Yes we should always let illogical hypotheticals determine national policy. But if they did you might just guess that our response would be really bad for them.
Not just tiny, but not sure they are militarily capable. Iran is quite a bit farther away than Iraq was. Israel would have to refuel its planes to get there..and I don't think they have the capability to do that. So, Isreal coudn't attack Iran, at least not directly. Iran would face the same problem, but could probably smuggle a weapon into Palestine, as well as a missile. They are also working on missile systems capable of striking Israel directly from Iran.
Solid argument, but I don't want you to hurt yourself with all of the deep thought that clearly went into your response.
I don't know what there is to discuss if you think a nuclear strike is actually a realistic possibility. At no point in time has the Iranian government said they would develop nuclear weapons. They have repeatedly said they would not develop them and that they find them abhorrent. Also, you do understand that any nuclear strike would also endanger the Palestinians, right? And when is the last time Iran has attacked another nation? And when is the last time Iran attacked a nation that it didn't share a border with? They aren't some Dr. Evil style villains over there. Further I don't know what there is to discuss if you think the world wouldn't react very forcefully to a nuclear strike against Israel. I don't know how you think that would be reality. What has led you to the conclusion that the U.S. would suddenly become a complete pacifist after a nuclear strike against one of our allies?
Wow so the only one that your calling a dunce is Obama what about the other countries that there in on the talks so by your standards there all dunces right.
1. The Iranians currently are trying to create nuclear weapons. That is a fact. 2. Why would Iran care about what happens to the Palestinians? When the Syrians crossed the "red line" by using chemical weapons against the rebels, what was the US response? Nothing, and they aren't even a nuclear state. If the US is run by an administration similar to the current one, do you REALLY think there would be a military reaction against a nuclear state? C'mon don't be naive.
An ineffective air war by Israel or US, certain. An effective invasion and dismantling by US, not possible. Not contradictory at all.
Well an effective invasion and dismantling of Iran by the US is absolutely possible....but it wouldn't happen. It's a "won't" situation, not a "couldn't".
Well it could happen if you want to destroy the budget, have a one term Presidency, have massive demonstrations across the country, start a regional war, incur all kinds of terrorist attacks, possibly actually start a religious war, allow the growth of ISIS, and get a couple thousand US troops killed. I think most people would think that cost is not equal to the benefit. I know you don't care because you're a young guy who just talks without understanding the effects of the things you advocate but most of us do.
Unsurprisingly you are completely off-base when it comes to most of what you think would be the downside to taking out Iran. Yes, it would cost a lot. No, it probably wouldn't lead to a one term presidency, there are more important factors that would determine that. Demonstrations might happen, but are irrelevant. Demonstrations happen literally every day...most of the time no one cares. Hippies gonna hippie. A regional war would be unlikely because Iran's population is comprised differently than Iraq. No, there probably wouldn't be any more terrorist threats than normal. No, it wouldn't start a religious war other than the one that has been going on. It wouldn't have anything to do with ISIS, especially if we don't bungle the situation like we did in Iraq by leaving prematurely. Even then, ISIS is an Arab group, Iranians aren't Arabs. Yes there would probably be thousands of US casualties....which isn't that much considering there are about 1000 active military deaths a year during peace time and an average of 8000 veterans commit suicide every year. At any rate, I was only pointing out that it was very possible, not that it was a good idea or that it should happen, only that it could.
They have absolutely said they intended to develop weapons, and there actions only make sense within that context. Whether they want to develop them is beyond debate. The only question is 'to do what with'? As for whether or not they would use them, that is a very debatable question. Lots of rhetoric against Israel, but rhetoric isn't action, or even planned action. The world wouldn't...but what would they do, exactly? Do you think there wouldn't be some lining up on Iran's side, for their own benefit (like maybe Russia)? The U.S. wouldn't become a complete pacifist...but what would the U.S. actually DO? Particularly if other world powers let it be known they would be strongly against any escalation. Would we invade? If we knew they had ANOTHER such weapon? These are the questions.
We and the rest of the world would be in a state of shock, horror and disbelief. But probably won't do much of anything other than to question, how did that happen and just might consider burying all nukes once and for all. I don't think Israel would be so cruel to beat a dead horse.
Where are you getting this "never"? I thought the stated goal was for Iran to end uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons and open up UN inspections. The other part is to give up its stockpile that presumably had enough for 8-10 bombs with a 1 year window to make real one. Are you assuming all sanctions are removed? What are the consequences of breaking the terms? Did the current sanctions regime prevent uranium enrichment? Yeah, except this treaty isn't a US/Iran agreement but pretty much all Permanent UN Security Council parties from both sides. That's a pretty damn good foundation if Iran breaks the deal in the future. What do you want for the US to get out of this in order to "win"? Regime change? A new high score on kill count? Saddam style regime change isn't gonna happen anytime soon. I hope they get toppled too, if that matters. The biggest roadblocks against containing Iran was Russia and China. Both have permanent vetos, and Russia was supplying uranium to Iran. It also deescalates a bad situation where Israel runs around like it's head is cut off because the Mosad is telling everyone that "Its Happening" real soon. They were effective enough that we spent 10 years pissing in the desert finding nothing new. Iranians can't pull a "Saddam" because that would break the agreement and piss off everyone else who signed it. That's not in the deal. This isn't Iraq. I'm sure you can read the details about all the questions you asked like everyone else. How can you pretend we found nukes or a working nuclear weapons program in Iraq? We went there again because we thought they had it. Can't really justify that invasion anymore and we definitely don't have any credibility to ask for another mulligan. It delayed them from getting a bomb that US and Israel feared could be real soon. Pakistan and India both have nukes and they despise each other as much or more than the Iranian/Israelis. They've shed more blood and continue to more than Israel or Iran. "Now what if Pakistan starts nuking the crap out of India?" No one is going to shoot first unless they're pushed into the corner or have some magical decisive advantage the world hasn't seen since Nagasaki. It's true. It doesn't permanently end the weapons program. I don't think anything short of physical troops on a permanent basis across all that area can. It does increase the time table to create weapons by making conventional and known means highly difficult. We live in a complex world that can't be answered with single simple what-ifs or hypothetical stories about crazy neighbors buying a tank.
even Obama thinks this is a terrible deal <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QtuCb0SmRZs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
A better deal than giving Iran everything they wanted while getting nothing in return? How about no deal and ratchet up sanctions even harsher than they are now? Giving them nothing at all and them getting a nuke is better than giving them billions of dollars and letting them get a nuke anyway.
Your characterization of the agreement is unfair. You are presupposing the Iranian's actions without basis. You also assume the US couldn't revert back to sanctions. Having nukes anyway is just a national pride and self image issue for people that see themselves as the opposition to the American sphere. No paranoids wants to feel exposed, just like America's open carry supporters. But, you can't use them unless your intent is to bring about the end of your civilization as you know it, reducing your own survivors to the stone age. If you want nuclear paranoia, you really ought to worry about Kashmir.
So, presenting yourself as an enemy to a state getting a nuke in "three months" is better than presenting yourself as a potential trade partner to a state getting a nuke in 10 years?
Almost word for word what I heard a Congressman say on Fox News today while I was at the gym. Not surprising... That's not a plan. That's the definition of insanity...continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.
