Iran in the Crosshairs?

"The U.S. administration is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran, despite publicly pushing for a diplomatic solution to a dispute over its nuclear ambitions, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

"Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a 'potential Adolf Hitler,' and sees 'regime change' in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

'This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,' Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'We are not going to discuss military planning,' said spokesman Blair Jones.

"'The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) and the UN Security Council have spoken clearly: Iran must return to full and sustained suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities.'

"Iran insists it only wants nuclear technology for power generation. Washington believes Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb and refuses to rule out an attack to deal with what it says is one of the biggest threats to regional stability.

"Its attempts to take action against Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of fellow United Nations Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to consider sanctions."

Source

It would seem G.W. Bush is up to it again. He is going after part 2 of his axis of evil. He even went as far as to label the president of Iran as "Adolf Hitler." It sounds pretty serious. I just wonder if any of Bush's generals, who he relies on for intelligence and when to increase/decrease the military in Iraq, have bothered to tell him that such a move would be highly costly and dangerous to the welfare and integrity of the United States?

Even a selective airstrike against targets inside of Iran could only prove to provoke them further. They may undertake a full-force military invasion of Iraq. I doubt Tehran is as gullible and crippled as Baghdad was three years ago on Freedom Day. Out of the people I know from Iran, they are a truly arrogant and proud people. They probably would fight to the last man, for real! Instead of shaming the Iranian people into "regime change," Bush may move them to US policy change in the Middle East, especially when you have someone like the Ayatollah who is really pulling the strings and running the government behind the scenes.

In this instance, however, I agree with US policy-makers, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear capabilities, even for peaceful use (which I do not believe). Iran has repeatedly verbalized its contempt for Israel, and such weapons, I am sure, would find a place on the tip of some mid-range ballistic missile, or in the backpack of some serious suicide bomber in downtown Tel Aviv!

George Bush should have taken greater care to gauge his enemies and place them into order in regards to their direct immediate and future threats to the United States and its allies. Now, we are stuck in a hopeless war (like Vietnam), which we will never win. We have already been defeated, and Iraq is locked in a civil war, which they can only decide ultimately. If Bush had attacked Iran first, we can be certain (mostly) that Saddam wouldn't have come to the aid of his blood enemies, the Iranians. Now, however, we have regime stagnation in Iraq, and Iran has vowed to aid its Shi'ite brethren in Iraq from the Sunnis who subjugated them for decades! American airstrikes can only go so far, when the Iranians invade the eastern borders of Iraq!

This is truly a conundrum for the United Nations to work out. The US cannot afford anymore unilateral "nation building." The cost of such policies in Iraq has already proven too great in money and American lives!

Bush is not the president to make such a decision for us at this time!