Arctic Patriot wrote a post about Iran. I know that speaking out against Israel is dangerous in American politics, but let me say that this isn't speaking out against Israel, this is speaking out against needless warfare. Wars cost lives and treasure. I'm not saying the all volunteer military couldn't handle another war, we can, just that another war is not in anyone's best interest (including Israels).
Now, it is true that Iran controls about 20% of the worlds oil supply. However they sell mainly to China. China doesn't want the flow of oil to stop any more than Iran does. If war were to come then that would be the first thing to stop flowing. So China doesn't want Iran to go to war (the same way they don't want North Korea to go to war because it would frustrate trade with South Korea).
I've got mud from Iraq and Afghanistan on my boots. Don't need mud from Iran on it. For the last decade Iran has been "two to three years away from a nuclear warhead" according to the talking heads.
If I have to go fight in Iran then I have to go, I signed on the dotted line and I keep my contracts or die trying. But I think it would be better for Iran to start shooting at other nations before we try any "pre-emptive" bullshit. The policy of "containment" against Communism was an utter failure in terms of stopping the spread of Communism, but it DID create stability through international treaty.
I'm all for normalizing relations, as we did with China, as a method to stabilizing the Middle East. Say what you will about China, they are more interested in keeping the trade flowing than in conquering Taiwan at this point. Even as we have normalized relations with China SEATO has worked the same way NATO worked to keep open warfare away in Europe. So I am all for another "Middle Eastern Treaty Organization" or METO with our allies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and now Iraq create a mutual defense block to counter Iranian aggression (instead of trying to halt the spread of Communism).
It has been my experience that people around the world really like Americans, but they really don't like American Foreign Policy when it affects them negatively. In the first Gulf War over 30 Nations sent troops to fight against Saddam Hussein's aggression. The Arab world can work together to keep the status quo when it suits them. On the flip side, the Arab World has also worked together to attack Israel all at the same time. Our alliance with Israel (and Israel's teeth) have kept that mass attack from being a repeat performance.
In the 1980's NATO wasn't exactly a "paper tiger" without teeth, between the US and UK the Naval capacity alone was a significant detterent. The ground forces of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq are more than enough to prevent Iranian aggression (they have Abrams and Bradleys which will beat the crap out of the Combloc stuff Iran has). So yes Iran is a terrorism supporter, yes they are working on nukes. However, China and Russia are allies with Iran, and officially we are friendly with China and Russia. Letting Iran's regional ambitions be checked by Iran's regional neighbors is a much better policy than starting something bigger.
So it is my opinion that peace with Iran is achievable by creating an international entity that makes the cost of war for Iran heavier than the cost of peace. This is achievable with the allies we currently have, and what international goodwill we have left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
...yes,this would work,which is exactly why 'they' won't allow it...the ones pulling the strings want the further destabilization of the region(together with tearing down the last 'free' one...us)...1/5 the worlds oil is too big a reason not to(a fraction here,a fraction there,then 'they' have the most oil)
...me thinks it IS about the oil folks...at any cost,to any one nation/peoples,bar none...
Good thinking. And where the iranians a group that did risk analysis the way we do, it would work. Iran, as it is now, think that it will start the end of the world and establish the global caliphate. The mentality cannot be reasoned with.
I hope your plan is what works, but I fear it won't.
Saying "someone else is a religious zealot that cannot be counted on to follow the rules of logic" is a mental cop out. While there really are true religious zealots out there, they are largely irrelevant to politics.
The Iranians don't have to think like WE do, they just have to understand the reality the way the Iraqi's, Kuwaitis, and Saudi's do. That is a much easier step for the Persian mind.
Turkey is radicalizing by the minute, and about 2 steps from being out of NATO, by choice or by request.
Iraq is...heck, you were there; it's a basketcase.
Those 20 Arab partners for GW I were tokens. They couldn't secure some sultan's yacht, let alone neutralize an aggressive Iran. If they could even agree to doing so.
And economic self-interest didn't prevent WW I or WW II, so it won't matter what China or Russia would prefer if the Iranian leadership is batcrap crazy. (Wait, Islamic fundamentalists who won't be reasonable?? Say it isn't so.) That's not a cop-out, it's an appraisal. We've been as harsh on their nuke development (i.e. nil) as we were on OBL and Al Queda. So they've properly and predictably interpretted our harsh language and posturing as chicken-hearted indifference.
Totally agree about an invasion being a waste of blood and treasure though.
But the fact remains that Israel has no capability to hit anything in Iran, if it comes to that, unless they send their jets on one-way missions, since they have no airborne refueling capability (which our arms sales policies, in collusion with our Arab allies, saw to quite nicely). So that leaves any actual intervention up to us.
We, who can sortie B-2s from Missouri to Iran if need be, day in and day out ad infinitum.
So now we only require the intelligence capability to generate definite targets, and someone in charge in D.C. with the backbone to do what's necessary to protect America's interests once they receive that intel.
Which means we're all screwed.
-Aesop
It does, when your country is owned by Zionist BanKhazars & middle-managed by a Papistocracy of corrupt, career politicians who will do ANYTHING - including treason, genocide and robbery on the ignorant who keep reelecting them - to keep and acquire more sinecure.
Sorry, but that's just reality!
Aesop, if Iran were really run by batshit crazy religious zealots it would look a lot more like Afghanistan than Iran. What does it tell you that the Taliban didn't set itself up in Iran? There may be extremism in Iran, but so far having Amadinnerjacket as the head of state hasn't caused any extra war or terrorism.
If you take a look at Iran's history of meddling and supporting terrorism you see a nation that is doing what it can, when it can, to advance itself as a regional power.
As a side note, the "Arab Spring" may not have flowered in Iran, but the level of protests over the past couple of years are more encouraging than discouraging.
AM, if I may, I'll make my contention that Iranian leadership is batcrap crazy more precise:
They are BCC, but solely in respect to external capabilities & intentions. (And religion is merely a beard for naked ambition).
Internally, they're just another South Asian thugocracy, and like the IRS, they don't tolerate competition.
Which I think is why they support terrorism, meddle, develop nukes, rattle sabers, and do whatever they can to become a regional power.
FWIW, I refer to the crazy in question as Imawannajihad. GMTA?
-Aesop
Post a Comment