Sometimes Indecision Is a Good Thing
Oct 8th, 2009 | 96 responses
Like when you might possibly be deciding whether to drop one or more 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities:
The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.
First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It’s a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then,the Pentagon cited an “urgent operational need” for the new weapon.
Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.
The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb’s “development and testing”, and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.
The notification was tucked inside a 93-page “reprogramming” request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
Why now? The notification says simply, “The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON.” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).
So how does a “little-noticed funding request” that is “tucked inside a 93-page” purchase order come to the attention of ABC News? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because we all know the answer. Nevertheless, Allahpundit has a couple of thoughts:
One: This is a relatively cheap form of saber-rattling. $70 million is nothing when it comes to defense outlays; probably the whole point of speeding up production is simply to be able to leak the story to an outlet like ABC so that Iran will see it. Two: They could be rushing this out not because we intend to use it ourselves (the part about outfitting it for the B-2 notwithstanding) but so that we can hand it off to Israel.
And here is where the indecision thing comes in. Allahpundit asks this question:
Would a man with this on his wall really bomb Iran? I ask you.
I fervently hope the answer is No.
96 Responses to “Sometimes Indecision Is a Good Thing”
It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy. Some of former President Carter's statements on this recently are downright laughable, and sound like Mr. Rogers saying: “Let's all play nice now, boys and girls.” I'll give him this much: He hasn't changed a lot since the 444 day debacle in '79-'80 with our hostages in Tehran. Meanwhile, Iran inches closer to having a nuclear warhead operational. I'll give President Obama credit for cancelling the missile defense shield and thereby purchasing Russia's likely silence when Israel inevitably strikes Iran's nuclear facilities. Thanks heavens there are solid players on the team like Defense Sec Robert Gates who sees things as they are, and not just how we wish they might be.
It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy.
This sentence would make an excellent workbook question for the task, “Find all the logical fallacies in this sentence. Include weasel words for extra credit.”
Thanks heavens there are solid players on the team like Defense Sec Robert Gates who sees things as they are, and not just how we wish they might be.
If Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities (which would be hard anyway since they're all over the country), there will be a brand new “things as they are” accompanied by a brand new “not just how we wish they might be,” and just assuming for the sake of argument that that brand new reality is even less how we wish it might be than it is now, we will have had a hand in making it that way.
You see, all human entities who exist in this world play a part in making the reality you see around you (with the exception of things that have to do with the laws of physics, that humans don't control). When the U.S. under Bush made a decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, we made a brand new “the way things are” — one aspect of which was a greatly empowered Iran, now rid of its worst enemy in the region. The U.S. helped to create that new reality. So just remember, if we bomb Iran or allow Israel to bomb Iran, we will be making a new reality. And that new reality may not be all the peoples of the world holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” in a world now filled with peace and no threat of nuclear proliferation because several 30,000-pound bombs took out some nuclear sites — and all or most of the human structures and human lives in the surrounding area.
I went along with GWB, Kathy, as did most members of Congress, who gave him the green light to do what was necessary, including going into Iraq. We got our wings clipped in Iraq, no question about it. That doesn't change the reality of the situation in Iran. You and I might be seeing things differently if we lived in Tel Aviv, where – we should remember – scud missiles rained down in large numbers during the first Gulf War, not all of which could be intercepted by Patriot defense batteries. So yes, there is historical precedent for attacks on Israel. It is a realistic threat when the head of a country says he stands for your annihilation. That is the way things are. That's seeing reality and reacting accordingly. Let's remember that President Obama is not alone in seeing this threat from Iran. France and Britain, just to name two, came out with strong condemnations after the revelation by Iran at the U.N. that they have at least one plant enriching uranium. Let's remember that just the other day they tested missiles capable of reaching Israel. There are no good choices in that region of the world. Bombing the nuclear facilities is not a good choice, but it may be the best one we and our allies have at this point.
Kathy – I'll bet Neville Chamberlain is a hero of yours.
Although Ahmadenijad is backpeddling from referring to Israel as the “evil Zionists, who must be removed from Palestinian land”; he still is a legitimate threat to Israel. Now as I've said in the past, I'm not one of those “Israel is always right people”. I agree that they should not have kicked out Palestinians from their homeland, to install a Jewish state. That was wrong.
However, Israel IS a state currently. And they have the right to defend themselves. If they receive intelligence that an attack is eminent, they WILL take out the Iranian nuke capability. It may stir up a huge hornet nest in the Middle East, but they will nonetheless do it. The hornet next is actually a goal of Ahmadenijad IMHO.
