On the question of Iran and preemptive war

[Ron]

Myself, I just don't have the taste for another preemptive action. Been an awful lot of them since 80's.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Myself, I just don't have the taste for another preemptive action. Been an awful lot of them since 80's.

False. Preemptive war was invented by Dick Cheney, in 2003. Prior to that, no nation had ever, ever, every done it before.

[Fitz]

This thread has happened a few times before

[Ron]

This thread has happened a few times before

It was either this or 45acp vs 9mm

[TommyGunn]

This question drives me nuts.
No, I don't want another "pre-emptive" war and I think most of America doesn't, either.

OTOH:

Iran wants a nuclear arsenal.  I doubt that it will be possible to stop Iran from obtaining nukes by embargos or other non violent means.  I don't know if Iran will attack Israel with a nuke but Ahmadinejad (SP?) has repeatedly said he wants to erase Israel from the map.  This may be bluster; if so it's remarkably stupid bluster because it's giving Israel a real good reason to launch on Iran. 
Even if Iran just wants the BOMB for the same reason other countries want it it will change the balance of power in the mideast in a manner not really great for Israel & America.

[RoadKingLarry]

Maybe I just didn't get enough sleep today but I've got a case of the I don't give damns about whether Iran gets a nuke. If they get one they'll either use it or not. Heck, they're probably as likely to take one to NYC or LA as drop one on Isreal.

[kgbsquirrel]

Thought of a sub-option to go under "Let Israel deal with it..."

A couple B-2's with the new 30k lb bunker busters. When stuff explodes just kinda shrug, play dumb and let Israel take the credit if they want to. 

[Scout26]

Thought of a sub-option to go under "Let Israel deal with it..."

A couple B-2's with the new 30k lb bunker busters. When stuff explodes just kinda shrug, play dumb and let Israel take the credit if they want to. 

I'm good with this.

[Ron]

I'm not sure how realistic or possible this is, but what I would like to see is a policy of disengaging from the middle east altogether. Our foreign policy needs to pivot to focus on what is in our best interest, not the best interest of global corporations. We are not citizens of the world, we are Americans.

We also need to make it clear that if we are forced by any Arab or Persian nation to defend ourselves or an ally, that it will be done with the gloves off, total warfare. No more of this nation building concern for societies and cultures that wish our destruction.

Disengagement, non intervention, walk softly and carry the biggest most lethal stick.

[Scout26]

Then we need to disengage for both the global oil market and the global food market.

We could probably do the first (Drill Baby, Drill; Keystone Pipeline, etc.), and I'm about to the point of using food as a weapon.  However, that only hurts US farmers as Argentina and Canada could pick-up most of the slack.

[longeyes]

There are many ways to pre-empt.  Embargo.  Remove the policy-makers.  Etc.  You don't necessarily need the meat axe of nukes.

[AZRedhawk44]

Then we need to disengage for both the global oil market and the global food market.

We could probably do the first (Drill Baby, Drill; Keystone Pipeline, etc.), and I'm about to the point of using food as a weapon.  However, that only hurts US farmers as Argentina and Canada could pick-up most of the slack.

We produce far more food than we need.  We're definitely an exporter.  Though we import food as well, mostly for diversity in our food supply.

We can use food as a "stick" along with our massive military capabilities.

Being independent from energy concerns would make us the most powerful nation on earth again, far more than Adventure/Expeditionary Warfare can do.

Neocon " America, *expletive deleted*ck Yeah!" sentiment is still well served by the energy independence argument, along with the Libertarian "leavemealone-ism" angle.

[Ron]

When I say disengage I mean militarily more than anything else.

Continue to trade with those who aren't overtly enemies.

If they want to be our enemy then we should not trade with them.   

[roo_ster]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ10Ak02.html

The horizon collapses in the Middle East
By Spengler

"In the long run we are all dead," said John Maynard Keynes. To which the pertinent response is: "What do you mean, 'we'?" For most countries, the long run is a point on the horizon that never arrives. In the Middle East, by contrast, the horizon has collapsed in upon the present. It isn't the apocalypse, but in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt it must be what the apocalypse feels like. "What some hailed as an Arab Spring," I wrote in my September 2011 book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), "is descending into an Arab Nightmare." The descent continues. We are a long way from hitting bottom.

The short-run problems of the Middle East appear intractable because they are irruptions of long-term problems, in a self-aggravating regional disturbance. It's like August 1914, but without the same civilizational implications: at risk are countries that long since have languished on the sidelines of the world economy and culture, and whose demise would have few repercussions for the rest of the world.

And Iran cannot abandon or even postpone its nuclear ambitions, because the collapse of its currency on the black market during the past two weeks reminds its leaders that a rapidly-aging population and fast-depleting oil reserves will lead to an economic breakdown of a scale that no major country has suffered in the modern era.

Iran's population is aging faster than any population in the history of the world, its economy is a hydrocarbon monoculture, and its oil is running out.

Just when Iran most needs hydrocarbon revenues, its oil output will decline sharply. Natural gas exports can offset the decline to some extent, but not entirely. Iran's only chance of survival lies in annexing oil-rich regions on its borders: Bahrain, Iraq's Basra province, parts of Azerbaijan, and ultimately Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite-majority Eastern Province. That is why Iran needs nuclear weapons.

Click the linky to see pretty graphs and more text.

I think the question is not, "Are we willing to pre-empt Iran from getting nukes," but, "Are we willing to write off Bahrain, Iraq's Basra province, parts of Azerbaijan, and ultimately Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite-majority Eastern Province?"


Quite a sticky question.

[AZRedhawk44]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ10Ak02.html

Click the linky to see pretty graphs and more text.

I think the question is not, "Are we willing to pre-empt Iran from getting nukes," but, "Are we willing to write off Bahrain, Iraq's Basra province, parts of Azerbaijan, and ultimately Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite-majority Eastern Province?"


Quite a sticky question.

Saudi Arabia has the gold, man power and oil reserves to build their own fracking army.

Iraq has enough oil to do it. And heck, as unstable as they are right now, it might be good if they were just annexed by Iran.  Why do I care about Iraq?  Why should I send my friends in the military to fight on Iraq's behalf, and die for them?  Why should my paycheck be reduced to fund fighter squadrons and aircraft carriers to accomplish this goal?

So... Iran thinks they can relatively easily take over these territories.

Heck, the US could take over Canada pretty easily.  Or Trinidad and Tobago.  Doesn't mean we are going to.

I don't buy any more "zOMG Iran!" arguments.  Not without REAL demonstrated malice against the US, that trumps what Saudis have done to us.

[slingshot]

I think the US should work very dillegently behind the scenes to destabilize Iran.  If push comes to shove, we should support Isreal.  I just don't want the shoving to start as I have little stomach for another Middle Eastern war.  But I think it is in our interests to keep things as stable as possible where the radical Islamists seem to be taking over.  Do I support Obama's world vison?  NO  Any Administration who denies that they are at fault in Libya is just seeing the world through tinted sunglasses.  Do I support the Romney vision?  Probably as it is more pro-active.

Why are the radicals taking over?  It is because the people don't feel empowered to do anything about it.  There are few jobs and fewer options for the average person living in a lot of these countries.  It is also the only way most have known.  It takes organization to take control of these countries and the radical element has been working to that end for a long time.  Nothing really new here.

[Balog]

Yeah, the US covertly meddling in the power structures of other nations has worked out SO WELL in the past, why would we not want to repeat that?