian President. I am also alarmed by their nuclear and missile programs, which we seem to have a good evaluation of. Contrary to what reader Paul Gill wrote, sovereignty stops when another country's defense interests begins, especially when the Iranian President has essentially advocated continuing the "final solution" (many scholars and average joes think genocide or genocidal threats also trump sovereignty). I don't think my country will tolerate a nuclear Iran, nor an Iran with ICBM delivery systems (in case there's a nuclear program that we don't know about). And contrary to what has been debated here, America is held back only by its values and discipline. Iran would be complete toast in an unconditional conventional war.

Edward, Los Angeles (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:44 PM)

I do not think that Israel will tolerate a nuclear armed Iran in any way shape or form. Some sort of military action by Irael is likley within the next six months. Iran will retaliate and this will be the excuse the US needs to conduct limited air strikes against legitimate military targets. Just wait....

David Portland OR. (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:02 PM)

I'm just happy that we have 150,000 of the best soldiers in the world on the doorstep of Iran when they do decide to build the bomb. The strategy to put soldiers in Iraq is a genius one in my opinion and Iran is falling right into our trap by supplying weapons to the Iraqi separatists and defying the U.N. There creating more allies for our imminent war against them. Those of you who ever thought this war was about Iraq were dead wrong. This war has always been about Iran and to even talk of pulling our troops out is absurd. The lack of faith many of you people show in American intelligence is mind-boggling. Let's keep the wedge between Iran and Syria for as long as we possibly can. In fact, I don't think we should ever pull out of Iraq until Iran and Syria become free and responsible states. We're still in Korea aren't we? Isn't that a good thing?

Shane B, Covington, KY (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:07 PM)

War brings prosperity.Right? We all know that the fallout from a nuclear explosion or so-called dirty bomb differienciates liberal from conservitives. So what is there to fear? It is just another way to put more money in the pockets of the real Americans at the expense of the scum that make up the 99% of the populace within the borders of The United States.If only old Longshanks were alive today he would be ecstatic at the way the real Amerikans are making his dream a reality.It gives a whole new definition to OLAGHARCY. And oh yes it is true the bit about scum. Just start a conversation with any cop and they will tell you so.We need to take some lessons fom the French when and after the allies purged the nazis from Paris during WW11. Yes, with war many changes are made and many times these changes are for the good of us all. History is the light that illuminates the present.

Aunt Millie (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:12 PM)

Ahem: let me go through the list: "Aaron Thacker", it has long been understood that elements of the Pakistani intelligence services sympathize with both the Taliban and Al Qaeda (they were one of the last countries to continue to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan). Do you really think that Pakistani money, training, fighters and materiel are not making their way into Iraq? "Paul (from) "Omaha": there are many in the world who think that we are led by a maniac. Unlike us (and every other nuclear state) Iran has not yet sold or given any nuclear technology to anyone (to use your quote back at you: "That's the difference between Iran and Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or China,or anyone else who has nuclear capability"). Where is the evidence that they would give the technology to anyone (and risk self-annihilation as a result?). To "Edward" (from) "Los Angeles": "sovereignty" doesn't "end" because another country's interests are threatened; that is why it is called "sovereignty" (look it up). There is NO credibe authority who asserts otherwise (hence the notion on international law, which deals with relationships BETWEEN sovereign states). And finally, to you all: I am not an apologist for Iran (or the U.S. for that matter) but try to remember that since the 1979 revolution Iran has not started a war with anybody. Through that time we were coddling the mujahedin, coddling Saddam (yep, that means you, Francona), coddling the Saudis and coddling the Israelis. Now really, is not a little introspection warranted here?

Paul Gill, Seattle, WA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:16 PM)

From what I read, Iran's missle was a sub-oribital flight, not a ballistic missle capable of reaching the US, so let's not cry Mushroom Cloud just yet. Iran's economy is based mostly on oil, so the real solution to Iranian ambitions is to reduce our use of oil, and with lower consumption and the help of the Saudis, reduce the price of oil. That's the battleground that will not cost more American lives. It's strange that we do not hear much from the administration on this. If they really wanted to curb Iran, they would ask us to conserve oil. They would tell us that it was our patriotic duty to conserve oil. Imagine what a 10% reduction in US consumption would do to the oil markets. Ah, but this administration, beholding to big oil, has no desire to wage a war on the economic front. Bombs, missles, bullets and wasted lives is all they know.