Ahmadenijad is buying time until he is a nuclear power. He will not offer anything up in the talks. He may give our folks a bone, but his nuclear goal will not change. You may feel safe having a nation that chants “death to America – death to Israel” that has nuclear missles. Pardon me if I do not.
Kathy, do you think there are any circumstances in which bombing Iran would be necessary?
If not, don't you think that puts us at a severe disadvantage at the negotiating table?
If you do think it would be necessary in some circumstances, do you fervently hope that Obama would choose not to anyway, or that he would remain indecisive about the question?
I would agree that careful deliberation is a good thing. Indecision is not, and there is a fine line between the two.
AR, JD
Could you guys tell me when was the last time Iran invaded a neighboring country?
Now, let's play a little game.
Assume for the sake of argument, that Israel/US goes out and successfully bombs every Iranian Nuclear site, what happens after that? Do you really think that the Iranians are going to take that laying down?
Now, my expectation is that after the cameras record the damage, speak to the widows and orphans, and thoroughly trash the image of the US and turn global public opinion against the US, the real fun begins…
A couple of US Oil tankers get blown to smithereens in the straight of Hormuz, and there goes the flow of Saudi Oil to the world. That should do wonders for the global economy… But we are just beginning, the Taliban is extremely under-equipped, I wonder how hard it would be for the Iranians with the tacit support of most of the world to upgrade the Taliban's military capacity, or how hard it would be for them to create the Iraqi equivalent of Hezbollah, not to mention that the area of Arabia in which most of the Oil Fields are have a large Shiite population who aren't exactly thrilled at being ruled by the Saudi family and their Wahhabi fanatics, I wonder how hard it would be to kick off a nasty little insurgency there?
Now overlooking all of this, this is the Middle-East, once you rile up the locals how exactly are you going to protect the OIL producing infrastructure upon which the global economy runs?
Ever heard the words Pyrrhic Victory?
DQ – and you must believe if rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it.
What a mealy-mouthed display of a lack of a backbone. You are basically advocating that any country that might threaten retaliation should be left alone to do what they want, i.e., the wussy's defense against bullies.
No wonder Liberals should not be trusted to run Foreign Policy.
Well, we could always do what Conservatives love doing, find a bar you've never been in before, insult all the other patrons, start a fight and get your teeth kicked in while the crowd sheers…
When is the last time the US won a war?
After having had you ass handed to you every time in the last fifty years, you'd figure out that you ain't very good at it and try some other means of getting what you want…
Well, let's see.
We were winning in Vietnam until the Liberals freaked out at the sight of dead bodies (in a WAR???) and the pictures of the Tet offensive (which was in actuality a major military loss by the North Vietnamese) and forced us to cut-and-run.
We have won all the other skirmishes and minor wars since (Grenada, Iraq I, Iraq II [after ignoring Liberal calls to cut-and-run], etc.).
Afghanistan is ongoing, with the Liberals, as usual, pulling for us to cut-and-run (hmm, there is a pattern there, isn't there?), while those who actually know how to run a war (the generals) are asking for us to follow the same (successful) strategy we just used in Iraq.
All-in-all, a decent track record. Except where Liberals get into the act.
Once again a nation whose covert [see Cheney's CIA still operative apparently..] powerhold consists of right-wing nut jobs who pray everyday that the world will end…which has the largest world nuclear capability, asking another nation to limit theirs based on them being a “threat” is laughable.
Absurdity stretches itself to new lengths every single day. Just because you've thought something your entire life or daddy taught it to you doesn't mean it usurps logic.
As I've said before to that statement, Silhouette…..
“Rightwing nutjobs that pray for the world to end”.
That statement is the biggest absurdity. Those pesky Christians. Trying to end the world and all.
As for the rest of your statement, I have no idea what you are talking about.
AustinRoth put it best as far as the reply to Don Quixote.
As for me. I truly hope we avoid war with Iran. It will be a much bloodier one than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The Persians/Iranians are a proud people. They will fight til there is not one man left standing. They are a great people. They have a rich and beautiful culture. Their government sucks, and threatens the world. Ahmadenijad makes a few valid points – I've studied him. But he is a loose cannon in terms of diplomacy – just like each and every one of the former despots in the past were: Hitler, Hussein, Nassar, etc.
