Obama would never have the testicles to use them. As for txtony's question as to what I think we should do, I think we should double down on our sanctions on Iran while seriously threatening to sell 10 super bunker busters to Israel. That would sober the Iranians very quickly. We should tell the French, Germans and British that we will complete the sale if they do not join us in actual -- not token -- sanctions with teeth. Cutting Iran off at the knees will hamper their aid to Syria and Putin, like any ordinary bully, will back off. Currently Putin knows Obama is his b*tch, as the board likes to put it. What few of you will believe is that I hope Obama finds a credible solution without giving Iran an advantage. I can't help but doubt this wish will ever become reality, but one can hope. Right now, we as a nation can only wait and see.
Is he just not killing enough brown people for you, cause he kills a few every day. But I agree, this break in rhetoric is a time to press, not fall back. But you have to let the new leadership appear to be strong (like calling them first) or the iranian teabaggers er, islamic radicals will raise a stink. All we want here is international inspections to insure they aren't making weapons grade material. If we get that (over the next year?), it's a big win.
That'll go over great. The threat of action against Syria did nothing to get our typical allies on our side, so we should up the ante and threaten to start war with an even bigger, badder country. If Iran is on a charm offensive to loosen sanctions and we oblige, then we have backing if Iran acts up. Rather than bullying them and building more hate for USA.
Our allies turned lukewarm because they know Obama's foreign policy is toothless, i.e. put more aptly, speech without spine. Semite peoples historically value strength over weakness, which is why Obama is constantly embarrassed in the Arab world.
Your proposal does absolutely nothing. You piss off the Iranians when they're the ones who are much closer to grovelling to us as opposed to the opposite which you believe and thus completely kill negotiations, you piss off our allies who we need if Iran is to be truly crippled by sanctions, you don't actually help the Israelis because they have nowhere near the capability to cripple the Iranian nuclear program themselves and 10 bunker busters won't change that. It is, "sending a message", I guess, and I guess if you're the kind of person who thinks it matters whether the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations were the result of an American gaffe or diabolical Russians, than "sending a message" becomes important. Not to anyone else.
On the same day Obama talked with Iran for the first time in 30 years and passed a UN resolution on Syria's chemical weapons and he did it all without killing anyone or blowing anything up. Pretty damn weak and embarrassing. If only we'd been that weak and embarrassing the last 30 years.
Kojirou, the Iranians are not, and never will be, our friends. They, like all Semitic peoples, value pure, unadulterated strength. Apparently, you have never haggled in a third world marketplace. He who loses position loses the deal. I love that about Semitic peoples. They won't screw with Israel because they know Israel has little tolerance for it. They know that if they pull a knife on Israel, Israel will pull a gun (pardon the cliché). The Iranians screw with us constantly because we are very tolerant and they despise what they perceive as weakness. As long as they see us as weak, they will never negotiate on a serious level.
I'm going to point out that you only countered my first point, and thus didn't bother to discuss the fact that your strategy will piss off the Europeans/intl community ( which we need in order to impose serious sanctions on Iran), not to mention a complete ignorance of European sanctions given that you called them "trivial", as well as the fact that sending 10 bunker busters to Israel is basically a symbolic gesture, as Israel can't actually do anything with them. "They won't screw with Israel?" Really? Are you forgetting the 2006 war? Sure, they haven't struck in 7 years - because they've been preoccupied with us, whether in the country that borders them, or in a proxy war in Syria, or suffering from the sanctions. Unless you seriously want to insinuate the 2006 war actually intimidated Iran to be afraid of Israel. And let me ask you this. Iran is in a precarious position now. They're asking for negotiations. Your argument is to ignore them and pound them harder. From my perspective, then, that leaves an obvious question. At what point do we begin negotiating with Iran, if at all according to you?
Sanctions are making real economic problems for them, plus the strain of supplying Syria The youth are not prone to follow a hard Islamic line in the near future There is more strife between Shia and Sunni than any other ideological confrontation for them and it's in their neighborhood World shale production is lowering their strategic position, and the Saudi's (their enemy) can pump enough oil at any time to replace them or break them There's no groveling, it's just the right time to take the initiative. The pressure is on the mullahs.
First, I think your premise about angering the Europeans is false. That was why I politely avoided the issue. They retreated on us because they know Obama won't follow up so they have nothing to gain by backing our play, or rather the lack of it. If we lead, Europe will follow because it's in their interest as well. Do you think they want a nuclear Iran? Why do you believe Israel can't actually do anything with 10 super bunker busters? Just as they ended Saddam's nuclear ambitions, they will have a blast with the Iranian nuclear plants. When they do, all the other Middle East nations will stomp their feet in public and give thanks to Allah in private. I disagree that they are asking for negotiations. Like the North Koreans, they are stalling for time. If stronger sanctions can move them to the brink of civil war (see Syria), then they will give up their nuclear ambitions and an opportunity for peace will bloom.
Oh, one more thing, because this is kind of important. You claim Obama should 'double down" on sanctions. Given that the sanctions are clearly already highly stringent, especially so since the Europeans are on board and do not have "trivial" sanctions as you claimed, care to explain precisely what you would do to double down?
Doubling down is a bit slangy, but increasing the sanctions even further is a better methodology than removing any of them as an olive branch. BTW, we differ greatly on our opinions as to the efficacy of the European sanctions.
