Should Iran be bombed?

There is an ongoing Debate in The Economist about the notion that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed.

Economist Debates: Iran: Guest: "The question posed by the house captures perfectly the problem with the debate on Iran in the West. It embodies a decade-old approach to Iran that reduces this major country into a single variable problem, Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Every non-nuclear development is either viewed from the prism of the nuclear programme, or is simply ignored."

I recently commented on the idea of Trita Parsi that the Obama Doctrine might have caused the post-election Green Uprising in Iran. Today he weighs in on the issue of whether or not Iran should be bombed, an opinion advocated by The Economist, although 68% of people voting on the debate think this is not the way to go.

I agree with Parsi, bombing Iran would put an end to the democracy movement of Iran for good. It is of course interesting that a highly initiated crowd reading The Economist are reasonable on Iran despite the indoctrination of "The House". Parsi is, however, not proposing, like I do, that further approachment of Iran by removing sanctions should be tried. President Obama is, however, grateful to the Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan for keeping a door open to Tehran.

There is today also information that Turkey would possibly be able to negotiate with the Taliban for an "Afghanization" of the situation there. Recent words in the press on the membership deal between Turkey and the EU have indicated that Turkey is becoming distanced to this development. It would of course be interesting if an axis of European influence on these trouble spots could be mediated by Turkey. In this case Turkey would have found an important role for itself that would be highly appreciated by both sides.