Iran: The Road to War?

[The Northerner]

The drums are sounding for war on Iran. The leading Republican presidential candidates pledge military action as soon as they cross the threshold of the White House. The Obama administration sharpens its rhetoric in accompaniment to imposing coercive sanctions. It strong arms its allies to stand with it in confrontation. Israel uses all of its formidable levers of influence to push the United States into war mode. All shades of the media work overtime to stoke fears in a manner reminiscent of the build-up to the Iraq invasion. Amidst all this noise and fury the one thing missing is a sober assessment of the problem and what are suitable approaches to addressing it. This unfortunately has become habitual in American foreign policy.

American foreign policy over the past 11 years has demonstrated a perverse genius for placing the United States in lose/lose situations. Navigating without a strategic gyroscope, and with maladroit diplomacy run by appointees who have skipped too many grades, we repeatedly have painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape other than by taking risky and highly costly expedient actions. That's true of Afghanistan, Iraq (where Mr. Maliki rubs our noses in our failure by inflicting enhanced humiliation techniques on us weekly), Bahrain/Saudi Arabia, Palestine and -- most dangerous of all -- Iran. Two successive administrations have presumed to set unrealizable objectives and to try reaching them by ill conceived methods in ignoring the fundamental givens of the situation.

One, Iran will never forego the option of developing a nuclear capability that is crucial to their objective security needs. It is militarily encircled by the United States, living with nuclear armed neighbors and -- in addition -- is a Shi'ite island in a Sunni sea. Moreover, the country still lives with the trauma of huge losses in its eight year war with Saddam's Iraq which was backed by Western and regional powers.

Two, therefore, sanctions and other means short of war will not work. The stakes are too high for the leadership while the suffering populace in these instances almost always directs its bitterness toward the outsiders who have inflicted the pain.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/iran-the-road-to-war_b_1233687.html

[TheWraith]

1. No, they're not.

Just like they haven't been sounding the last 43 times we've read this story over the now eight or so years that people have been claiming an attack on Iran was happening tomorrow.

[TahitiNut]

2. Activate the draft and put GOP families at the top of the list.

[RZM]

3. Here's a useful primer on the candidates' positions on Iran

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-romney-bomb-iran/story?id=15290441#6

Of the four candidates left, Santorum is the only one who has said that he would definitely bomb Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. The statement that 'the leading Republican candidates pledge military action as soon as they cross the threshold of the White House' is just plain false.

Gingrich has said he supports 'regime change' but he's also stated that bombing without regime change would be a fruitless exercise. He's also claimed that he could achieve regime change without military action (which is ridiculous, of course). That's far from a pledge of military action. Romney has likewise said that he supports regime change, but has made no pledge and essentially says that all options are on the table, which isn't all that different from what Obama says. And Paul of course opposes military action of any kind against Iran.

When an article starts out with an inaccurate statement right off of the bat, it casts doubt on everything else in it.

[tabatha]

4. The Pentagon decided during the era of Clinton, that US could not win a war with Iran.

Clinton wanted to bomb Iran; the Pentagon told him no.

End of story.

(This is becoming really tedious.)

[Xolodno]

5. *sigh*

This stuff again?

Yeah, just invade another country where the populace hates American Imperialism more than the populace of Iraq did.

No, Iran wants the US or Israel to bomb something in their country. Why? Remember those protests they had not too long ago? First sign the theocracy will not be able to keep their iron grip on the population for too long. However, if the US or Israel bombs and destroys something....instant populist unification against the great Satan and the "Death to America" rallies will be more enthusiastic and robust.

And those in power can relax a bit longer because they just legitimized why they still need to rule.

Those saying we need to bomb them are just falling for a trap designed to hook narrow minded thinkers.

[MisterP]

6. that can't be: Obama kept us out of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya