[shrug] Khomeini is dead. If Iran tries to throw its weight around the region in the future it will be for ordinary nationalistic reasons, Islamic-revolutionary ideology being invoked for rhetorical purposes but not really driving the enterprise.
Not at the expense of other nations’ sovereignty. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
The problem is that as long as the oil is on the global market, America has access. Yes, it may raise prices if we have to buy from a Chinese firm that bought from Iran, but as long as the oil is out there, we can buy it. And the mullahs would almost definitely face revolution if they actually began screwing their economy sideways, by stopping to export their single most valuable resource.
However, piss off enough Arab regimes, and every zodiac in the Straight would be considered a possible guided missile. That’s the real worry, that faced with what they view as a threat, the surrounding Arab nations might engage in various forms of violence with Iran, from attacking targets (like oil wells) on Iranian soil to attacking Iranian shipping assets. And that’s if Iran doesn’t repeat any actions like bombing the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Recent events in Lebanon, for instance, which revealed that Iran was doing its best to link its international terrorist forces as well as gaining dominance over the Lebanese government will not have gone unnoticed by the ME nations.
The idea, of course, that Iran could become the regional hegemon and all would be well if the US just minded its own business is naive and uninformed, at best. At worst, it’s a convenient fiction that serves a political purpose.
From the cite I provided:
Likewise, the notion that Iran’s nuclear program was in reaction to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech is another fiction that serves a political purpose. Unless, of course, folks are claiming that Bush’s remarks traveled back in time.
Not saying that you’d argued against the multipolar nature of ME politics, but I feel that any debate which doesn’t touch on that fact, is ignoring a significantly important fact without which the discussion becomes so much gibberish.
Not if your foot is on my air supply it doesn’t. Or if my stream flows through your land and you threaten to cut it off or foul the supply it doesn’t.
You may also have noticed that you and I aren’t nation states responsible for the lives and livelyhoods of hundreds of millions of citizens.
-XT
So, if China sees the US as leveraging its occupation of Iraq to unfairly assure herself of Iraq’s oil, they have a legitimate right to exercise force? XT, that ain’t a slipperly slop, thats straight to Hell in the handbasket.
Or are these rights peculiar to America, and exclusive of others?
That’s like citing the fact of the Reagan Admin’s SDI proposal as proof that such was a good idea.
Are you saying they don’t? That they simply have to roll over and take it? Shrug and go back to working the rice fields and stfu? I’m not saying they necessarily have to resort to force…nor saying that we do either. But nations have a right to protect their vital national interests…and sometimes that means war.
Or do you think that nations don’t have any such rights and just have to sit about, hat in hand, and hope that their interests are somehow protected by the good will of other nations? There is a saying…hope in one hand and shit in the other…see which fills up first.
I know which prospect my own bet would be on.
Are you under the impression that the US is the only nation on earth that protects it’s foreign interests??
-XT
I wonder if you realize how close you are to the deadly cynicism of realpolitik.
Not one to bet on wars, John, but this whole nasty affair appears to keep escalating.
Much more at source including rather ambiguous interpretations.
Does this shake your confidence if even a tiny bit? It does mine and I’d been tilting towards your line of thinking as of late…
This speaks more to an Israeli air strike…which I think everyone concedes is the highest likelihood at this point. But Israel can’t invade Iran…and what they do or don’t do doesn’t have an impact on if we will invade Iran either, which has been the point under discussion in this thread.
FWIW, Israel has certainly been ramping up the rhetoric towards such a strike and I think it fairly likely that they will do so sometime this year unless the Iranians completely back down and completely open up on their nuclear program in such a way that Israel is completely confident that there is no threat to them…from this quarter anyway. I think the Iranians have backed down all they are going to at this point. So, you can draw your own conclusions as to what Israel will do wrt an air strike.
That said though, and air strike, even a massive one by Israel against Iran, isn’t war. Iran and Israel can’t fight a conventional war. So, unless we are talking nukes (something I find highly improbable), the only thing they can do is fight a really nasty air to air battle…well, or Iran could turn loose it’s friends in groups like Hamas and let THEM fight as the proxies they are. Of course, from Israels perspective it’s not like Iran generally reins them in anyway.
-XT
Based on what’s been posted on this board over the years about the Iranian nuclear facilities – carefully buried and hardened against conventional bombing, a lesson learned from Osirak – I really doubt Israel has the capacity to take them out. The USAF could, but not without losing some of its own planes. Iran does have its own Air Force, and a much more formidable one than Hussein used to have.
Speaking of which… if those harmless sleeper cells I’ve posted about in the past really do go through with what various intelligence agencies are warning of, and synagogues in Toronto start being bombed, I think I’d have to revise the odds of US air strikes to about 50/50.
Even granting Hezbollah enjoys Iranian support, how are airstrikes on Iran supposed to make Hezbollah any less dangerous?
The theory would be that the airstrikes on Iran would be to punish them for supporting Hezbollah’s terrorism, and than Iran would then withdraw support.
Pretty much.
The era of state sponsored terrorism is, if not over, at least in serious decline.
If an Iranian armed, funded, trained and sheltered terrorist organization attacked one of our allies (Canada Firster! Canada Firster!), massive sanctions would be the minimum response, with a military response being a pretty safe bet as well.
If evidence was uncovered, as it was with the Marine Barracks Bombing and the Khobar Towers Bombing, that the attacks were ordered and directed by Iran? Even if it were to be discovered that Iran ‘merely’ authorized the strike?
The odds of a military response go up to about 95%, with, say, 40% odds that our missiles would be aimed at decapitating their leadership instead of inflicting damage solely on their military assets.
Pfft. Ol’ John is very fluid in his definition of what a “war” is. If there’s air strikes, only massive air strikes will count. If there are massive air strikes, only “boots on the ground” will do. If there’s surgical strikes with troops, only massive invasion will count.
Eventually, it will only be a “war” if there is a Mt. Suribachi-type scene with a bunch of U.S. Marines erecting a U.S. flag on Amadenajad’s desk.
-Joe
Oh, let’s get real here. Air strikes are war. It may be a little war, but I defy anyone to promulgate an explanation of why war isn’t actually intentional, state-sanctioned violence directed against another country.
War Lite. Totally different, and it can’t turn into a real war because there are, like, safeguards. Fail-safes. Stoppy-thingys.
Interesting tangent…
It would certainly be an act of war. But numerous attacks that were state-sanctioned, even carried out by nation states, have not led to actual war being declared or, for that matter, fought. For instance, after the Iranian ordered attacks on our forces in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, we were not at war with Iran. After Israel’s recent strike against the Syrian nuclear facility, the two countries were not at war (or at least, not any more than they’ve been over the last few decades).
Heck, we’ve even recently launched strikes within Pakistan that have killed Pakistani citizens. Not only are we not at war with them, they’re still our ally.
The easiest and simplest way to determine if two nations are at war, of course, is if there’s a declaration of war. Absent that, if both sides are fighting it can be considered a war, sans a formal declaration. But if one side attacks, or even keeps attacking, while the other does nothing? It seems much more accurate to claim that unilateral attacks are being carried out, rather than that a war is being fought.
It’s hard to claim that two nations are at war when only one of them is fighting.
Do you find significant error(s) in that, Raven?