Iran can't protect its foreign policy interests in its own region? I thought that's exactly what the US was doing?
From the map I think it is clear that Iran could have peace with the US if they could just have regime change and then allow US bases there. The map is conspiculously void of US bases in that blue section and it has oil.
Yes. If Iran closes the Strait, it thinks it will be acting in its own interests. But we will persuade Iran one way or another that it is not so. As for vaids, I'll ask you: If America packed up all its bases and went home tomorrow, do you think Iran would just choose to end its nuclear program right there then?
In every single one of your positive situations, the intervening party only did so after another country was attacked. That's applicable to what we did in Iraq in 1991. I'm sure that if Iran had attacked Israel or Saudi Arabia, this conversation would be much different.
Obviously I can't speak for glynch and jo, but from everything they've said, I don't think they would support attacking Iran even then. They'd probably just say Iran has good reason to do so, so it's fine for them to do it. But you are right in that if Iran actually attacked those countries, the conversation would be different, and I would support a military invasion of Iran. But they haven't, and so I don't. I do support other measures to pressure them, which we are doing. And I doubt there will actually be a shooting war with Iran anytime soon.
It is interesting to me that many feel we are compelled to allow an enemy kill our allies before we will step in so that we may claim some sort of moral justification. "We are righteous in our wars because we let the other side kill innocent people before we act!"
You don't understand the difference between starting a war and intervening to protect an ally? By my moral standards, the aggressor is more evil.
I dont have time for a prolonged debate on this topic, but I guess I'll bite. The short answer to your question is no. America is not the only regional opponent that threatens its safety; as others have mentioned, Saudi Arabia and Israel are in its immediate vicinity. But while we're playing hypotheticals, let's assume Iran woke up tomorrow morning and found its entire east and west coast bordering massive oceans, with a friendly Canada bordering its north, and Mexico its south. There is little to no threat of foreign invasion, and it would have a tremendous geographical advantage. In all likelihood, Iran would focus on developing its economy and domestic infrastructure and less so on its military, no? And if America woke up tomorrow, surrounded by nations that threaten its national security and foreign military bases, with military superpowers objecting to its very development of weaponry, what do you think would be its response? And if we want to indulge in a more realistic hypothetical, how do you think Iran would have responded to a US that engaged diplomatically with Iran (which is something Obama ran on by the way) rather than imposed sanctions and threatened its well being?
No one. But plenty of people are suggesting invading Iran because they might be making weapons that we don't think they should have.
First, I've stated several times that I understand why Iran wants to get nuclear weapons, and it's not because they're crazed Islamic nutjobs like most right-wing nutjobs claim. It's a good reason. But I don't care at all what reason Iran gives for its nuclear program because my loyalties do not lie with Iran. Iran having nukes is bad for the US. Period. That's the important point. Discerning WHY Iran wants nukes is no different than the fact that American politicians from sixty ago were wasting their time arguing WHY the Soviet Union was taking over Eastern Europe. At the end of the day, it didn't matter why the Soviet Union was doing it, only that it was and it had to be met by an American counter-response. And the same applies with Iran and nuclear weapons. As I've stated over and over again, foreign relations isn't a freaking game where the objective is be the most beloved or the most moral. It's about power relations and spheres of influences. Furthermore, you're acting like we didn't negotiate with Iran at all under the Bush administration. I don't remember the details, but I know that the Western powers, Russia, and China all attempted to hold talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program, or hell, just letting IAEA inspectors in their country. No dice.
it is interesting to me that many feel we are compelled to go to war with a country who is not a threat to us and has not attacked us. "we are righteous in our wars because we preemptively attack a sovereign nation that we fear in some point in the future might possibly threaten us." AMERICA...F*** YEAH! its even worse when you think about our governments aggressive actions towards iran over the last decade or so (really the last 60 years when we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the shah). we surround the country w/ military bases, we arm their enemy (israel, who has violated countless UN resolutions btw) and allow all their neighbors to have nukes...we covertly carry out acts of terrorism, sabotage, kidnapping and espionage in their country, we crash spy planes in their country, our government is constantly making veiled threats towards them...and they arent allowed to have nuclear technology...to the point of being willing to go to war over it? do yall ever stop and think that perhaps it is our actions that are forcing iran to behave the way they are? how about if we adjust our policies before going off on another war?
