1. Joe Gelman said:

The Neocon (www.neoconexpress.blogspot.com believes that the public is completely unprepared for the virtual certainty that military action will be necessary in the near future (2006, or 2007 at the latest) to prevent Iran from obtaining the nuclear bomb. It is hard to imagine that we in the West will sit back and watch the radical Islamic Republic of Iran obtain an arsenal of nuclear weapons which will put it in a position to dominate the immediate oil-rich region and blackmail the entire world. Not to mention the ability to clandestinely hand over nuclear weapons to shadowy, loosely-affiliated proxy terror groups who can then dictate political realities through declared or undeclared threats against entire Western population-centers such as New York, Washington or London. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, and its notoriously unstable leader will represent a nightmare greater than the threat Soviet Communism represented in the Cold War era. Radical Islam, with its passion for suicidal martyrdom will be far less containable though the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and will present the kind of ongoing dangerous challenge the likes of which this world has never experienced. The Neocon believes that it is highly unlikely that Western leaders will have any other choice but to eventually execute a massive air bombing campaign against multiple Iranian nuclear targets, possibly employing nuclear bunker-buster bombs in order to penetrate deep underground facilities. In any event the only way to slow Iran in its relentless march toward the Bomb is to, at the very least, employ the threat of military action with the readiness to execute on these threats at the appropriate moment. The consequences of military action against Iran are unknown, but possibly very serious. Iran will likely halt oil exports, causing skyrocketing energy prices and global economic stress for a period of time. There may be an attempt to shut town the Straits of Hormuz which is the world’s most vital waterway for oil transport. Such a move could be effectively countered by the US Navy. Reprisal actions are also likely in the form of international terrorism. Certainly, rocket attacks against Israel from Hezbollah of Lebanon and possibly even from Iran itself are almost a given. But all of these potential consequences and other unforeseen fallouts surly will be dwarfed the negative consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal which will radically alter world affairs, for the worse, for generations to come. Barring a sudden and complete Iranian move to halt its march towards nuclear armament, an unlikely scenario, military action on this front seems inevitable to the Neocon.
Joe Gelman