NEW YORK, Nov. 21--Invading Iran "would be a catastrophic mistake," The New York Times warned Saturday in an editorial, which deemed recent administration statements reminiscent of statements made in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
"We hope president Bush has learned enough from the Iraq adventure to understand the dangers of using flawed intelligence to create a false sense of urgency about a national security threat," the daily said, AFP reported.
"Invading Iran, a country of nearly 70 million people, would be a catastrophic mistake," it said.
"Stop us if you've heard this one before. The Bush administration creates a false sense of urgency about a nuclear menace from a Middle Eastern country. Hardliners talk about that country's connections to terrorists. They portray European diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions as a feckless attempt to appease a rogue nation whose word can never be trusted anyway. Secretary of State Colin Powell makes ominous-sounding warnings about new intelligence, which turns out to be dubious," the editorial said.
The Times called it a "welcome step" that Iran committed to freezing its nuclear enrichment activities after German, British and French diplomatic work.
"Iran has long been a target of the hawks in the administration, who are undoubtedly feeling their oats after the election," the Times said.
"That is how president Bush rushed the country into an unnecessary conflict with Iraq in his first term, and we have been seeing alarming signs of that approach all week on Iran" and "there is no military solution here", the daily said.
In an interview broadcast November 14, Powell said the United States has no intention to change Iran's regime and has no plans to invade the nation neighboring Iraq, where 140,000 US troops are stationed.

No way. The U.S. is already short on troops for Iraq. What of Afghanistan? What of North Korea? If the U.S. invades Iran, expect not only heavy casualties, but decreased morale and recruitment.

A radical fundamentalist government which sponsors global terrorism gaining nuclear capability is a horror that cannot be allowed to happen. If terrorists are willing to blow themselves up in cars packed with explosives or strap on "bomb belts" in order to kill innocent civilians in restaurants and buses, why would they balk at using nuclear weapons in the same way? If they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing a few children on a schoolbus, what reward do they think they'll receive for wiping an entire city off the map? It's no longer a matter of if, but when. If we allow Tehran to create nuclear weapons, how long will it be before we wake up to find that a nuclear bomb has destroyed a major city like Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Paris, New York, London or Washington DC? Every place on Earth that terrorists have struck, they would have attacked with nuclear weapons if it had been possible. Next time, it might be.

What can be done to stop this threat? If we think we have the time -- and that depends entirely on our intelligence services, which have not exactly had a good track record in the Middle East -- we can attempt to impose sanctions. Most of Iran's oil exports are shipped through the Straits of Hormuz, which can be blockaded with just a small percentage of America's naval force. With the bulk of its oil income halted, the Iranian economy would collapse, but not overnight. Will we have the determination to keep up the blockade long enough? Other oil-exporting nations would undoubtedly halt their exports to any participating nations, and gas and oil prices would rise higher than ever before. (One has to wonder whether this is why President Bush refuses to release oil from the nation's emergency reserve.) The only other option is to strike Iran's suspected nuclear facilities before they can enrich enough uranium to build a weapon, although knowing their locations depends on our intelligence services as well.

Originally posted by Kentcouncil:
However, if it comes to military action, Israel will make the first move. It has done it before, and will likely attract international condemnation (except from the U.S.) if it does so again. But the Israelis view this as a matter of their very survival, and this view is probably justified. [/b]

Originally posted by iainhp:
Or Israel takes care of it for him. [/b]

Originally posted by Kincaid:
I am wondering if this situation might call for another Bush Doctrine that will lay out just what will happen if Iran doesn't give up the program. [/b]

My guess is Israel will destroy their facilites first.

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
"any number of Swiss military installations in the Alps"

I thought the Swiss didn't have a standing army. [/b]

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
"any number of Swiss military installations in the Alps"

I thought the Swiss didn't have a standing army. [/b]

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
"But... Iran with nuclear weapons?! There are very few scenarios more frightening than this."

Well said. [/b]

Originally posted by gryphon:
Bush has stated flat-out, no equivocating, that we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Period.

My guess is Israel will destroy their facilites first. [/b]