Well, there you have it! Apple-pie guy says “no go”. So I must be wrong..lol..
You have no idea about the rest of my statement? No, I think you do. But saying you don't works for the purpose at hand.
Think: “spin”
I happen to know that you're better than this, AR. I won't dignify your line with a substantive answer (I couldn't anyway; it's not a substantive comment), but I won't yet put you on my short list of people who have nothing intelligent or worthwhile to say.
Maybe you're just teed off from our other spat about the Olympics. I'll give you another chance.
First of all, I love the “apple pie guy”. That's a riot! I laughed out loud on that one.
The rest of your statement had to do with what your daddy taught you userping logic and something about absurdity stretching itself to new lengths….. What in the heck does that have to do with Iran? I guess I missed it, but I surely wasn't putting out “spin”.
I'm the biggest anti-spin guy I know. When I hear partisans put out their schmeel, I call them on it all the time. But I still don't believe in Cheney's right wing hoards of Christian Armageddonists. I don't believe in ghosts either. Don't get me wrong. I know there is a fringe out there on both sides: ultra right-wing Armageddonists and ultra-left wing marxist revolutionaries. They are there, but they are not viable. A slip at the ballot box, however, makes their viability frightenly possible. I'll give you that.
What happened to Leonidas? Usually he's in here mixing it up. Did the mega-thread on Honduras tire him out?
Redbus: It's pretty clear to all concerned that Iran is trying to run out the clock by repeatedly feigning interest in diplomacy.
Kathy: This sentence would make an excellent workbook question for the task, “Find all the logical fallacies in this sentence. Include weasel words for extra credit.”
I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time I've used them, and likely won't be the last. Care to enlighten me, Kathy, on the logical fallacies and weasel words?
Nice Neville Chamberlain citation, AR, a bit overused, but appropriate.
AR, they had Sen. John Kerry on the radio the other day, waxing on about Afghanistan and the whole subtext was “Let's get out of there!” It reminded me of why I didn't vote for him in 2004, and made me realize what a big job we Dems have left to muscle up our party.
Stop it Kathy!
This bomb is for mining water on the MOON not for bombing Iran.
Good grief you'd think America just went around invading other nations or something.
Whats a hornet next?
Kathy – What was unsubstantive about my reply, or false? I simply stated facts, and I meant every single word of it. Please show me what I mistated.
As to the Olympic thing, I still don't have a clue why you think I am upset about that. I said before he went that that was a good thing for him to do. After, I said that I thought Rio deserved the win on its own merits, and have made not one comment taking any pleasure in Chicago not getting it.
All I have done is call out the Left for the 'holier-than-thou' attitude towards who did make criticisms, for acting like they would not have done the same.
Where did Silhouette mention anything about christians? Why would you even bring up such crap?
kathy – I realized I assumed you were commenting on my reply to DQ. Perhaps you were not. That is the problem with DISQUS. You know which comment you replied to, but without a cut-and-paste reference, I do not.
If you were referring instead the Neville Chamberlain snark, well, that is what it was, a snark.
But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'
Just my take.
“But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'”
I can't speak for Kathy, but my take on her position was more along the lines of “Since bombing the crap out of a country with humungous bombs has so rarely been in our own self-interest, nor the interest of the innocent people that get hurt along the way, I hope that we don't do that.” Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong
Why is it that Neville Chamberlain's name comes up so often by people arguing for more hawkish approaches to the Middle East? I've heard it used by bloggers and commentors in reference to people who opposed the Iraq War, and more recently, I've heard it used by bloggers and commentors in reference to people who favor a more diplomatic approach to Iran.
Chamberlain didn't become infamous because he talked with his enemies. Nor did he become infamous for not pre-emptively attacking his enemies. He became infamous because Nazi Germany attacked and then occupied another nation, and Chamberlain acquiesced to the Nazi's. Nothing like that happened with Iraq in 2002-2003, and nothing like that has happened with Iran.
Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be ravaged by warfar, and yet the United States has not recently invaded or bombed any of those countries. That doesn't make the American people a bunch of Neville Chamberlains, does it.
I think the Chamberlain epithet–like the Hitler epithet and the Stalin epithet–is thrown around far to casually nowadays.
I don't know about Kathy, but I don't see any validity in either of your points. I don’t feel threatened by the Iranians, but the Israelis do and it is they that should do the bombing, not the U.S..
JD
“Rightwing nutjobs that pray for the world to end”.