Al, Burlington, KS (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:19 PM)

If Iran wants to become a nuclear power, send them about 30 of our 200KT warheads. It has been proven to deter an agressive society. Look what 2 of our 7KT warheads did to Japan. We will never have to worry about their agressiveness again.

jerryl hyche (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:20 PM)

It occurs to me that since Iran seems incapable of "stopping" their own train and so desperately desires to have nuclear weapons, we should, by all means, give them one. While we are at it, we may as well send one to North Korean president, Kim Jong-il. I don't really want to hear how other nations wouldn't tolerate it. For pity's sake, how much farther down the ladder of contempt can we fall? And, if we have any intention of stopping either of these run-away trains, the time is now--before all those lucky male babies--the survivors of China's "one-child" policy--become the greatest military power ever known. China has already begun to flex her muscles--refusing to rein in North Korea, shooting satelites from space, and stealing who-knows-how-much poorly guarded technology from the US and others. How long do you really think it will be before the US is no more? Use it, or lose it. We can stop this train without invading Iran--we just choose not to.

Teresa, Oklahoma (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:21 PM)

B52 strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are about the best we can do. Give war a chance,and fight terror with terror.

chuck habelow arcadia florida (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:25 PM)

Why should Iran not acquire nuclear capabilities, weaponry or otherwise? If intent and usage should be the measure, then the United States should be required to give up its' own nuclear arsenal, considering it alone has brought nuclear annihilation upon women and children. Iran is not currently occupying another sovereign state, nor is it selling laser guided bombs to be used on civilians. Leave Iran alone, and it will leave you alone. Salaam.

Marwan Ibrahim (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:34 PM)

Overall the article is pretty good but I take issue with some of the generalizations. The worst one for me is "In Iraq, American forces have detained members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps special operations unit, the Qods (Jerusalem) Force. Iran is providing advanced weaponry to Shia militias, weapons that are killing American troops." Are we not fighting the Sunnis primarily. 90%+ of U.S. fatalities are from the Sunni insurgents and they are backed by our Friends in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Aren't the Iraqi government's backers, if not sponsors, also Shiites, the same Shiites that back the militias? Why would Iran be trying to destabilize a government they basically already control? Also, why is the U.S. Military showing off weapons they say came from Iran clearly marked "Made in the U.A.E." when the U.A.E is an entirely different country and one we count as an ally in the war on terror? There may be good explanations but I have yet to hear them.

James Thomas, Denver, CO (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:35 PM)

It is igonorance to indicate that Iran has the same rights to nuclear arms as other countries. That guy is a nut from the get go. I believe he will take care of himself, by that I mean I do not get the feeling he is well respected by his countrymen or others in the region. To the contrary, I have the feeling they think he is as unstable and dangerous as most westerners think. I have been a republican all of my life, and I still consider myself a republican. I graduated from a military college, I was commissioned and served 7 years in the Air Force. I have spent quite a bit of time in middle eastern countries and I participated in the first gulf "pre-season" game. BUT WE NEED A CHANGE AND WE NEED IT VERY, VERY, BADLY. When I say that I have been, and remain, a republican, I mean I have considered myself a staunch republican for many years. However, we all need to start thinking of ourselves as AMERICANS first and foremost. I was particularly fond of Mr. Jon Murdis' comments, indicating that we (America)are the "new kid on the block (acting) as if we are on steriods." There is nothing more true, we need to get off of the steriods and start acting like a world leader again. We need a new President, we need a hero. I read an article some time ago about how lucky our country has been regarding the presidents we have had during our most dire national crises (Abe Lincloln, John Kennedy, etc). We are in a dire situation now and I, for one, am praying for a hero - I don't care if they are black, female, democrat or republican. I listened intently one day to Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton as they answered questions during a Senate hearing regarding their Iraq plan. How can a President NOT LISTEN TO MEN OF SUCH HONOR AND INTELLIGENCE? They know what they are talking about, and they were/are providing advice as Americans, not as a republican and a democrat. If I were President Bush I would set up a desk in the White House for those two gentleman and General Colin Powell, then I would take about a month off and let them begin to get us on the right track again.

