Unless you acknowledge that the careers of every single military officer are dependent on placating the party / philosophy controlling the Congress they must ask for confirmation of their promotions and for appropriations to programs they command / support, I hardly think that you can take the judgements of any bureaucrat at face value.

For one, Iran’s economy is more vulnerable to sanctions than that of Iraq. Iran’s economy is built around oil but their infrastructure is stuck in the 1970s. It cost 4 times what it does in Saudi Arabia to bring a barrel of oil out of the ground in Iran. Pressure on oil prices, as was seen earlier in the year, put Iran’s economy on the breaking point. Iran was even having trouble paying for the Nuke technology and instrumentation they were buying from the west.

Second, the emerging opposition within the country is extremely vulnerable to any potential nationalistic fervor. An attack on Iran would “rally” the people to the flag more than anyone in the west could ever imagine. And that would vitually destroy any opposition forces within the country.

Between the two, Iran could be “managed” in a way that Iraq could never have been.

But one note of caution. Do not put it beyond the Mullahs or the likes of Allinmydinnerjacket to “create” a crisis in order to facilitate the semblance of war in order to create such a “rally”. It has been done before and when the Mullahs control the media, it is relatively easy to do it again. Military pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at Israel by the Iranian stooges Hezbullah and Hamas could trump the power of any sanctions.

My last trip to Iran was Christmas 1974. I was delivering a new F4E to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. The country is very large; the terrain, rough.

The notion that we could successfully conduct a surgical air strike on their nuclear facilities would be difficult if we knew where they all were, which we do not. Also, Iran’s recent acquisition of new Russian SAMs will take a toll on the strike forces.

Although the present government is not popular with the people, if the we attack, Iranians will defend their country to the detriment of pro-American sentiment there.

Economic pressures have not worked well against authoritarian regimes. Saddam and Kim both ran their countries into the ground and retained power. Look what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

However, military operations are still possible. I would be surprised if we do not already have SOF people inside helping dissident groups, of which there are many. Kurds make up 7% of the population and they owe us. There are parts of Iran not under the control of Teheran.

Another option is the Putin or Assad model. Start killing politicians, Imams, nuclear scientists and engineers. The Israelis did it, and it’s working in Lebanon.

Thats because the Plausible Denialists who
forged the Iraq nightmare amidst the skeptical
and had nothing but ‘rosy’ outcomes, recognize
the attention span of the public would have to be greater than 4 years since the last ‘optimism’

Give them a year or two. There is no end to their disrespect for the american thinking public.

Have I been terribly rude to you at some point leading to this sort of reply? Have I treated you with anything other than respect and courtesy. I assume that my mere presence here is sufficient to warrant such language.

“There is not one single advocate for military action against Iran who has issued any “rosy scenarios” or “optimistic outlooks.””

Expecting to attack Iran without having to eventually invade the country with ground troops is an “Optimistic outlook” and several people (serious people I imagine) have suggested that an Attack on Iran may free up latent democratic forces, hostile to the regime, who would rise up and overthrow the hated Mullahs. That’s as “Rosy scenario” as you can get.

Do you think that such things are possible? I’ll make it direct if you like.

1) Do you think that it is reasonable to expect to attack Iran without eventually having to engage in a ground invasion?

2) Do you think that there is any realistic chance that a democratic upswelling will depose the Mullahs after a US bombing raid?

Answer those two and show us that you, at least, don’t go in for too much optimism in your assesment of risk vs reward.

There is not one single advocate for military action against Iran who has issued any “rosy scenarios” or “optimistic outlooks.” You’re full of it, as usual.

One of those consequences would be the gross betrayal of UK forces in Southern Iraq, who would likely bear the brunt of Iran’s counter offensive by Shias around Basra.

It may be insufferably dull to say it, but if the US attacks Iran, it will, eventually, find itself needing to stage a ground invasion*. That is the reality of the situation. What with Russia and China involved so deeply with Iran, you could easily be triggering off a major war. Such a war could kill millions of people.

That is the possible consequence of going to war with Iran, and don’t forget it. War with Iran is off the table unless you are willing to risk that. Rosy predictions and optimistic outlooks didn’t work out last time, and they won’t work out next time. That should be the lesson of Iraq.

*I won’t bore you by fleshing that out.