Bombing Iran; a follow up to Mr. Pipes' response

Submitted by Ali Goldoust (United States), Feb 5, 2010 at 00:59

Would bombing be the best way of protecting the United States? Didn't the 2000-2008 era of bombing cause more chaos than stability in the Middle East and all around the world? Didn't the same period create more distance between the U.S. and its strongest allies including Europeans? At least now, it seems that President Obama has the European on his side; what former President Bush was not able to have!

I can't agree more with you about how disastrous a Khamenei with nuclear weapon would be, but I believe a strike by the U.S. or by any other country is what the same Khamenei dreams for. If a strike doesn't result in the overthrow of that regime (I am sure it will not), the same Khamenei through his executor Ahmadinejad will be able to shown down even this weak Iranian democratic movement, unite a larger percentage of Iranian behind his policies, further close the country to the rest of the world, further expand his dictatorship, and enjoy dictating in a less critical environment that currently exist.

A softer approach could be less expensive, less disastrous, with win-win outcome, even though it may take longer. This is Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's real nightmare!

Regards

Ali G.

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".