The principle is not wrong at all, you are just misreading it. You are completely right that you don't sit around waiting for enemies to get full power, but by making that statement right after claiming that jo mama is wrong, you are suggesting that we should attack all countries who are opposed in any way to us because at some point in the future they might become actually dangerous. Such a view is, in a word, insane. You go to war when you have to, when the costs don't outweigh the benefits. Jo mama used Iraq as an example to demonstrate this point. At this point is quite probable that considering the possible economic fallout of an Iranian response as well as the fact that by attacking we will stifle any dissent in Iran as Iranians are forced to rally around the flag, that the costs of attacking Iran outweigh the benefits of attacking it. Letting Israel attack the nuclear infrastructure (if it can) seems like an even worse idea. Israel might look to the success of Syria in 2007 or Iraq even earlier, where the countries did not have a native industry and could never really recover. At this point, unless Israel completely destroys all infrastructure in the country and assassinates all Iranian scientists, Iran has the technical know-how and manufacturing capability to take up the program again. Then, 10 years down the line, we will be faced with the same problem, with an even worse international position.
would Obama lead us to war to boost his approval ratings in an election year? The nation rallying around our troops? I would not put it past him.
How would it "de-stabilize all the countries in the region"? Answer: It won't. Using your loaded question as a basis for forming an opinion on the matter is faulty. 4-5 years ago, I was dead set against bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm now very open to the idea because if Iran is allowed to create a nuclear bomb, many in the region would feel obligated to follow asap. In addition, it is clear Iran would blackmail anyone close by who opposed them. Iran's rulers have isolated their country into a ditch and a sympathetic backlash would be muted. A few years ago things were a lot different.
Israel wants us to fight Iran. See the ridiculoous way our media is playing it and the number of folks who are scared of Iran. Imagine the Israelis who are continually fed a non stop diet of Holocaust fright mixed with Iran as Nazi Germany seeking Holocaust II. The Israeis don't care if sugar daddy US pays a stiff price. Bibi thinks he can get Obama to go along because Obama is afraid to take on the Israeli lobby during an election campaign and he might be correct. Absolutely time to tell Israel that if they attack Iran, Israel is on its own. In fact if Obama will man up and tell them quite publicly in very clear terms , after the election of course, he won't man up enough to do it before, then the Israelis will come to heel and Bibi will be voted out of office. Irael might be nuts about Iran, but they realize that without us they are doomed. See the following interesting link discussing the attempts by Bibi to get Obama to agree to back Israel in their attack on Iran, even if Israel gives us very little if any notice. It discussess Obama's attempts to resist andd Bibi's attempt to use the Israel lobbby during the election year to maximize the pressure on Obama to comply regrardless of whether he thinks it is best US interest.. In fact it sees the current collusion between the mainstream US media and the US government to fan the Iran threat hoax as meant to counter Israelis pressure to agree to back the Israeli attack by increasing pressure on Iran for some sort of concession. ********** Washington, DC - President Barack Obama has finally begun in recent months to signal to Israel that the United States would not get involved in a war started by Binyamin Netanyahu without US approval. If it is pursued firmly and consistently through 2012, the approach stands a very good chance of averting war altogether. If Obama falters, however, the temptation for Netanyahu to launch an attack on Iran, indulging in what one close Israeli observer calls his "messianism" toward the issue of Iran. Netanyahu, like every previous Israeli prime minister, understands that an Israeli strike against Iran depends not only on US tolerance, but direct involvement against Iran, at least after the initial attack. In May 2008, his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had requested the approval of George W Bush for an air attack on Iran, only to be refused by Bush. Netanyahu apparently feels, however, that he can manipulate right-wing Israeli influence on American politics to make it impossible for Obama to stay out of an Israeli war on Iran. He has defied the Obama administration by refusing to assure Washington that he would consult them before making any decision on war with Iran...... http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201221254919523390.html
Judging by how some of the posters in this thread are scared witless of Iran I think we can safely say the media propaganda is working. America may not be any more paranoid than other countries are, but we're the only one that goes around shooting everyone else in the face when they look at us funny.
