Revisiting Conventional Wisdom On Iran, Part II

Conventional wisdom has always cited three key practical considerations in analyzing the merits of Israel, either alone or with the US, bombing Iran's nuclear program development sites. The first one is the effect on the price of oil. We reveisted that one here. A second consideration is that although the regime in Iran is hated, the Iranian people would not take kindly to being attacked and such a move would galvanize average Iranians behind their regime, albeit reluctantly. Well, given events of recent days, can we really continue to say this? Would bombing a few development sites, where very few average Iranians go, enrage the populace more than having their regime shamelessly steal an election and unleash a wave of brutal repression against those demanding their voices be heard and their government come clean? Would all be fogiven with the regime if Israel attacked now? I find this a dubious claim. In fact I think recent events represent an inflection point in that any international action that can be broadly construed by the populace as delivering a mortal blow to the regime might actually be welcome. Apparently Iranians are exhorting Barack Obama to help them, to come to their rescue. What do they think he can do, send in ACORN or his small army of socialized healthcareniks? No, they want him to do what he can to end the current regime in Iran. Looks to me like the pillars of conventional wisdom for holding back on bombing the Iranian nuclear development program are toppling one by one.