So is Israel. For that matter so is America; perhaps we should bomb ourselves into submission.
I thought that was our current domestic economic policy…
This guy knows his stuff.
Do you really, honestly and truly want to try to argue that Iran isn’t actively hiding dimensions of its nuclear program, that is would have any reason to do so if everything was above board, and that it’s not still blocking the implementation of the Additional Protocols? Is this the hill you want to die on, newcomer?
[
](IAEA Suspicious Of Iran's Parchin Military Base : NPR)
You do realize that this isn’t even the first time that Iran has bulldozed a site that the IAEA wanted to inspect, right?
I don’t particularly care whether Iran is building a nuke, or how close it is to building a nuke. That is not a sufficient reason to start a war.
I have to agree. This is one of those things we should simply have to accept, no matter how little we like it. We have to hope that Iran acts wisely once it is a member of the club. They have to know what will happen to them otherwise.
In this case, the first use of violence is not sufficiently justified.
Economic sanctions? Sure. Fighter-bombers? No…
I don’t have much of an opinion on Israeli politics either way to be honest with you. Netanyahu is putting Israel at the top of my list of ME threats with his strident rhetoric calling for war with Iran. For one he is not the US CIC, so some of his comments have come across as offensive. More importantly, the consequences of a war with Iran would be highly negative across the board. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see Iran as more powerful militarily speaking than Iraq, and even more inaccessible. If Iraq cost $3 trillion, 4000+ unnecessary American military dead and God knows how many seriously wounded, not to mention hundred(s) of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths plus untold refugee mayhem and government corruption here at home, I suspect war with Iran would be even worse. And they are pals with China. Do we go to war with them too?
Israel already bombed the shit out of Lebanon, and I did not find the results to be pretty. Are the groups you mention representative of any nation? If the answer is “Palestine”, um, what Palestine? They don’t have a nation, so with whom do we go to war when these militant groups cause trouble? Is Iran truly to blame? And hasn’t the US treated Iran as practically a colony in the 20th century? Why does no one call for the disarmament of Israel? How destabilizing is it that this country is the only one in the region with nukes? Do we need to respond to a few mortar attacks with another Iraq-scale war? What does America get out of that?
I’m sure I have plenty to learn about these issues, but frankly my chief concern is avoiding another major ME war. For instance, after 9/11 I think a better strategy than declaring two wars would have been to declare none and follow Israel’s example of blowing up bad guys with targeted missile strikes. Trillions saved, enormous human suffering avoided, and those responsible get killed. Makes sense, no? Unless you’d like to explain the utility of the Afghanistan war to me.
I agree, it is. Lately it seems like pretty much every party is a destabilizing influence in the ME. Israel tops the list in my mind right now, but if you think that is merely the result of ignorance I’ll hear you out.
They’re already a member of the club and show no interest in acting wisely. That club is called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, ratified and agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea at least invoked article X and left the NPT, and India, Israel and Pakistan never signed the treaty.
So then you think the US should have invaded Israel in 1967 and bombed the hell out of them?
If not, please explain why you don’t feel Israel should have been invaded then.
That presumes that not getting nuclear weapons is wise when you are the target of the hatred of a superpower. And America has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Iran, such as Bush publicly and explicitly refusing to “take the nuclear option off the table” as regards to Iran; that negates any moral obligation they might have to follow such a treaty. The NPT is not the “submit to being nuked if we feel like it” treaty.
As I understand it, that was considered Israel’s affair and did not draw the US into the conflict. An attack on Iran OTOH would likely start a war that the US would get dragged into. Inflicting that on the US is not something a “friendly nation” would do- quite the opposite. So, we threaten Israel if they are committed to that course.
If you want to compare it to the 1967 war, if Israel starts a war with Iran and then gets their ass kicked, we stand by and watch. The US prefers to start wars at a time of its choosing dontcha know.
Why not just do what LBJ did in 1967. Tell Israel, “no we won’t help even if you’re invaded.”
