I read a book just over a year ago titled "Target Iran: The Truth About the White Houses Plans for Regime Change". It was written by Scott Ritter, an ex-UN weapons inspector whom was involved in the hunt for WMD leading up to the Iraq war.
Here is a brief book description copy and pasted straight from Amazon:
"In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Scott Ritter's War on Iraq was embraced by the antiwar movement in America even though his claims that Iraq had been effectively disarmed were ignored by both the Bush administration and the mainstream media. In the wake of the debacle, Ritter has been vindicated. Now Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, has set his sights on the White House's hyping of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. In Target Iran he once again sets the record straight.
This book offers Ritter's national intelligence assessment of the Iranian imbroglio. He examines the Bush administration's regime-change policy and the potential of Iran to threaten U.S. national security interests. The author also considers how the country is seen by other interested parties, including the United Kingdom (Tony Blair may once again be called upon by Bush to provide an international cover in any confrontation), Israel (the Israelis view Iran as their number one threat today), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (responsible for inspecting the alleged nuclear program)."
Anyways, I found the book an interesting read. One thing that rings true, is that this sort of rhetoric around possible regime change in Iran is still lingering as of today. It has been many years now since it first started. I know Ritter's views from reading the book, and have read many different points of views on this subject. I am curious though, as to what people's views are regarding the Iranian regime? Do they pose a credible threat to the US, and to world security? Is a conflict inevitable (what sort?), and would it be justified? What would the likely outcome and consequences be for the whole world? If conflict can be avoided, how can this situation be dealt with appropriately?
Here is a brief book description copy and pasted straight from Amazon:
"In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Scott Ritter's War on Iraq was embraced by the antiwar movement in America even though his claims that Iraq had been effectively disarmed were ignored by both the Bush administration and the mainstream media. In the wake of the debacle, Ritter has been vindicated. Now Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, has set his sights on the White House's hyping of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. In Target Iran he once again sets the record straight.
This book offers Ritter's national intelligence assessment of the Iranian imbroglio. He examines the Bush administration's regime-change policy and the potential of Iran to threaten U.S. national security interests. The author also considers how the country is seen by other interested parties, including the United Kingdom (Tony Blair may once again be called upon by Bush to provide an international cover in any confrontation), Israel (the Israelis view Iran as their number one threat today), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (responsible for inspecting the alleged nuclear program)."
Anyways, I found the book an interesting read. One thing that rings true, is that this sort of rhetoric around possible regime change in Iran is still lingering as of today. It has been many years now since it first started. I know Ritter's views from reading the book, and have read many different points of views on this subject. I am curious though, as to what people's views are regarding the Iranian regime? Do they pose a credible threat to the US, and to world security? Is a conflict inevitable (what sort?), and would it be justified? What would the likely outcome and consequences be for the whole world? If conflict can be avoided, how can this situation be dealt with appropriately?