The second overarching theme was of course Iran. If there was one great concern shared by all of the nations I visited, it is over the direction they believe Iran is going and what that means for them and for their citizens. I maintain my conviction that Iran remains on a path to achieve nuclear weaponization, and that even this very pursuit further destabilizes the region.
But like us, it isn't just a nuclear-capable Iranian military our friends worry about -- it's an Iran with hegemonic ambitions and a desire to dominate its neighbors. This outcome drives many of the national security decisions our partners there are making, and I believe we must be mindful of that as we look to the future, post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan.
Let me be clear: We owe the secretary and the president a range of options for this threat. We owe the American people our readiness. But as I've said many times, I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.
While I'd rather buy time than see Iran go nuclear, Mullen is right that the real problem is Iran. They are a threat to the region and more given their position astride the main oil exporting routes, even without nuclear weapons and even with a military whose equipment should be sitting outside Veterans of the Iran-Iraq War posts throughout Iran.
It remains mind-boggling that our CIA hasn't been able to engineer a revolution against an unpopular regime. Just what do they do with the billions spent on them every year? Label Google Earth photos, or something?
