When Iran couldn't seem to work up a decent killing spree to counter Israel's covert war on Iranian nuclear facilities (and whether or not Israel is behind it, Iran thinks it is true), my skepticism continued.
Strategypage notes the image-reality mis-match:
While Quds has been active in many places (Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, South America, Arabian Peninsula and so on) its operatives are often amateurish and ineffective. When operatives are caught overseas, Iran demands its citizens back and just denies any terrorist activity. But the recent offensive against Israelis living outside Israel has apparently stretched Quds beyond the breaking point. Iran believes that Israeli agents are behind several murders of Iranian nuclear scientists and wants revenge. But Quds has not been able to deliver when it came to retribution. This is not surprising, as religious fanaticism is more prized among Quds Force recruits than other talents. Many Quds operatives are sharp, but all of them are Islamic radicals.
They want to kill. So I'm not suggesting we discount them. Heck, even the ummah idiot could get lucky. But the proper response is to seek them out and kill them--not cower in fear of what they might do.
And speaking of that, I don't understand Strategypage's caution about attacking Iran:
Israel and the U.S. keep feeding the media stories about an air strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Iran would welcome such an attack, as it would cripple growing opposition to the religious dictatorship that runs Iran, and only delay the nuclear weapons program.
I have no doubt that in the short run, an attack would have a rally-around-the-flag effect. But even that isn't a given since so many people are suffering under mullah mis-rule. Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facility didn't prevent the uprising that is plaguing Bashar Assad.
Iran's mullah's also wouldn't be the first of our enemies to welcome an American attack. Both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein welcomed our attacks in the belief they would be ineffective--who cares if a bunch of their cannon fodder die (and they could dream of innocent civilians getting caught in the fire)?--and that they could provide an opportunity to boast of beating us by surviving. Those plans didn't work so well. So the simple fact that Iran's rulers would welcome an attack doesn't mean they are right to welcome an attack.
Sure, maybe we'd launch ineffective attacks that would strengthen the mullahs, for a while anyway and maybe long enough to get nukes. Which is why I think any attack on Iran has to be made with the commitment to change the regime. Attacking means we are fully committed to war with Iran and one way or the other we have to end that war with a new Iranian government.
But even worst case, I'd rather delay Iran going nuclear at the price of rallying the Iranian people to the mullahs than see Iran go nuclear with a majority of people angry at their own government. How much more hate for us do the Iranians need to hurt us? As I've asked many times, will you really feel some satisfaction that Iran's people are mostly really, really sad that Charleston gets nuked if Iran decides that a container-nuke on a ship is just the ticket to bringing down the Great Satan--or just driving us from the Middle East? Hmmm?
Focus on what we can do to them, eh? I'd rather help the Iranians overthrow their regime without having to attack Iran. But after many years, it doesn't seem like our covert arms have made any progress on that front. I hope I'm wrong. But if we can't help the Iranian people bring down their nuts, I'd rather attack Iran than see the mullahs get nukes sooner.
Just because all our choices are bad doesn't mean there aren't better choices and worse choices.
