A Green Road Blog 

Last weekend, the London Times reported that the Pentagon was drawing up plans for a massive wave of air strikes on Iran aimed at wiping out that nation's military forces.

I can understand that leaking this plan is intended to raise the pressure on Iran. But is it credible? And will it have the desired impact? To be effective, such "threats" have to be conveyed -- and not just by exercises and planted stories but by earnest dialogue, the more broad-ranging, factual and non-emotional, the better.

One-dimensional efforts like this usually don't payoff. They arouse fears among friendly nations, and hostility from the intended targets. If anything, they're likely to leave the Administration in a less credible position.

We must let the Administration know that its one-dimensional Iran policy -- threaten, intimidate, coerce -- isn't likely to work. And when it fails, we'll be left with war. War.

Sign my petition at ;">StopIranWar.com today to tell the Bush administration that the best way to stop Iran's nuclear program is by engaging in diplomacy -- not by shooting first and asking questions later.

;">Sign my petition at http://www.StopIranWar.com today!;">

If there is one mistake that George Bush makes over and over again, it is that he believes that military force is the solution to every problem. The Bush administration refused to engage in any serious diplomacy before the war in Iraq -- and now our nation is entangled in an endless guerilla war in that nation. We cannot make the same mistake again.

Now the Times reports that the Pentagon has drawn up plans for "massive airstrikes" against over 1,200 targets in Iran. Why would the US draw up such plans without engaging in a full--scale diplomatic effort with Iran?

The Adminstration's failure to engage in diplomacy shows its preference for a military "showdown." This violates common sense and experience.

The ideas of national security are to gain objectives and protect interests, without military conflict, if possible. War is costly and permanent. Lives are lost, and outcomes are usually more difficult and have unanticipated consequences.

So why doesn't George W. Bush get it? Why not? Not enough casualties, yet? Not enough pain? Not enough sorrow? And especially, not enough wisdom?