That statement is the biggest absurdity. Those pesky Christians. Trying to end the world and all.”
It may be a side issue to the current rock fight going on here, but right-wing nutjobs do pray for the world to end. Consider John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel actively work to bring about Armageddon so they can be saved.
The above statement is accurate. Nutjob Christians do want the world to end.
here a couple links:
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php…
http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/
Here is a fun new “reality”….
Iran, Syria, SA, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan all have nuclear weapons. The energy we, and the world, require to run our the planet comes from this area.
One crazy person sets off a nuke and the entire region goes up in smoke.
Welcome to the first world wide depression…chaos…murder.
This isn't fear mongering…this is a real possibility.
Or we, the western world (Europe and the US), could just drop one big bomb on a handful facilities.
I am not saying that we go it alone, but if we do this with the backing of Europe, the world will see it in a completely different light.
AR
“
But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'”
And your option appears to be the mad-bomber school of foreign policy. Let's blow the crap out of those we designate. If Kathy's position is too pacifist, yours is too fatalistic. Diplomacy via ordinance is not a logical position to hold.
If we did bomb Iran, project the cost of a gallon of gasoline for you and me. I don't mind killing innocent people, but the cost of gasoline is another thing. <satirical font in force>
Why don't we fix the last two Republican run military screw-ups before we decide who is next.
I went along with GWB, Kathy, as did most members of Congress, who gave him the green light to do what was necessary, including going into Iraq. We got our wings clipped in Iraq, no question about it.
We got our wings clipped? That's a severe understatement, I would say. We made Iran the problem it is now, caused the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and well over 100,000 Iraqis, conservatively estimating; and in general greatly increased anti-American feeling in that part of the world. Now you want to make the same mistake in Iran?
That doesn't change the reality of the situation in Iran.
A reality that U.S. policy played a direct part in creating. Now you want to create another new, even more disastrous reality?
So yes, there is historical precedent for attacks on Israel.
So you want to drop a couple of 30,000-pound bombs — the most destructive bombs on earth that are not nuclear bombs — on Iran and its people because almost 20 years ago, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles? It *was* Iraq, right, not Iran?
It is a realistic threat when the head of a country says he stands for your annihilation. That is the way things are.
It's not a realistic threat unless that country actually has the capacity to annihilate you, and is insane enough to try to do so. Neither of those two hypotheticals applies to Iran. Oh, and by the way, Ahmadinejad is only the titular head of the country. The mullahs hold the actual power; they are the ones who would be authorizing any nuclear attack on another country — if they could do so and were insane enough to try. So Ahmadinejad is very much a red herring in this argument — albeit one that conservatives never tire of using.
That's seeing reality and reacting accordingly.
No, seeing reality and acting accordingly would be recognizing that (a) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and if it did would be crazy to use it, since both Israel and the U.S. could wipe Iran out a thousand times over; (b) Ahmadinejad does not make the foreign policy decisions in Iran; (c) the U.S.gave Iran the enhanced influence it now has by eliminating its biggest enemy in the region, despite the fact that Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration insisted that invading Iraq would have the effect of chastening and reining in Iran — and thus the U.S. would be well advised to think carefully before making another mistake that could have even more catastrophic consequences; (d) the U.S., by its behavior in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world has given Iran abundant reason to believe it needs a nuclear deterrent to protect its own existential self-interests, and that using the most powerful non-nuclear weapons on earth against Iran now, at this point, would only confirm that belief; and (e) Iran is, in reality, no threat to the U.S., or to Israel, but could definitely become one if we continue to give the mullahs reason to believe that we want and intend their destruction.
That's reality.
If we are not threatened (using the term broadly) by the Iranians, why would even negotiate then? Why not just let the Israelis do it, if Iran is irrelevant to our national interests? Clearly we have a national interest in the stability of the area, which would include ensuring that international treaties designed to keep the peace are not violated. My question to Kathy is whether she thinks there are any circumstances (short of Iran attacking us, let's say) when it would be in our national interest to attack Iran, even with the understanding that there are severe consequences to doing so. If we take military action off the table, as it appears Kathy wants to do (at least acording to the last line of her post–I wanted to give her a chance to clarify), then there is also no point in negotations. If we are going to enforce international treaties, there has to be a line which cannot be crossed. We can debate where that line is, but first I'd hope we agree that there is a line.
I don't know why either side above is typing any sentences with the word “U.S.” in it. Wasn't the whole point of Allahpundit's to suggest Obama has a hard time deciding what shoe to tie first in the morning?
