Which option

Submitted by Werner (United States), Jul 30, 2005 at 22:31

To destroy their facilities is obviously what they want. Then they can rally most Iranians behind them and say, the evil USA attacked us when we tried to make cheap electricity to develop our country. From now on we can blame the US for the bad economic situation in our country. And look at me, Ahmadinejad, I really tried hard to help the people but the US destroyed us. Let's send suicide bombers. Thats what's going to happen if you destroy just the facilities.(Who knows they may have already facilities unknown to the west somewhere and if the 'open' facilities are destroyed then the west is happy and they can continue development).

I think the best way is to destroy the intentions not just the possibilities. That means indeed regime change and that would be something to focus on. Another war may be justifiable or not, but then the US government has to turn on the propaganda machine which they didn't so far (I guess they choose the military option as the cheapest way to get out of it).

The point is how to achieve a regime change without involving american military. Sanctions obviously don't work very well with oilrich countries (because of worldwide corruption). The stirring up of the population into a revolution readiness is so I do believe not yet feasible. Many are not contend with the situation but to become a revolutionary is to big of a step right now. It's good to keep working on it but I don't think the iranian people are ready for that.

That might well be that one has to delay their progress (in the worst case the destruction by armed forces) and work on revolutionary readiness. For sure iranian people look at Iraq and what is happening there. I don't think Iranians are ready to do something unless the democracy project in Iraq is a success. If they see that a democracy attracts terrorism like in Iraq they most propably stay with their mullahs and ayatollahs.as guarants of anti-terror policies. If they have the choices to have democracy plus terrorism or a clericocratie without terrorism they most propably choose the second.

In order to promote a regime change in Iran without armed forces it is mandatory to put down the 'insurgency' in Iraq. Then the circumstances overthere become a desirable option. Right now it isn't.

greetings

Werner

---

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".