Simmons Spain, Lynchburg, Va (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:39 PM)

the issue with Iran has very little to do with a possible bomb in a distant future and a lot to do with a great new geopolitical game involving US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan and China. US is in a fight to preserve its world domination acieved in a large part by controlling the ME oil via its "special relations" with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states rather then let the Europe and the rest to seek alternatives in Russia and Iran. Saudi Arabia and other suni Arab states are afraid from their own opressed shia population which could be more loyal to Iran. Israel is seeking to exploit the rift among Arabs to the limit. Russia is hoping the US will blow the ME to such an extend, it will remain the only reliable source of energy. Along the way, Euriope will break from US domination. in fact, Russia is the only player poised to win in any outcome except establishment of pro-american regime in Iran - an extreamly improbable outcome. If America loses in a ME - the lost will be catastrofic for American World domination dream, probably forever.

Alex Feldman, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:40 PM)

I think that Iran should do what it pleases with nuclear power or weapons, that is it's right. We have the right to re-target our nuclear tipped misses, that is our right. But, I wonder to what degree this situation is cooked, like Iraq was, and like Vietnam was. I dont trust this administration worth a damn, so I tend to dismiss most of what it says. I dont see much difference between Bush/Chenney and Ahmadinejad in intellect and intent. We went to Afghanistan, that was justified. Then we pulled our resources out of there and went to Iraq on the basis of lies and deception. Now our good soldiers are paying for it, as well as their families, and the American people have lost faith and trust in our governmant. Not a good deal. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this administration is amongst the most, if not is the most, moraly degenerate ones this great nation has ever had to put up with. Think it will change when the Democrats get in? Ha! Okay, so I may win a trip to Quantanamo, get myself "dissapeared". What the hell, I prefer truth to truthiness anyway.

Mike, dayton ohio (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:41 PM)

We will never know if they can be stopped because we have a administration that only knows one way to do anything - Bribe it or bomb it - If that don't work give up - If they could honestly work diplomatically on the situation you never know what could happen. That said it needs to be done with a whole new administration as this one has lost credibility throughout the world and a change of face will be question heavily making it a impossible task for this one now

Scott - Kirkland, WA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:47 PM)

The information about Iran supplying weapons to Shiites insurgents is managed news. Who's supplying the Sunni insurgents? This is never mentioned. The current focus on Iran is part of the neocon roadmap. First the foothold in Iraq, then go after Iran and Syria. Not till years from now will the U.S. turn on its current allies, ie Saudi Arabia. The stragegy is divide and rule, it's too much to tackle all those countries at once.

Bill Thomas Surrey BC (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:52 PM)

Please excuse me, but I think Iran is a Bush Administration created problem. Iran has been the recipient of too much U.S. attention over the years. People keep talking about the takeover of the U.S. Embassy after the Shah was booted out, but conveniently forget that it was our CIA that put the Shah in power, that he had a secret police that were every bit as murderous of the Shia majority as Saddam's secret police. Iran, moreover, has extended numerous olive branches and has been kicked in the teeth because or in spite of them. Most recently, in 2001, Iran participated in formulating the post Taliban government of Afghanistan. Prior to that, they *aided* U.S. troops, even allowing fly overs of military aircraft, when we were fighting the Taliban and searching for Osama Bin Laudin. Iran's reward for this? In the 2002 State of the Union, Ms. Rice inserted them as part of the Axis of Evil. Look, nothing good is going to happen in Iraq unless the Iranian's agree to participate. Don't you think it's about time we started treating that *democratically elected* government with some respect. We may not like their President, and I think he is an idiot, but he IS the President chosen by a majority of the Iranian people. Deal with it!

mike (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:57 PM)

i agree with the first comment- be more objective. Saying Iran is supplying Iraq with weapons that are killing us is unfounded, as stated earlier by General Pace, a day after the President tried this propaganda stunt. The truth is, We were selling used jet parts to Iran through a 3rd party. Doesn't that mean we're just as guilty for fueling Iran's power? Stop trying to instigate more hatred and idiocy. What we need now is level,objective, and truthful talk on these matters, not propaganda based agenda fueled editorials.