sigh....knew this was going to happen. I'll make it brief: 1) why? I can understand it being bad for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Why the US? 2) What is this amazing counter-response the US engaged in that resulted in the curtailing of Russia's nuclear arsenal? 3) Article 4) Link
I agree and I think everyone agrees, that a nuclear weapon Iran is bad for U.S. interests. This is where thinking diverts. The question should then be how bad is it and in what ways and what other effects should be balanced. Going from the most recent intelligence estimate, which is somewhat dated, but still authoritative, Iran cannot be stopped from pursuing nuclear weapons through limited force because it has the technical, industrial, and scientific know-how to rebuild. Assuming that Iran’s goal is indeed to produce nuclear weapons, an attack on the declared and undeclared nuclear facilities would only serve to stall Iran’s march to nuclear weapons unless it was combined with continued targeting of civilian scientists and strikes on civilian infrastructure and manufacturing. The problem with reaching beyond the nuclear facilities to attack civilian targets is that this would be viewed as an act of extreme aggression by our allies and rival powers. A pre-emptive attack would decrease U.S. soft power around the world, and arguably in the Middle East at a time where the U.S. is finding itself less of an absolute power and more interdependent. On the other hand, it would completely destroy Iranian power in the region. Israel would directly benefit even though such an attack would also likely spur additional direct missile attacks from Iran proper and Iranian proxies such as Hizbullah. Additionally, a large scale attack would not only deprive the world economy of Iranian oil, but also create strong oil shocks in neighboring countries likely deepening economic crisis and destroying the fragile recovery. This would deepen resentment against the United States creating a decrease in soft bargaining power and it would also cause a absolute decrease in U.S. real bargaining power. It is arguable whether the downturn would equally hurt our rivals. Likely China would also be crippled due to oil shocks. Russia not so much due to their energy independence. By pre-emptively attacking Iran, I think we gain short term security interests in the Middle East, and lose in short and long term soft power around the world. Additionally we we likely lose in long-term power in the Middle East as we would not be able to both contain the Iranian response, and manage our project in Afghanistan. If we were to attack Iran with the intent to destroy their nuclear capabilities, Israel gains both in the short and long-term, but I do not think that what is good for Israel is necessarily good for the U.S. As I read more, I believe that this is reason for the current media campaign from Israel. Israel sees that their interests are strongly benefited by a U.S. attack on Iran, but the U.S. has so far considered the downsides too great and has signaled a desire to pursue the status-quo of a long-term deterrence policy based on sanctions and incentives with the ultimate goal of containment. Israel sees a chance to consolidate power slipping by as they will likely be forced to make more accomodations to a new Arab power. I’m not sure if we will ultimately be able to stop Iran from getting the nuke with sanctions; however, sanctions will hurt the little guy and increase political cracks quite possibly stopping their nascent nuclear enrichment program (doubtful), or at the minimum limiting their future exercise of hard power in the region when and if they get nuclear weapons. A deterrence/containment approach sacrifices some U.S., Chinese, Russian, Israeli, Saudi, and other regional interests power in the Middle East as the exercise of power in a region is somewhat of a zero-sum game, but it preserves global U.S. power and can be managed to prevent a stronger world-wide recession. Such an approach is ultimately predicated on the presumption that while individual actors in Iran might be irrational (e.g. Ahmadenijad), but that the Expediency Council will act rationally. I think that such a presumption has been, to date, shown to be true and for this reason Obama seems to continuing under the two pronged approach.
i would favor attacking/bombing iran if they were actually taking aggressive action against the united states. for example, if iranian intelligence had overthrown our president and installed a brutal dictator who killed a few hundred thousand americans i would be mad enough to start a revolution. if iran had us surrounded w/ military bases in mexico, canada, cuba, the pacific, had been flying spy planes over our country and crashing them w/in our borders, had been arming all our neighbors and encouraging aggression against us, had been carrying out acts of terrorism, sabatoge and kidnapping w/in our borders and their leaders were constantly going around saying "all options are on the table" i might be in favor of going to war with them. at the least, i would feel very threatened and would want to take action to protect myself. yall see my point here?
