Hi Srdjan,

I subscribe to the theory that proactively containing an aggressor nation is a good thing, in summation.

The root problem is that Iran uses it's finances to support destabilizing groups in a bunch of nations. They are the major supplier to insurgents and terrorists in most, if not all, of the nations in the Middle East.

Simply put, it doesn't matter which side you are on, instability is bad. People die. How does one curtail Iran's negative influences?

When it comes to international relations, legality is always difficult to pin down. I don't have a pat answer for that.

On the other hand, if proven that Iran is supplying arms and aid to forces acting against legitimate governments then I think there's no question that we have the right to stop that as a "force majeur" as long as we can document the reasons behind our actions to the global community.

>>I think Lieberman is on to something that should be obvious. BTW, what's "opportunistic" about his stance?
>>
>>What I mean by should be obvious is that Iran is a major player in disruption in the Middle East. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda in Iraq, and others all receive huge funding and material support from Iran.
>>
>>We're not going to talk our way into a settlement with these folks because they are prone to not doing what they say they will and ME diplomacy is different than it is here. It's an advantage game there.
>>
>>The current regime in Iran has incredibly weak popular support. I think a naval blockade with a few surgical but highly visible military strikes may cause a rethinking and/or democratic revolution.
>>
>>Doing nothing is the far more dangerous option, I think, at this time.
>
>Sorry John;
>Naval blocade / strikes by who and based on what legal grounds exactly ?
>
>Major disruption in the region right now is by all means war in Iraq, so
>how would new war with Iran make any good ??