[Skybird]

Europeans should - but probbaly would not - carry a substantial share of the burden. The region is of more interest to them now, then to the US. To what degree Israeli bases could host european air power, I do not know. But I wonder if they would even like to do that. So the flights would need to be assembled from Italy, Greece maybe, Turkey I do not trust. that makes it very long combat flights, with plenty of mid-air-refuiling. Distance from the centre of Sicily to the approximate geographic centre of Iran is around 2300 miles. That is roughly the ferry range of the Eurofighter or the Tornado in no-weapons-configuration and with external tanks. So, combat missions flown from Europe appear to be rather unlikely. And would german, italian, French fighters and bombers be stationed on airfields of "allies" in the Golf region? German bombers lifting off from Kuwait or Quatar for combat missions - I believe it when I see it , and not one second earlier.

Jim repeats my old argument on selected use of nukes. That does not mean that him or me like to use nukes. It's just that I say, and him probbaly as well, that if you are serious about destroying the program's key facilities, then you have probably no alternative. Assuming different I consider as being naive about the chances for a conventional success since almost several years now.

Thze only alternative would be also wvery unpleasant. Destroying such locations from within. Maybe special tropps could be brought in via air drop, and in high numbers. But you would need to "desinfect" the target area from resisting soldiers first, since you cannot send such forces via air drops in those high numbers that they would be able to fight down massive ground resioetnce on their own and in short time. You can imagine what that would mean: use of extremely unfriendly ordnance that the world press would not like to see being used as well: chemicals, maybe biologicals. You also would need to find a way to get them troops out again, over that huge distances we talk about, in huge numbers. So, in theory this might appear in possible, in practice I consider it to be somethin that no serious military planning is spend on. Maybe we would see special trops in the coastal areas of the Gulf, that is possible. But not more of any ground activity.

I say do not care for any messing around with Iran'S conventional defemnc enetwork in order to drop some conventio0nal bombs here and there. Drops the needed ammount of megatons on those subterranean or in-mountain facilities that must be destroyed - the smallest ammount of nukes as possible, as much as is needed to guarantee the destruction. If the mountain radiates afterwardsa and makes access impossible, the better it is. The strike shouold ba carried out my nukes from Britain, the US and France, but about Israel I am not sure. If they do it, it could send a message of strength to any other of the hostile surroundign them with an appetite for hnukes. On the other hand using nukes first would delete any - in theory imaginable - hesitation by a future nuclear terrorist. It is a gamble on the future. And that is true for France, Britain and the US as well. that's why I am quite certain that nobody in the West will dare it. me, I do not believe in negotiations with an agbressor being started from my side from a position of self-limitation and weakness. I would do it. You want to stop an agressor - you need to be determined, not wavering, you need to be strong, not weak. Ah, and yes - I rate Iran as an aggressor. What's worse, as a nuclear agressor.

the alternative is to accept nukes in Iran, an uncalculatable risk of iran proliferating nuke devices to terrorists to strike in Irans place, and a nuclear arms race between Iran, Israel, turkey, Egypt, saudi arabia, and maybe Syria joining later. An arms race in a highly unstable region with plenty of irrationality, centuries-old open bills and religious hysteria around, ethnic hate and ethinic diversity, and unpredictability coming from theocratic backgrounds. that is such a high risk that I rule out for myself to ever accept it. Consider it to be years where every day is a Cuba crisis - with far less rational minds in control that back then in principle did not really desire a nuclear exchange. In the ME, you should not be sure of the latter. The Iranian program must be destroyed and prevented, forever. Not delayed, not negotiated, not made arrangements with and treaties about - destroyed.

the latest CIA assessements that there indeed i sno plan to buiold a bomb since yars, I do not beleive one second. the CIa got burnt over the mobile Bio-Labs in Iraq, and Obama probbaly has sent them also to discourage support for the Israelis. this came in on the same day I think when even the IAEA admitted that Iran has enough uran now for four warheads. grab the uran and hide it 200 m deep inside a mountain, and the race is over. we cannot allow that. Plans not to build a bomb - if the CIA would be right - could be changed any day. I am not willing to take that gamble.

the most unlikely scneario however is the regime to be overthrown and the program being hande dover, like the Libyans did some years ago. Even amongst those being agai8nst the m,ullahs and Ahmadinejadh, support for the bomb is fundamental and very strong. it scondiered to be an issue of national pride. A follow up regime will not give up the program, and at the last elections even those names that the West - in total ignorrance - labelled as "reformers" announced publicly and in interviews that they would continue the developement of the nuclear program.

The West made amny, so very many false assessments about the "Arab spring" last year and the nature of the oppositions and what governments would form up. Will the West this time please learn from its many many mistakes?

Probably not.