Giuliani would certainly make a fine president and he definitely knows the importance of strength when dealing with rogue regimes like Iran. However, why doesn't anyone ever talk about destabilizing Iran instead of bombing it? There are so many things we can do covertly to wreck Iran's day, so why don't we do it? We could destabilize their currency by flooding their markets with counterfeit money (a favorite tactic of North Korea), we could sabotage their one and only oil refinery and blame it on an "anti-government" faction within their own country, we could cause political instability by wrecking their financial credit in Europe, we could try to get the Europeans to freeze their assets in Europe (although I doubt they'll do it), we could freeze the assets of all companies that are located in the US that does business with Iran, and there could always be the random act of covert sabotage that is designed to destabilize their country (like the odd assassination of a high-ranking mullah).

Terrible, you say? How could we dare do such a thing and face world opinion? Well tell me which is more moral: Waging a covert war against Iran that would hardly kill anybody but could overthrow their government, or to bomb the country into submission, causing thousands of casualties and billions of dollars worth of damage (which we would probably end up paying to rebuild)? The CIA was able to do wonders when it came to destabilizing and overthrowing a country in the 1960's and 1970's. We were able to change the leadership in countries without having to resort to open warfare and the rest of the world knew this and were afraid of us because of it. Do you think that if we wanted "regime change" in a government like Iraq in 1965 we would have had to invade it? I doubt it. There would have been a quick coup sponsored by the CIA and the matter would have been closed, saving thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. Is the moral way of waging war today (like in Iraq) real progress?

Libertyship46,

No one is proposing "bombing Iran" as you put it. Your confusing a limited attack against a few nuclear processing facilities with mass bombings of civilian targets. The idea is to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, not to destroy their entire industrial infrastructure. There's a big difference between the two.

As for trying to destabilize Iran, who says we're not? Iran is currently suffering from a shortage of oil income thanks to a few countries boycotting their oil, the US is just one of them. The government is being subjected to repeated calls of democratic reforms by a lot of collage students (talk about irony), and several factions within Iran are positioning themselves for a power gains in case the current government restructures. This is occurring because several countries are currently working to affect "regime change" in Iran right now.

The problem is, Iran is run by a theocracy and those types of governments can very brutal when it comes to maintaining power. Any attempt to overtly destabilize them will result in massive programs initiated by the theocratic government to rid them of their troublemakers, all in the name of God, and that will lead to massive civilian deaths. It would be Saddam ten times over.

Also, unlike Saddam and his government who had very little support in the Middle East (attacking Iran in the 80's and Kuwait in the late 90's negated any support Saddam may have had as he proved to be a huge threat to all of the Middle East), Iran currently has the support of several Middle East countries. I'm not sure how long that support would last if Iran's current government begins to weaken, but for now Iran can depend on some support from "friendly" countries like Egypt and that can be very helpful to them when it comes to defending themselves from an attack by Western governments.

Uh, Ray, a "limited" attack against a few nuclear processing facilities? If we bomb Iran, it will be a devastating attack and you know it. It would have to be to insure that all of the facilities were hit and it will be a massive assault by both manned aircraft and cruise missiles. Doesn't sound like a limited attack to me. And what would be the repercussions of such an attack? Iran would certainly attack Iraq in the south and probably would also close the Persian Gulf to all oil traffic. It would probably mean total war with Iran and God only knows what the Iranian reaction would be with Hamas and Hezbollah. They would probably demand that they attack Israel immediately and Iran would probably start firing its own missiles at Israel too. Unless we're prepared to invade and go all the way to Tehran, it would certainly be the wrong thing to do.

But if we wage a very, very, aggressive covert war to destabilize the country, these dissident factions you talk about may just think it possible to take over. However, popular uprisings, let alone democratic uprisings, take a long, long, time to occur (if they do at all). In a police state like Iran an uprising, any uprising, could take many years to succeed. Look at North Korea. The population of North Korea has been reduced to eating grass and is literally starving to death, yet they are totally dedicated to their leader, Kim Jong Il. The same may be true in Iran. Although life is getting harder in Iran for the common person, it could take years before it gets to the point of open rebellion against the mullahs. That's why we need to be much more aggressive in both our covert and our diplomatic dealings with Iran. We need to give it that "push" that will convince the local population that it's time to move on from a theocracy to something else (hopefully it will be a democracy but, hey, at this point I'll take just about anything if it will stop a war).