WASHINGTON -- A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/25/strike-iran-likely-hayden-says/

It's articles like this that give me HOPE. We could help push a regime CHANGE very easily. All's we have to do is take out all Nuclear and military bases and equipment and put weapons and equpiment into the hands into the millions of members of the opposition.

why are we putting weapons in ANYONE's hands?

What gives you or anyone not from the area the right to push a regime change? Do you own that land now?

you know history... the people with the most power makes the rules... thought you understood that.

We have the right, they threaten the Sovernty of our nation and our allies, not to mention commit crimes against humanity on a daily basis.

The U.S. wont do it...Oblowme will not attack his Muslim cohorts. He'll wait until Israel does it, then he'll publicly condemn Israel for doing it!!

So a former Bush era analyst said something about pre-emptive strike on Fox News. What else is new?

There will be no war, there will be no strike, neither USA neither anyone else. Sit down, relax. The Iran war propaganda has been going on for several years and every week there is some news about "imminent attack" . It's just another day.

Wouldnt that be a briliant move? gas prices through the roof and a repeat of the last war and its economic effects. Oh yea bring em on.

Actually the former CIA leader who came out with this worked for the CIA, not a President and he worked during several Republican and Democratic Presidencies.

Oh boy, still thinking ideologically and not rationally I see. Well consider this:

When the Anglo-Alliance let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, they knew the final consequence would be that one day, every nation would develop the same technology but they ignored the warnings from many within their own ranks and ignorantly tried to terrorize the world in August 1945. This was the main objective in 1945, show the world that the US and British alliance alone, would have this capability even in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise. Their effort to terrorize the world did indeed work but not in the way they anticipated.

Since then the nuclear anti-proliferation efforts have been minimal to irrelevant and have only slowed down the inevitable, inclusion for all. Until the permanent members of The UN Security Council, the true nuclear terrorist organizations of the world, denounce and disarm their own nuclear deterrents, any and all efforts to limit nuclear technology will be futile. Do you really think that the handful of countries that have access to nuclear power today are the only ones allowed to benefit from it?

Most of the types of nuclear reactors used to create electricity are uniquely designed to be dual purpose and easily converted for military purposes if needed. I am not saying that limited, smaller reactors may not have their benefits but this is not what we have been building. Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations will develop this technology one day and there is nothing the US, NATO, China or Russia will be able to do about it. The end result is inevitable, until they take the final bold step and renounce nuclear weapons and disarm themselves first. If that is not done, then one day there will be another deadly political or military nuclear incident. I just hope not in my lifetime.

Think about this rationally and not ideologically and you should come to a similar conclusion.

Ok, go ahead and rant away.

Ummm, they didn't try to terrorize the world, the put an end to one of the deadliest wars in history.

Although that was one of the justifications, the Japanese navy and air force were totally wiped out and Japan was all but defeated.
The primary purpose of the two bombings was to send a message to Russia mostly, but China too, to stay out of Japan and to a wider extent, to let the world know that the US was the new super power with a new weapon. The US thought it would take a lot longer for Europe and Russia to catch up and the Anglo alliance actually thought they could keep that nuclear genie in the Anglo bottle. It didn't work out quite the way the power structure thought it would and here we are with a new nuclear world.

There was a study conducted by US, Britain and Canadian scientists and political interests around the time of the Manhattan Project headed by a man named Howe (not sure if it was C.D. Howe or another Howe, I will need to find the paper) that clearly laid out what would happen if the bomb was used. The study said that once the genie was let out of the bottle it would be near impossible to curb the proliferation or elimination of atomic weapons. The paper was ignored by Anglo interests. Also note that atomic weapons are neither strategic or tactical, they are political weapons.

It is wishful thinking for those who monger wars

Agreed, it makes a great headline though.

It will happen sooner or later. Then when there is a regime change the President and Supreme Leader of Iran will have some explaing to do at the Hague.