Oh, I do. And I (and others) spent the next 9 years bitching about how we were targeting the wrong Ira- country.
I’m not convinced that going to war with Iran is the thing to do. I’m saying that Iran having nukes can’t be an option right now. It’s not so much that they’d aim nukes at us (though who knows?) but the added power it gives them. Look at their allies. No thanks.
Cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons .
That seems kind of pointless.
Would Russia come to Iran’s aid if attacked by Israel or the US? That could make things…interesting, almost in a Biblical Gog and Magog sorta way.
Maybe they would.
Terrorist growth in response to atrocities is overrated. We killed tons of Iraqis and there has been no attack on American soil by Iraqi terrorist groups since we invaded.
Most people, regardless of whatever else, are not willing to become terrorists and travel halfway around the world on a mission of revenge. Even in situations in which a people have been very united against a foreign occupation in their own country the number of militants is always very, very small, like 2% of the population would be a high number. The number that would actually try to travel across the Atlantic to hit the United States would be minuscule.
No.
Why do you think not?
The same reason the Soviet Union and the U.S. never directly warred against one another in Vietnam or Afghanistan during the Cold War.
Anyway, I should reiterate the first part of my post:
Iran having nuclear weapons is no big deal. Especially not in a world with Pakistan having weapons.
I think some people take Iran the wrong way. Yes, Iran is an Islamic fundamentalist state. However, for better or worse it is highly stable, it has a real government, a real functioning country. It’s very different than Pakistan, which is ran by an ever-shifting cabal of military leadership and that has huge regions that are only nominally even part of the country itself.
Pakistan could very realistically devolve into a bunch of splinter states and if that happened what happens with Pakistan’s nukes is a serious concern. The worst thing that could happen in Iran is an “Arab Spring” [excpet not with Arabs, obviously] type event where the system of government changes from their strange theocractic-democracy hybrid into a more Western system, but that would not increase the likelihood of Iran using its nuclear weapons against any other country.
Martin Hyde, clearly you have very little to no knowledge of the region outside of some half remembered newspaper articles. The problems that you cite for Pakistan exist in many forms for Iran as well. Iran has major insurgencies and or unrest outside of it’s Farsi core, Sistan, the Kurdish areas and Arabiatan come to mind. India, has similar issues, 200 districts out if 608 are either out of New Delhis control or insurgency racked.The same is true if Central Asia as well.
You also seem to have little or no idea about the geo politics of the region. Iran is and has always been for about 4000 years an expansionist powe and has at one ti eor the other do dominated or looked to dominate the rest of the countries in it’s neighborhood.There is no reason why the mullahs are different and if anything they seem a more rabid on this score as seen in Iraq and Lebanon. What makes India and Pakistan different is that both are stat is quo powers, the primary purpose ofw both nuclear arsenals is maintain the status quo,
You’re the one who “clearly has very little to no knowledge of the region outside of some half remembered newspaper articles” if you honestly believe that a country that has had roughly the similar borders to the present for hundreds of years and is fairly homogeneous is less stable than Pakistan, a country that’s name just comes from the acronym formed by the first letter of the five regions of India that broke away to form Pakistan. There is no Pakistani culture or history, it is a totally fictitious country. Persian culture is thousands of years old, and even many of the Turkic and Azerbaijani minorities in Iran share a lot of cultural heritage with the ethnic Persians.
Like most of the non-first world yes, India, Pakistan, and Iran all have areas of conflict unlike what we would see in the Western world. However, India and Iran are far more stable than Pakistan. Your description of India makes it seem far less stable than it really is, further, the areas of India that are problematic are not at all a risk to the Indian government. There is absolutely no chance the Indian government is going to break up and the country fall apart and India’s nuclear weapons end up in the hands of random terrorist groups. There is about as much chance of that as there is of Russia or China’s nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists after a state-collapse (Russia actually went through a political collapse if you recall, and despite the fears of many none of their nuclear weapons have been transferred to or detonated by terrorists.)
The reason Pakistan is the most dangerous of all nuclear actors is because of the nature of the various insurgent groups and Pakistan itself. India could literally shed 30% of its land entirely in some of the more lawless regions and it wouldn’t lose a single nuclear weapon–in fact it’d probably make the country more prosperous in many ways. Pakistan as a fictitious cultural entity is literally hanging on by a thread. Its military has extreme in fighting and factionalism. There is no discipline like there was in the Soviet armed forces. If there is any danger of nuclear weapons being used in the near future it is if some splinter faction in Pakistan, especially in the military, sells one to a terrorist group.
