Ugh. Here we go again. my essay on Iran. More in my profile:

It seems that these days more and more people are talking about how military action on Iran is a necessity. In my estimation, the case for this is not only built on shaky criteria, but also will deliver far more negative consequences than positive ones.

First off, the supporters of military action have two main supports that build off each other as to why action is needed. I will address both these supports in later sections, but will touch upon them briefly in this section. They are:

1) Iran's Nuclear Program
2) Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

Considering our understanding of Iran's nuclear program is limited, and as based on our very own intelligence reports,^{1, 2} not for the purpose of weaponry, this starts the argument on very weak footing.

Following on this trail. Pro-military action supporters then use a quote of Ahmadinejad's to build the case that if Iran does get nuclear weaponry, they would indeed use it on Israel. (I will get into this quote in more depth in a later section)

Well, to use this line of reasoning, some very relevant facts need to be overlooked. First off, the quote most often used is indeed a mistranslation.^{3, 4, 5} The argument can be made that even the correct translation doesn't paint a rosy picture. This is true. However, if the original statement is alarm enough on it's own, why press the mistranslation? Why are people so reluctant to use the correct version? Obviously, the mistranslation uses more graphic imagery, and thus it is embraced the most by people who would like to see Iran painted as dangerous in order to make a possible strike more of a reality.

That aside, Ahmadinejad has no power over the Iranian military. (I will get into the VERY confusing explanation of the Iranian political system in a later section.) Also, Iran has had WMDs for years⁶ without using them on Israel.

So, the argument for a military strike against Iran is based on a nuclear program that as far as we understand is not geared toward weaponry, coupled with the fear that they will use nuclear weapons based on an incorrect quote from a person who has no control over the use of Iran's military, overlooking Iran's history with it's WMDs.

Still, in the face of this flimsy argument, supporters press on. Their support crumbling from the seemingly solid points addressed earlier to strictly gut feelings and the concept that it's too much risk to NOT strike, thus the lack of concrete argument shouldn't be a hindrance.

Entertaining this concept and overlooking everything mentioned earlier, what would be the results of even a very surgical air strike against Iran's nuclear sites only?



Part of that slide assumes that it's an impossibility to target most of Iran's nuclear sites. This is a concept that has recently been put forth by the pentagon⁷.

So there you have it. The Case for an Attack on Iran: A weak argument based on shaky criteria that needs to be overlooked altogether in order to begin to entertain the concept of a strike which will have definite negative long term consequences and no long term solution.

Sources:
¹ Fox News. December 7th, 2007. Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report (new window)
² NPR. December 3rd, 2007. NIE Report on Iran Contradicts Bush Claims (new window)
³ The Guardian. June 14th, 2007. Lost in translation (new window)
⁴ BBC. March 6th, 2007. Wiped off the map? (new window)
⁵ American Chronicle. January 18th, 2007. "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century (new window)
⁶ GlobalSecurity.Org Report. April 6th, 2008. Chemical Weapons - Iran (new window)
⁷ Telegraph.co.uk. May 7th, 2008. US Pentagon doubts Israeli intelligence over Iran's nuclear programme (new window)

(Sources work in my profile)

child_god:Let's send Will Smith and Tom Cruise over to Iran in fighter planes. They can air drop Dianetics, e-meters, and vitamins to the people, and crash their plane into the Mullah's castle or whatever. They stand back to back with machine guns blazing while smoking cigars, and when they run out of bullets they start punching the Iranians lights out!

Then the belly dancers and children would come out and exclaim "We're free! We're free! Thank you L. Ron Hubbard!". An old guy will kill his best livestock for a grand feast and offer his youngest daughter to the men. After Tom Cruise turns down the offer because he's gay, Will takes her to the back of the tent and removes the veil from her face. When she is revealed to be all buck toothed and ugly, he'll say, 'Aw, hell naw!' and the war will be over!

How hard could it be?

That was actually the funniest thing I read all week.

Good job.