Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I have made similar statements regarding the defiance of Sadaam and the risk we take in the ME for perceived weakness.
|
By getting involved we either have one of two options:
1) become the enemy of the perceived top-dog
2) become top-dog.
Neither of these are favorable outcomes, so the obvious answer is to butt out for the time being. Attacking them sets us on a course to one of two options, neither of which make any sense for us.
In this case, the case of nuclear weapons, we have to let the UN do their jobs. I know it seems impotent, but the fact is that the inspectors are damn good at their jobs. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to see this new facility, so we're not in a position where we need to be considering punitive or military action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I admit I am confused - I am assuming your interpretation of the piece and some of what he says is very different than mine.
|
We don't beat them head on, with military or economic actions. That just either empowers their corrupt leadership or puts us on track to be the next corrupt leadership. The chest-beating of President Obama in this instance is bad policy.
As far as your interpretation of their chest-beating response as a threat, look at it within the context of the tribe: they HAVE to respond that way otherwise they'll be perceived as weak. It's not an active threat as much as it is either a conditioned response or a PR move. Do you think Iran really wants to get into a nuclear war with Israel or the US? Of course not because they'd lose even if they managed somehow to win. They're tribal, not stupid. Nuclear power is about independence, which is very important to them. If they are developing nuclear weapons (and honestly there's still no evidence that they are), it wouldn't be to use them, it would be to demonstrate strength and to enter the MAD alliance of unattackable states.
I'm much more worried about Pakistan and their nuclear weapons than I would be about a nuclear Iran... but there's still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That has to be central to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Our goals are not to conquer or to make war, our goals are to maintain peace and order. An "intellectual" approach to the Iran question, assuming there is a "tribal" mentality as described by Pressfield in the piece cited, is folly in my opinion. Obama needs to respond in a quick, decisive and firm manner before this gets further out of control.
|
Judging by President Obama's inflammatory speech, I'm not entirely convinced our goal is peace. We saw the same thing with Bush; he promised no nation building, no going to war for resources, etc., but then he and his lackys started reporting on all this intelligence. "We're in danger, we have to do something!!" Next thing you know we're at war for about 48 hours and then we've conquered Iraq. Fuck.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is not open to taking an Iranian wife for his harem, so the obvious outcomes to this are either annihilating Iran, losing to Iran, or backing the hell down and letting the professionals do their job. President Obama's speech was a step in the wrong direction, and was an obvious play to look strong on "terror" or whatever.