That strikes me as being more logical and practical rather than threatening to invade and bomb them, which would be seen as an empty threat.
Discussing whether or not it’s time to attack Iran presumes that an effective method of destroying or delaying their nuclear program is available. Unlike Iraq or Syria where a single reactor could be bombed, it’s my understanding that Iran’s nuclear weapons program, to the extent we know about it, is dispersed and lives in bunkers. Bombing them is a crapshoot at best, and it assumes we know where they all are–something that seems unwise to assume.
Talk of bombing also presumes that other effective methods do NOT exist. Someone (wink wink) has been releasing computer viruses and killing Iran’s nuclear scientists, and this is reported to have an effect. Why are such methods not still useful, or no longer enough?
Breaking a treaty is not, alone, sufficient cause for a military attack.
Yes, it’s a serious matter, but it isn’t an act of war in itself.
My gut feeling is that the US could not stay out of a war with Iran once Israel started it. That is not very scientific I’ll admit, but there you go.
Well, I only recommend bombing them until they can’t wage war. Maybe we should threaten to give the land back to the Palestinians- we won’t stop bombing until you agree to that, it’ll make us that upset if you drag us into a war with Iran.
It is nasty for sure, but the whole “wipe you off the map” thing seems to be language Netanyahu responds to. In the interest of peace in the Middle East, what if we tried, “Drag us into war with Iran and we’ll wipe you off the map ourselves!”
Israel has some particulars that are infuriating around the region, yet people expect them not to be attacked. Yet we have to threaten Iran for allegedly stubbornly developing nuclear weapons they can never use without being wiped off the map themselves? Really?
It presumes no such thing. Clearly you have not even read the text of the NPT if you ascribe such ridiculous interpretations on what it says and means, nor do comments by Bush negate any moral obligation they have to follow their treaty commitments. If they wish to develop nuclear weapons, they are free to follow the example of North Korea and withdrawal from the treaty or the example of India, Israel and Pakistan and not have signed it in the first place.
I never said it was. It is however naive to hope that Iran acts wisely once it has the bomb. It’s already not acting wisely by spitting in the face of its treaty obligations by developing the bomb rather than withdrawing from the treaty.
I, for one, think Obama’s bluffing. He’ll be in his second term and shouldn’t really give a rat’s ass whether or not he’s painted as having failed to prevent an Iranian nuke. I think that he knows as well as I do that there’s pretty much nothing he can do to stop them from getting one, so all we can do is prepare for it
-
I don’k think the anti-war side is worrying too much that a Democratic president is going to go out and attack another mid-east country, especially since we’re still bogged down in Afghanistan
-
If we’re going to attack, we have to do it before they get the nuke. Its the only way. Have to kill a lot of people and probably take over the country though
Of course it does. It’s treaty, not a suicide pact. And threatening nuclear attack upon Iran makes it clear that the actual purpose of the treaty as far as the US is concerned is to allow nuclear armed nations to threaten non-nuclear nations with nuclear attack without fear of retaliation.
The problem isn’t that they can or are developing nuclear weapons it’s that if they do there aren’t the normal checks and balances in place in Iran. The world would have nuclear weapons that were governed not by a conscientious governing body or democracy but by a small number of relatively radical individuals.
The real fear is that even if they do develop nukes and maintain the appearance that they are stewarding them properly, they could covertly hand them off to a terrorist cell and we or someone else could be looking at a couple million casualties in a city like New York. The autocracy or leaders in Iran at the time could just shrug and say “We do not condone terrorist activity … it sucks being you, I wonder what happened”.
A nuclear presence may just require a bit more responsibility than you’d find in a present day Iran.
Not chance. They know quite well we wouldn’t care about any excuses they’d make and we’d kill them all. We’d love the excuse to annihilate their entire country. And except in right wing paranoid-fantasy land nations simply do not hand over nuclear weapons to loose cannons like terrorists. They wouldn’t hand over nukes to their terrorists any more than the US or USSR handed nukes over to their terrorists.