I think people dismissing the possibility of war radically underestimate the power of irrationality within our political establishment. Although the media outlets dissenting and cautioning against war with Iran are a sizeable minority, there is zero opposition to such a conflict amongst politicians. The recent sanctions have the potential to escalate the conflict, and I simply dont think that Obama will have the political clout or willpower to resist the overwhelming political demand to strike. Additionally, Israel unilaterally striking Iran without US authorization will result in little backlash from other countries. In fact, it will likely push the US to join in, and so there's little incentive for Israel to exhibit prudence. Perhaps most problematic is that Iran recognizes/believes all of the above and has developed a posture of defensiveness as a result. I guess my point is that it would take a lot to de-escalate the conflict from where it stands right now, and with the level of machismo on display by political officials (especially the right), the incentives to strike are extremely powerful, while the incentives to engage in diplomacy- especially in an election year- are virtually nonexistant.
The worse part is the consequences of such a war. If it's a big war, the Middle East lights up, and we could very well get stuck occupying and rebuilding an already anti-american public. If it's a small conflict (like the Persian Gulf War) we only give Iran more of a reason to hate us, more public support, and more reasons for them to justify building a nuke. If conflict happens, we lose.
Forget the willpower, I don't think Obama has the will to resist the demand to strike. My perception is that he has bought all of the neoconservative talking points except for American exceptionalism. My guess is that he's pretty much sold on war based on the fact that some other countries are on that side.
Of course. The threat of Iran nuking Israel is low if there at all. It be suicide, since we'd likely send 50 warheads right back at them. But if Iran has a nuke, all of the sudden we have less leverage, and Iran becomes a middle eastern powerhouse. Arab states see us as weaker. It's simple foreign policy, have and retain as big as an advantage over your oppenent as possible, and you will get what you want. We can't power our cars, play policeman, and try to keep American interests untouched if Iran becomes powerful.
Tough call. It might help Israel calm down and help to live with their neighbors and stop trying to expand. On the other hand you have the US trying mightily to inflame tensions between Shia and Sunnis under the perennial "divide and conquer" strategy. If Iran gets them after we have the Saudis and the tiny Emirates to act like proxies and antagonize Iran which they normally would not do, they will be threatened by Iranian nukes. Ideally we can have a deal to get rid of Israel's nukes. At least one analyst I have seen sees that as a possibility in a comprehensive agreement involving a Palestinian state and other issues that might occur after the horrors of a wider Middle East War caused by Israel/ US? starting a war with Iran that gets out of control, but does not involve Israeli nukes.
Wow! And you are a big supporter. I would probably still vote for him, because unlike nutty Republicans he will not just continue and invade Pakistan or something else nutty; and the GOP are more purely for continual transferring money to the 1% at higher rates. I am, however, fwiw considering going and getting arrested for the first time. Enough is enough. We have to stop these bastards eventually.
Would Russia defend or directly supply Iran in a war with the United States? Would we eventually do the same for Israel?
Probably something along the lines of what happened during the Cold War. Weapons, financial support, maybe some advisors, no ground troops unless things look really bad for Iran.
America and Israel HAVE been at war with Iran. Stuxnet and 4 Iranian nuclear scientists mysteriously murdered? yeah. I can't believe we live in this world where the ones who are propelling all sorts of aggression are somehow treated as the "protectors" of peace. America and Israel have been causing all kinds of s*** and here we go again. America is the most aggressive nation in the world and yet somehow China, Iran, and Russia are the threats? If there's another war against Iran, it'll mark the 8th consecutive decade the American military was involved in significant, and aggressive military actions in other countries. Maybe it's time to start staring in the mirror, and stop ****ing for virginity or warring for peace.
