Re: Further Response to Myth and Question for Dr. Pipes

Submitted by Aymenn Jawad (United Kingdom), Feb 5, 2010 at 17:13

Myth, your suggestion that NATO apply some sort of verbal pressure to Iran, making it clear that threats against Israel will not be tolerated, sounds reasonable. I also suggest that Western leaders offer any support, verbal or material, to the Iranian demonstrators who contest the fraudulent election results from June, whenever there is news of another repressed protest. As Patrick Clawson pointed out, it is actually the issue of domestic opposition, in so far as it continues to organize street demonstrations and the like, that is of primary concern to the Iranian regime. Anything that can divert the regime's attention away from the nuclear program and aid the possibility of ending the system of the Islamic Republic from within is most welcome. That includes support for Balochi insurgents. I note that when Jundallah assassinated 75 Revolutionary Guard commanders, protests sparked up again. A question, Myth: have you now abandoned the idea of a pre-emptive US military strike à la Dr. Pipes against Iranian nuclear facilities?

A further point, which I address directly as a question to Dr. Pipes: in any case, how practical is the suggestion that the US military bomb Iran's facilities? The possibility of using Iraqi airspace is dim, given the power of pro-Iranian parties in Iraq, and as you pointed out, the idea of using Saudi airspace is out of the question, so what do you propose? And how can you be so certain that the US military can take out those nuclear sites so easily? For all you know, Iran may well have anti-aircraft defences capable of taking down US bomber jets.

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".