Iran has political infighting but its military is relatively unified (and stands behind the Supreme Leader with a great deal of loyalty), unless the Supreme Leader decides he wants Iran involved in a nuclear war, there is no realistic chance that some random splinter faction is going to start one.
That’s the key difference between Iran/India and Pakistan, Pakistan’s divisions cut through all parts of society on a fundamental level. The country is almost ungovernable, and there is no clear loyalty among the individuals who actually control the nuclear weapons. You can bet that any nuclear weapons Iran produces will be prized and tightly held by the military, which is extremely loyal to the Supreme Leader.
Much talk is made of the Revolutionary Guard as though it divides the loyalties of the Iranian military. This is not really the case, the regular Iranian military is also directly headed by the Supreme Leader, no military force in the country is outside of his authority and they are loyal to the regime. If anything the Revolutionary Guard is a source of stability and would be a source of security for Iran’s nuclear weapons. The Revolutionary Guard is an entire military force within a military force whose main purpose is to suppress any internal disorder or rebellion. Such a force is definitely going to keep Iran’s nuclear weapons from being sold to some random terrorist group by a renegade general.
Most powers are expansionist to a degree, but historically Persia hasn’t been as expansionist as say, Turkey (Ottoman Empire?), and Persia has not been significantly expansionist since the 18th century.
Further, last I checked no country in the history of the world has ever expanded its territory with nuclear weapons. Primarily because use of nuclear weapons would bring about a catastrophic and devastating response. The Soviet Union was very interested in expanding its sphere of influence throughout the Cold War–note it never used a nuclear weapon in warfare.
Of course not; we’ve been there. No need to travel to the US, or even out of Iraq.
We don’t normally hover over a country destroying its ability to sustain itself and keeping it from rebuilding, either. But you’re right in a sense about one thing; 1.5 million militants is a “high number”. And even if only a small percentage of that is willing to come all the way to the US, that’s still a huge number of people by terrorism standards.
Why wouldn’t any of them wish to strike at the homeland? In my Iranian hypothetical there are many places closer than the continental U.S. that the Iranians could strike back at where there are large numbers of American troops. If you argument is that us killing a bunch of people will result in a bunch of terrorist attacks against us, I’m just not seeing it.
Hell, even in Iraq the number of soldiers that actually were killed by Iraqi insurgents over some 8 years was actually quite small.
How exactly would they get here? There are probably at least 50,000 terrorists in the world today who are personally interested in attacking the continental United States. There is a reason such incidents are actually rare. I get that you don’t like the reality that America could literally wreck Iran and, as long as we didn’t wish to occupy her, essentially be able to destroy her people with impunity. However unless we’re to believe Iranians have magical powers and/or are capable of feats that defy the possible I don’t actually see how “legions” of them would be coming to the United States and attacking us.
Anyway, I only made the comment to point out that if we “really did” feel that Iranian nuclear development had to be stopped “at all costs” including war, there are ways to do that without military occupation. History has many examples of successful punitive military actions that are not designed to hold and conquer territory but simply to significantly degrade an enemy people’s ability to act for some generations of time. My position of course is that we’re talking about a fantasy scenario, the United States will not go to war with Iran because it actually isn’t a big deal if they acquire nuclear weapons. The U.S. policymakers realize this and probably openly acknowledge it in private, but due to the strong requirement to appear anti-nuclear proliferation they would never admit it publicly (plus it weakens our hand.)
Interesting update:
WaPost: After military exercise, Iran warns U.S. Navy: Stay out of Persian Gulf
Christian Science Monitor:After Iran threatens US carrier, bluff will probably be called
First, anyone else get a kick out of CSM using the phrase “up to 11”?
I think it goes without saying that the US isn’t going to back down. I assume carrier groups don’t publish timetables, so when will they head back? Timed for maximum “don’t tell us what to do”? Timed with the upcoming elections (Iran in March, US almost constantly)?
If the Iranian navy is there and on alert, does that change any of the calculus in the thread?
The US cannot/will not blink. Any guesses as to what the Iranians will rely on as a face-saving device? Or are we inching closer to a hot war?
I doubt there will be a war, at least a land war with boots on the ground unless the US is directly attacked while Obama is President. Who does Iran export oil to anyways, I don’t the US likes buying their oil or Iran for that matter desires to sell it to us.
Because killing random Americans isn’t nearly as satisfying as killing the ones who are actually killing, raping, torturing & destroying in your country. Your argument only works if you buy the silly idea that they are attacking us out of some right wing fantasy reason like “they hate our freedoms”.