Chris in Chicago (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:58 PM)

What separates Iran and the other countries mentioned is the fact that, while most other countries submit their facilities to IAEA inspections, Iran has barred inspectors from their facilities. It's the lack of transparency that causes the other nations of the world to assume the worst, based on the character of their leadership. Iran has every right to a peaceful nuclear power program, but they must earn that right by demonstrating their intentions to their neighbors.

Jeff, Detroit, MI (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:00 PM)

This is in response to Ali Morad. The behavior in Washington comes as a direct result of the attacks of 9/11. You can say that Iran had nothing to do with those attacks. I recall constantly hearing that Iran is a direct sponsor of terrorist groups (IE: Hezbollah). The war we are currently fighting is against terrorism. Iran can not wipe it's hands of the blood it has shed in the name of religion. No matter where we fight this war whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran it is a war that has to be fought. These people have made it clear they want all Americans dead so why should we try to negotiate or even wait around for them to get their wish.

Vinnie, Sacramento, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:06 PM)

We must try to reason with Iran and North Korea somehow. Persians do not think as we do, which makes them more dangerous. They are Zoroastrians, believers in Good and Evil Spirits (Spenta and Angra). They are convinced that there is a perennial war going on between the two. It's a replica of the North Korean belief in a Yin Yang Reality! We are dealing with people who are mentally different, but we should be able to overcome these differences through Wisdom. If we do not, there hardly will be any dialogue, any common ground! People like these need dictators and breed dictators, Good or Bad ... who tell them who is Good and who is Evil, with whom to associate. The moral is: we must try to get on their dictators' side, to win! This is why I have been advocating that President Bush travel to see the North Korean leader very soon, and also that overtures be made to Ayatollah Kameini through, let's say, Dr. Javad Zarif. We can hardly win if we are branded as the Great Satan by these "black/white" minds!

Bohdan Szejner (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:20 PM)

That's correct Dave from Portland....But can Israel stand alone in such a conflict? Or will they call for big Brother USA to help? I say drop them all today... and get out of Iraq as well. So many countries have danced in the sand over there, and found it was not worth it. If we need to go in...go in with nukes, or not at all. Focus on improvements within our own country until that time. Period! Hidden agendas, special interests etc. are fogging things up. If we are at war, then go to war. No pussy footing around. And, when it's done then get the hell back. We are not back because it's not done. It was never done right! We never had a good enough reason to do it right! And, we cannot continue to cat and mouse in the middle East with nukes around. This is not the 1970's. Ground forces and air strikes are not enough to combat this region any longer and win a war.

AJ Akron, OH (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:20 PM)

Has anyone ever heard the term: MAD or Mutually assured destruction? The US & Soviets used it & although there were a few close calls, for the most part it kept the world safe from nuclear holocaust. Well, even if Iran were to build nuclear weapons even they wouldn't be stupid enough to actually use them against Israel or the US or Saudi Arabia because then Iran would instantly be wiped off the face of the earth by US nuclear weapons or what would be know as "Assured Destruction" of Iran. So it really doesn't matter if Iran gets it's nuclear weapon or not. All it would be is a trophy in their trophy case, a deterent against someone invading them, & just one more thing that the Israelis will worry about but that's not the US fault. They choose to live a dangerous region not us.

William James, NJ (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:20 PM)

Iranians and their fantastic selves and nation are alluring and wonderful, but also prone to implosion, as has occurred so often throughout their amazing history; my point being, that Iran is not an "unstoppable train", as the Iranian people so often decide to derail such trains!

