Time magazine on Iran Tom Smith

Fairly interesting analysis, if not particularly deep.

I do think that the MSM has a knee-jerk reaction against the use of force.  Bombing Iran would have large, long term costs in terms of making our enemies hate us even more, riling up jahadis, and all that.  However, showing you are willing to use your military might also increases your credibility, and makes your future threats more likely to be taken seriously.

One of the more chilling observations in the Time report is this:

Why Is Iran Picking a Fight?

MANY IRANIANS POINT TO THE POLITICAL ambitions of Ahmadinejad. The hard-line President who just squeezed past more experienced candidates to take office has seized on the nuclear issue to cement his claim to power, according to some top government advisers. He can bypass the ruling clerics by appealing to the street, framing the right to nuclear energy as a populist cause and the centerpiece of his campaign to restore revolutionary ideals–and solidify his base in the military and revolutionary apparatus. That requires a return to the 1980s atmosphere of siege, rallying Iranians by whipping up animosity toward a common enemy, the West. To a generation forged in the heat of revolution and war, diplomacy is akin to slow surrender. “He’s using the nuclear issue,” says a Tehran political science professor, “to send a message to the Iranian people that he’s tough, capable of standing up for Iran and fundamentally different from his soft predecessors.”

Well, that’s nice. A leader willing to risk a holocaust for the sake of his twisted personal ambitions.