Sofa, I agree we *definitivelly* cant let Iran get away with it. Absolutelly no way in hell we can let those fanatics have nukes, and even less so with that nutter for a president. All that stuff about the "returning of the mahdi", "pushing Israel to the sea", being "bathed in green glow" when adressing the UN, etc. is extremely disturbing. The idea of that nut governing a nation of 70M with 30B in spare cash lying around is bad enough. That plus them getting nukes is just not acceptable. So far, I think we agree. However, the question in this thread was "why are they feeling so lucky?". Unfortunately, I believe the answer to that is what I described in my previous post - http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/34-2564.asp I wish it werent so, but rationally I have to stand by that: that *is* the main reason why they're feeling lucky at this time. That plus China, which was the other key item that was not discussed much in the thread. Dont take any of this as a call to passivity. It isnt. And I agree with you that we face a bad choice or a worse choice (indeed, an *unacceptable* choice) However, it is a call to objectivity. That's why they are feeling lucky, this is the situation we face, what do we do next. Given the extent of the threat, we *need* to get our act together in this case. This one's not like Iraq - here we face a country 3x larger, vastly richer, with a real, active nuclear program (not "suspected", "potential" or "planned"), a regime uncrippled by decades of sanctions, daily combat air patrols over 60% of it's territory and large areas of the country fully outside of government control, 30B in cash reserves, a military capacity that's undegraded, a credible ballistic misile and air defense capability, a decade of modern weapons purchases, a direct strategic interest from other superpowers (notably China). Not only that, unlike Iraq, in this case we *have* to go in. It's not an elective war. We elected to invade Iraq because we thought it would be the best long term solution, not because Iraq posed *anything* even close to the overwhelming present danger that the Iranians now do. Heart, eu4ea ================= eu4eu - I see the reverse of all the reasons you cite: 130,000 is less than 10% of the forces available. 130,000 troops next door, airbases, and existing logistics train makes it more likely that US goes boots on ground in Iran. Insurgency in Iraq is now basically Iranian supported. Most other sources of personnel and equipment have been cut-off, or at least significantly reduced. War in Iraq is now war against Iran. We need to go into cambodia if that's where the bad guys get supplies, money, persoennl, etc. Oh, sorry, Iran. 3billion spent and 2000 dead. All that is wasted if Iran gets nukes and becomes takes even more aggressive stand. Iran has been terror master for 26 years. Just bombing Iran is as stupid as just sending cruise missiles into Afganistan was. US must dominate Iran and put an end to terror masters. Bombing only hardens them more and encourages them to act up more. Bombing makes Clintons feel like something has been done, invites global condemnation, but leaves all the teror masters and infrastructure and nuclear capability in place. There's no need to occupy, but there is need to impose our will in a direct manner: Nothing else removes immediate nuclear capability except... Boots collecting leadership, mullocracy, and taking apart nuclear facilities. Without boots in Iran we give up Iraq. Either this is the war on terror, or it is not. Much can be made of the reasons you cite. The western press certainly is. But look at the situation - US has a bad choice or a worse choice. Iran next, or buy a prayer rug. Islams strategy is right out of the koran: they cannot win directly or quickly; so they use terror to weaken our will, demographics and Al-Taqqiy (lies) to undermine our western traditions and get inside the enemies camp (US and Europe), and a long slow war leading to economic exhaustion is their plan. It has worked several times before. Does anyone think the situation will be better for US in 50 years? In the long run, the US will bleed out too much money. So the time is now, this our our window of opportunity, while US has clear military advantage. Bad choices to choose from, but later is much worse. It's war. It's a war mohammed started against me. I want to finish it already. "Let's Roll"

eu - agree. Iran in it's present form is poster child for what GWOT is about. They 'feel lucky' because they are presently in a very strong position, and are close to regional domination. They have a significant ability to defend themselves. They have several regional allies and have agents in place throughout the west. They think Russia and China will block action in the UN, and that US is constrained without UN approval. They think they hold the economic cards over all western economies. And they have seen the US as a windy gasbag for many years. Because after 9/11 the US cannot accept that strong Iranian position, Iran must be 'undone' in the very near future. Choice is (a) US in Iran or (b) hand Iraq and Afganistan over to Iran. I hope everyone appreciates how hard this will be, and is resolute to see it through.

What would the Mafia do?

Well, if we have anything to look forward to, we can take relief in the fact that after Iran, the rest of the GWOT will seem easy. Iran is probably the D-Day of the GWOT, or perhaps the point reminiscent of when we had Japan surrounded and we were contemplating finishing the war. Unfortunately for us, we can't just nuke them and demand surrender as we did to Japan. We should get this out of the way sooner rather than later, since we will need time to recoup for China.