HJ Whitaker, Sacramento, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:26 PM)

I fully agree with David Portland OR. Israel will not tolerate Iran having an operational Nuclear capability, particularly in light of Ahmadinejad's goal of destroying Israel. The Iranian President seems almost Psychotic in his pronouncements. One a-bomb in Tel aviv would wipe out 40% of the Israeli populace. What would you do if you were Israel? Six to 8 months before Israeli takes action seems to be a very good estimate, followed by appropriate conventional action by the US.

Ramjet, Kelseyville CA aka Al Marshick[Maj USAF ret] (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:27 PM)

It's real simple here folks, either Iran will do a 180 or the leadership is going to get taken out. One evening while the clerics and their stupid little president are in parliment ranting and raving about the great satan, a US submarine will launch a cruise missle that will fly undetected about 50 feet off the ground until it gets to the intended target. That target is the current leadership which is the last thing our world needs here in the near future. Get rid of these fools now for the greater good of the world. Cut the head of the snake off and the body will die. Don't worry about the oil, they'll keep selling it, after all, isn't money what makes everything and anything happen in our world?

Scott Southerland, Ft Walton Beach FL (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:28 PM)

Scott Southerland, Ft Walton Beach FL (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:30 PM)

The diffence between the West and Iran is that the West don't glorify self destruction. How can you be a Responsible nuclear power if you advacate Suicide Bombings.

S. Roberts, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:32 PM)

This is just stupid. Iran signed the NPT and now the big powers want to back out of it. If no one can prove Iran is building nukes then they should just STFU. Iran has the right to enrich uranium. It's in the treaty. What ever happened to the part of the NPT that says the nuclear powers should be working to get rid of their nukes? It’s just never going to happen. So as far as I’m concerned Iran can enrich uranium under the NPT as it’s written.

Erik, Santa Clara, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:33 PM)

Eastern Iraq has been part of the Persian Empire for 5000 years with a continuous Persian (Iranian) presence during that time. America has been in Iraq for 4 years yet has turned the tables on Iran by complaining that Iran is "meddling." Iraq and its people got separated from the territory of Iran by the invasion of foreign forces. They want it back.

Don Zucker, Boynton Beach, Fla. (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:33 PM)

One must always consider context and intent when examining internation actions and the dealings of nations. Today's nuclear powers did so in the face of what was considered in part to be a threat. The US in WWII, the Soviets in response to the US in the cold war, giving it the Chinese as a fellow communist power, our Western allies in the face of Soviet posturing in Europe, Pakistan and Indian as a balance against each other, and Israel in the face of obliteration at the hands of all its middle eastern neighbors. Where is the threat to Iran for which they need such weapons? Israel is not going to preemptively launch a nuclear strike. It might do so in the face of overwhelming conventional attack, or in response to a wmd attack. No, Iran wants such weapons because it can make them and can then threaten others with them. Just as N.Korea developed them in the face of paranioia regarding threats to it and in order to preserve its regime through atomic detterence. I used to think in the aftermath of 9/11 that such weapons would end in the hands of terrorists, and I supported the attack on Iraq when I was persuaded that wmds were there. I've since come to believe that no nation-state, however irrational its rhetoric, would actually or intentionally just give such weapons to terrorists. There's too much potential for backlash leading to regime change, and the one thing Iran's leadership wants is to stay in its leadership position.

me myself and I, usa (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:35 PM)

Mr. Rodriguez, do you honestly believe after every past Israeli victory over the combined efforts of the Arabic states means nothing? If Iran threatens Israel in any creditable way, you can bet that it will destroy Iran to the ground. You forget that Israel is a nuclear power. Should it even appear that Israel would be destroyed by the Arab powers, they would take the rest of the middle east out with them. Just about like how if the US were in any threat of actual invasion, we would first try and repel it, and then if that fails, take out the rest of the world with our immense nuclear stockpile. As for Hypocrisy, there is a reason the US acts the way it does. We allowed the world to do as it wished after WWI. World War II happened as a result. We allow the rest of the world to manage itself, and it begins destroying itself again. We are only out there to prevent the it again. But, I'm tired of being Mr. Policeman. Let them kill each other, and lets just reap the benefits of their wars by selling them weapons

James Brown, Seattle , Washington (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:42 PM)

all trains can be stoped sometimes on their own sometimes they need to be derailed Israel can not let Iran have a nuelear bomb and must stop them God willing.

