The only way there will ever be war with Iran is if Iran starts it by sponsoring a terrorist attack on US soil. ANd given that Iran tends to get away with sponsoring terrorist attacks in other countries, they may think they can get away with it here.
Yeah, because the risks to Iran are pretty much the same when it sponsors terror attacks in, say, Lebanon as they are if Iran were to do so in the US. :dubious:
I think it’s very important to distinguish between a land war (boots on the ground) and pre-emptive or retaliatory air strikes. When most people hear or talk about “war”, they usually are thinking of the former. But there have been many instances of terror attacks agains the US where the response was the latter. Think Pan Am 103 and Libya.
The only time such attacks led to an actual land war was Afghanistan. One might argue that Iraq also counts*, but the sine qua non of that conflict was the alleged WMDs and the possibility of SH using them agains the US. And in the case of Afghanistan, we had a failed state that was harboring a stateless terrorist breeding ground.
A land war with Iran is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Much more likely are air strikes, even if they escalate to an action on the scale of what Clinton did in Serbia (under the guise of NATO).
*Bush did, incorrectly, try and sell us on a link between SH and Sept 11, 2001 attacks.
Basically, because Obama does not have a crew of people with an ideological bent toward war with Iran. I think that if Obama declares war on Iran, it will be as he describes, a last option. He will exhaust all OTHER options first. But the neocon warhawks on the right are looking for EXCUSES to make war on Iran, it is their FIRST option, their preferred option. They will make shit up if they have to, just like they made shit up to justify the war in Iraq. I would not trust Romney and his advisors any further than I can throw them. Obama might wage war on Iran, but he will not MAKE SHIT UP to do it.
I think if Romney is really inclined to think about pre-emptively attacking Iran, he’d be making more noise about it. As it is, I think Romney has only the most vague positions on foreign policy.
For the moment, I’m going to chalk up this whole topic to the “we’ve talked about the imminent invasion of Iran 20 times in the last 7 years, this just makes it number 21” camp.
What makes you think that?!
Three reasons: first, to draw a distinction between him and Obama; two, because politicians tend to think that they are persuasive and that people will end up agreeing with them when they speak; and three, if someone thinks that bombing Iran is a reasonable policy, then they probably wouldn’t treat the topic as though it were taboo.
Because they are our ally.
Remember, experts have wargamed the idea of a limited airstrike on Iran, whether by the U.S. or by Israel, in 2004, and in 2010, and in 2012, and they can never seem to find a scenario where such action does not spin out of control into a general regional war.
That is why we should not risk it under any circumstances.
The Israelis can take care of themselves, here. They’re a nuclear power, more certainly than Iran is; and they need fear nothing from the conventional forces of a country that far away.
That’s the difference: Obama was more of a hawk. Also, more gay friendly.
What about the later executive order?
There are always legitimate reasons for going to war, so it’s silly to say we don’t want to under any circumstances. I’m comfortable with “most” circumstances.
Why would an airstrike spiral into a regional war in Iran’s case, but not in Iraq or Syria’s case? What do they think the variable is that makes Iran different?
A regional war would be suicidal for Iran. Do wargamers assume Iran is that irrational? if so, that’s an argument for a preemptive strike not against one.
War is not likely with Iran. Warfare is very very likely if Romney becomes President. If Obama remains President it becomes unlikely. Romney is already going on his foreign policy tour to show that he doesn’t give a shit about peace in the Middle East and that he is willing to follow Netanyahu’s lead in all these Middle East, including feeding into right-wing paranoia over Iran’s nuclear program. If anything, his policy of “Israeli policy right or wrong” shows America in decline.
Obama will refocus on true peace in the Middle East because he won’t have to care about his re-election anymore. He is only likely to bomb up until the election. He isn’t buying Israeli lies over the state of Iran’s nuclear energy and possible weapons programs.
It’s hard to know for sure, but I doubt Romney is much of a hawk.
:rolleyes: No, it isn’t, actually.
You do realize that many wargames are basically scripted exercises, right? Not necessarily predictions on what will happen if we do “x”? For many wargames, the fact that the situation devolves should be about as surprising as Bruce Willis escaping just in time before that building had a spectacular explosion.
Now, I think attacking Iran would be a profound mistake, but it just bugs me when people trot out wargames as evidence of something.
If Iran is irrational, they can’t be allowed to have a bomb. This is actually Obama administration policy. Iran will not get a bomb.
I don’t think Romney is personally much of a hawk, either. He does not appear to be very interested in international affairs. But most of the people who would serve as his staff ARE hawks, they are the same damn neocons, for the most part, that got us into Iraq. We do NOT need these idiots leading us to another needless war again, whether their puppet in chief is Bush or Romney.
I never knew that… What the hell good are they if they’re scripted? I thought the whole point was to create a “sim” of a given situation, and “game it out” to see how it might develop. Then to do it again, with new players, to try to work out an envelope of probabilities and possibilities.
It may only be an urban legend, but the story is told of the Japanese admirals wargaming Midway, and having their carriers sunk. They shrugged it off as only one possibility among many – which, I guess, is valid – but that’s the way it actually did work out.
Having the game host tell you, “Okay, the Blue Army wins and the Red Army loses, so get out there and fake it” would seem to be not very educational. Saying, “Go out there and fight it like a real battle” would seem far more productive.
(As opposed to “re-enactments” which are, of course, highly scripted. And even there, I’m told, individuals are free to choose whether or not to “die.” One re-enacter told me it’s nice to die, because you get to stretch out on the cool grass and rest a while.)
If the neocons wanted Iran, they would have gone in at some point during Bush’s second term. Plus the neocons’ main objective, democratization of the Muslim world, is already being achieved without any further shoves.
There are only two ways we go to war with Iran: if they sponsor a terror attack on US soil, or they actually get close to a bomb and Israel hasn’t already acted. And these conditions apply whether Obama or Romney is President.