That scenario has been wargamed several times. It always ends in a general regional war and nobody can see a clear way to any other outcome.
Shields and Brooks. And only when Brooks is busy getting a bikini wax. Mr. Gerson’s resume includes being on GeeDub’s White House Iraq Group and, according to Wiki, “…a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement…”. And no, I have no idea what that means, nor the least curiosity to find out.
Get used to it. It is by no means the stupidest thing you will hear from a base-pandering Pub presidential contender during the coming primary campaigns. It is not even the stupidest thing said by such this week. E.g., Mike Huckabee: Gay-rights activists want an America with no churches.
There have been sanctions of various sorts in place for decades.
So you would oppose dropping the sanctions because Iran could always back out of the deal? This is true for any deal we might make. We generally impose sanctions with the idea that they will provide an incentive to take particular actions that will allow them to be lifted. If they will never be lifted under any circumstances, than why did we impose them in the first place?
This agreement is a terrific piece of news and another reason why Obama’s foreign policy is light-years ahead of what conventional Republican wisdom would call for. Hell, even if it doesn’t work out, it would still be great, as it would show the extent to which talks can be made. There’s literally no downside to these talks and agreement. The US isn’t really giving anything up, we don’t really have to do anything substantial for years, and there’s monitoring in place for up to 25 years. Literally no downside. Its another victory for the good guys
Yes, and formerly Shields and Gigot. I’d tell you what I know about the Evangelical Intelligentsia Group, but you’d have to convert first. And the initiation rites are brutal! Not the least of which is the removal of part of your brain…
Fuckin’ love Shields. Besides a sharp mind and a keen sense of humor (in a “Dad joke” sort of way…), he is also frumpy. I trust frumpy.
Some sanctions, e.g., those on Cuba or Apartheid-era South Africa, are enacted with the intent of forcing regime change and presumably will be lifted only under that circumstance.
But I don’t think the sanctions on Iran are of that nature, though some Pubs appear to be assuming that.
Actually, Iran is particularly susceptible to infrastructure bombing. We could kill their water and electric distribution systems with only a few conventional bombing strikes.
(Los Angeles could be killed in exactly the same way. Zap the water and power lines coming in – some of which travel for hundreds of miles through empty desert – and the place is a dead zone.)
By shutting Iran’s civilization down completely, we could cut off their nuclear power research. We also could have nuked Hanoi…
But that’s just a temporary solution, and would probably only reinforce their perceived need for a deterrent. Eventually they’d get it, if they want it badly enough.
The neo-cons sing a seductive song, a song of peace. For this bright but fading moment of opportunity, America can impose peace. The threat of nuclear war demands such bold action, and we are the only nation that can do it, can wear the sheriff’s badge and make it stick. Not like those cringing Chamberlains at the so-called “United Nations”. No sensible nation will resist us, and if they do, it won’t be for long! A glowing vision of the Citadel on the Hill and the chance to make the world safe for business! Democracy. Same difference,
These are, of course, not foolish men, these are hard-headed, no-nonsense realists with a clear eye to the cold truth. (Didja ever notice that that is how almost all cynics describe themselves?)
Other victims of testosterone poisoning will not be surprised to learn that they are almost unanimously men. All of this supports my maturing opinion that we should just get out of the way and let the soft guys with the wobbly bits run things. Maybe they can’t do better, but they could hardly do worse.
Bombing water supplies probably serves no military purpose and would therefore be regarded as a war crime. It’s pretty clear that countries aren’t supposed to try to kill civilians for no battlefield advantage.
Or, maybe we could let the women run things . . .
Nah.
That should be dismissed; Foreign Policy Initiative is a neocon think-tank, founded by William “Always Disastrously Wrong About Everything” Kristol.
Can you point to any inaccuracies in the article?
Would you like to share some of your thoughts about the article, or are we simply posting links from here on out?
The article documents, pretty thoroughly, the nebulousness of the “framework” - basically it can mean whatever the person looking at it wants it to mean, with no specifics.
Just one example: Obama and Kerry keep emphasizing the “unprecedented” level of inspections. Yet the framework refers to “regular” inspections - which seems to imply scheduled and not-surprise inspections. What good is that? Also, Iranians have always refused to allow inspectors on “military” sites. Again, what good are inspections if some sites are off-limits?
Outside the conservative bubble Obama is regarded as a very effective president in terms of foreign policy. Adding yet another policy success isn’t really all that meaningful to his domestic politics. He’s never going to convince the people who think he’s bad at foreign policy otherwise.