Douglas norwood pa. (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:42 PM)

So let me get this straight, Its OK for US to go and far out reach its borders and have thousands of Nuclear weapons, and defy UN and kill and invade. But when US does it, its for the good, why? oh we have popular vote for our dictators who can be there for 4 or 8 years no matter how stupid and authocratic they are. But if any other country does this, they are terrorists and extremists... come on, how stupid do you think the world is...?

Franco, Lapaz, Mexico (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:47 PM)

I don’t see why we keep fighting nations over wanting nuclear weapons? For the most part, countries want them as protection from stronger countries like the U.S. The MAD theory is still an effective deterrent to offensive use of nuclear weapons so even if Iran had them, they would have no practical use. I suppose they could sell them, but nuclear materials have unique signatures which would point to the original source of the weapon. We have a greater chance of being nuked by a weapon stolen from the Russians than from a weapon sold by the Iranians. And in pragmatic terms, why should the US stick its neck out over this issue? No other country in the world is seriously concerned about nuclear proliferation. It will take an actual nuclear attack against Europe or the United States to wake people up to the real danger. Until that happens, why continue to aggravate the world? (Note to Yusef – I rather doubt the Canadians are working on building their own nuclear arsenal – they are a country of tree huggers!)

Fitz, Atlanta, GA (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:48 PM)

Let's look at one of the paragraphs in the article by switching names of Iran and US. "There is real discontent inside US. That discontent comes not only from the minority African-American and Hispanic minorities, all of which have aspirations, but from the majority White population as well. The Whites fear that Bush’s taunting of Iran will further isolate US, viewed by many as a pariah state already. It is this fear that dealt a real blow to Bush’s favored candidates in the recent elections. The people are also blaming high unemployment and inflation on Bush’s disastrous economic policies.' How true! But when it comes to our own faults and problems, we are blind to them.

Fred Gibbns, Oak Park, IL (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:48 PM)

iran and its leaders remind us who understand another country in another time of what agression unchecked will lead the usa to.what will it take to wake up the bleeding hearts from the demo party to the real truth.the next attack is already planned this time americans will be shocked to find it came from the southern nations just south of the rio grand river.say it want happen prove me wrong you do not allow 30 millon people into a country without ids and remain a free people iran or what ever country may use as a name america is a nation without leadership america is slipping into a sleep it want awake from

bob shepard (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:50 PM)

With great power comes great responsibility. Iran would use a Nuclear weapon if it had one. The reason nuclear weapons exist are as a deterant, you attack me I attack you, no one wins. This only works with countries that has cultures that value human life. Radical islam does not, therefore should never be allowed to get the bomb, period. This is not hypocracy, this is common sense.

Mike, Miami, Fl (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:00 PM)

Somehow, since we have about 10,000 or so nuclear ICB missiles pointed at about every part of the universe, I can see why every country looks at us and has to question what kind of a peaceful nation we are to be telling everyone else what they should be doing. Just because we say that we are the "good guys", that doesn't quite make it with the rest of world. I never could understand how even if Saddam had the capability of striking the U.S. with some kind of a weapon (gas or whatever) and killed a few thousand of us, and then we retaliated and wiped him off the map, that that would have made any sense whatsoever. How many times do we have to keep on saying that he was just a thug in his own surroundings and nothing else? This clown in Iran is just about the same.

Ron San Diego, California (Sent Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:05 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=74022

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Authors:

Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:

ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Is Iran an 'unstoppable train'?

Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:23 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

TRACKBACKS

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Syndicate This Site

MSNBC Weblogs

ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Is Iran an 'unstoppable train'?

Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:23 AM by HardballLt. Col. Rick Francona

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

TRACKBACKS

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Syndicate This Site

MSNBC Weblogs

Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:23 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona