Time for America to Act on Iran

Comment

Comment by dmoney on February 22, 2010 at 3:56pm

Fair enough, Bill--you have thought through your position, and I can respect that.

Best wishes to you and thanks for the discussion.

Comment by Bill Thomas on February 22, 2010 at 3:11pm

DMONEY - I agree with some of what you say however without a full scale ground invasion of Iran, I'd say a surgical strike against the Iranian Nuclear program would be ineffective.

The Iranians are smart and well educated. They learned from the strike by Israel on the Nuclear program in Iraq. They are spread out and dug in deep. We won't be able to root them out by sending over the cruise missiles.

One of the things I grudgingly admire about the Iranians is their ability to leverage their assets. They've got Israel tied down in Lebanon and Palestine spending a paltry amount of money on Hezbollah & Hamas (as compared to our war efforts). They are a thorn in our side in Iraq spending chump change on IED making material that has been very effective against our guys over there.

Air strikes by the US or Israel will only help to unify their country against the west .. not to mention unifying moderate Arabs with the extremists. Based on his opposition at home, I'd bet Ahmadinejah says a prayer (is it five times a day?) for an airstrike. Nothing could help him more.

With our other foreign entanglements unfortunately I think our options are limited to containment and waiting for the current regime to implode.

Comment by dmoney on February 22, 2010 at 2:33pm

Bill,

The following link contains a comprehensive list of sanctions levied by the U.N. against Iran. You can access the Global Policy Forum’s efforts here.

www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-sec...

In just over thirty years these measures have had the net effect of leading to a nuclear Iran.

Our interest in Iran has nothing to do with Iranian oil. The U.S. is prohibited under the sanctions from trading with them or allowing our contractors to work in-country.

Our real interest has to do with the relatively—and I say relatively—moderate Islamic nations we have been working to build alliances with such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran has a fundamentalist regime with a stated hatred not only for the U.S.A., but for moderate Islamic countries as well. A nuclear Iran is a threat to our allies as well as to our interests.

This is to say nothing of Iran’s traditional enemy (and our staunchest ally in the region) Israel. You may read for yourself Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements on his regime’s apocalyptic plans for Israel here.

www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

Obama is content to play the role of U.N. idealist and appeaser in the region, choosing to let Israel deal with a nuclear Iran alone while offering no U.S. leadership and not ruffling any feathers. Practically speaking, Obama—as John Bolton has noted as of late—understands that Israel will strike pre-emptively and act unilaterally if her security is threatened. Thus, in Obama’s way of thinking: Problem solved.

Rather, I would like to see more cooperation and coordination with Israel from the Obama administration. Our shared peaceful interests are at stake, and I think it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the U.S. should be preparing military contingencies to deal with a newly-nuclear Iran. These would include limited, cost-effective and accurate drone strikes, and perhaps even cruise-missile strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Yes, Bill, a ground war is not viable and nor do I advocate one. But the time for sanctions against Iran went out with bell-bottoms, and it must now be admitted that jihadism is a pan-Arabian phenomenon. It cuts across borders. As long as our towers fall and our commercial airlines are threatened, and as long as numerous mid-eastern countries like Iran continue to grow and aid terrorists, I don’t think any foreign country’s boundaries should be sovereign.

You are correct in saying that “[e]xtremism always eventually fails.” I agree, but how about we give it a helping hand to fail? Given that nukes are now at stake and the Iranian regime is predisposed to be pretty loony, I believe it would be unwise to sit and await a mushroom cloud. Instead, let our enemies expect a bolt from the blue.

I don’t mean to be a jerk, and if you want to drill ANWR, I’m right there with you, but I think we need a lot more oil than that region alone can produce. Obama would love to sidestep the Iranian issue, but try as he will, he can’t hide from Mideast policy—which has become nuclear policy.

Am I overreacting? Watched any old footage of Hiroshima lately?

Comment by Bill Thomas on February 22, 2010 at 10:18am

Iran's extremist Regime has the same goal as all other extremist whatever the flavor ... control over their citizens at all cost and by any measure. Not a good situation but our only strategic interest in the desert called Iran is Oil and there is plenty of oil other places.

We have to face the facts that we're out of Money (USA) and cannot afford military action at this time in Iran.

Remember its Vietnam all over again in Iraq and Afghanistan. An intractable police action in countries with citizens that don't want us (USA) in country.

Put the sanctions in place and let the home grown opposition do it's thing in Iran. It will take a long time but we can wait. Extremism always eventually fails.