He will never order a strike…….Ahmadinnerjacket knows that too.
HemmD -
You just missed stating my position. I am not advocating mad bombing. But if there is absolutely no concern or credible threat that we would indeed, if we felt it necessary, take proactive action, which is what Kathy seems to advocate, then what deterrence remains? The 'fear' of a UN resolution?
Yeah I know; silly me.
I think we've already covered the fact that anything that Israel does will be seen as backed by the US, ordered by the US, and funded by the US. Whether it be true or not…that is how the Muslim world will view it.
I'm always somewhat taken aback by the emotions Iran brings up among the terrified right wingers. AR loses his balance and JD starts chest-thumping. Let's take a look back 8 years. Nuclear inspectors were in both North Korea and Iran. Bush slung red-meat hash to his base. Lots of tough talk, axis of evil stuff. N. Korea kicked out the inspectors and quickly developed a bomb. Now they're off limits. Iran sees that of the three “axis of evil” nations, the US attacks the one without nukes, but not the one with. Hmmmmmm. Obviously, “axis of evil” nations need nukes to avoid being targets. Congratulations, tough guys.
JD, are you really quaking in terror at Ahmedinejad's stupid bluster? I'll forgive that as you are young enough to have missed the whole “we will crush you” thing from the Russians and similar statements by China. I'll forgive your forgetting that after Khomeini threatened “the Great Satan America” with destruction, Reagan sold him weapons of mass destruction. And sold WMD to Saddam Hussein. And perhaps you're young and hotheaded enough not to think things through clearly, so I'll let that go too.
Iran is upwind of our troops and allies in Afghanistan. The Saudis could also get hit with fallout, as could UAE, Qatar, Israel itself and Egypt. Take a look at prevailing wind maps sometime. You really think we or Israel SHOULD commit an act of NUCLEAR TERRORISM exposing our troops and allies to nuclear fallout? If so, you're completely insane.
Now AR is an old fossil like me, so maybe I'll cut him some slack for acting like we can stop science and technology by force. However, he claims some knowledge of physics, so that's really hard to figure. The pace of advancement in science and technology is so fast, so exponential, that the idea we can keep ANY technology out of the hands of ANYONE is just quaint and almost endearing. Middle East experts say if we destroy everything we can in Iran, it will set them back 2-3 years. Really. To buy a couple of years, you'll become a nuclear terrorist, burning away civilians and kids (several of Iran's facilities are in Tehran, one under the University).
AR, shame on you for your revisionist history of Vietnam. You think 60,000 dead American soldiers, over 100,000 crippled and around 2 million Vietnamese dead wasn't enough? If ONLY we'd pissed away another hundred thousand or so, we'd have won. We were never going to win in Vietnam. Wars of occupation fail. They fail.
Now, time for a reality check. I've pointed this out many times before. No one needs an ICBM to bring a nation–this nation–to its knees. Remember 9/11? Remember box cutters? You guys are still fighting the cold war against ICBMs. There is enough nuclear material in Israel already to destroy that nation. None needs to be created by Iran and delivered by ICBM. There is enough in your local hospital to destroy the property values in your home town for EVER (well, 10,000 years). There is enough unprotected, unguarded “secondary” nuclear waste in this nation to crush our economy. Worrying about warhead tipped ICBMs is just SO 1970.
Yet here you guys are, scared spitless because Ahmedinejad has a big mouth. My suggestion? Build a bomb shelter. Live there.
If you were referring instead the Neville Chamberlain snark, well, that is what it was, a snark.
Yeah, that was it.
But your position seems to be 'I hope we don't do anything in our own self-interest. Being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists is more important.'
And your position (and redbus's, and many others) seems to be that bombing Iran is in our self-interest. I don't agree that it is. More generally, you and others seem to operate on the assumption that “military response” and “U.S. self-interest” are interchangeable — the default position, basically.Naturally, if you start out with that assumption, you will always interpret any argument against bombing our enemies as being code for “being nice to our enemies so that maybe they will like us and so the world will see us as pacifists.”
I could just as easily interpret so many conservatives' automatic belief in war as the best option as being code for “I never met a war I didn't like, and the U.S. should always opt for war over negotiation and diplomacy because we aren't safe unless our enemies hate us, and besides we are a superpower and we *can* bomb any country we like, so why shouldn't we?”
No, you got it right. 100 percent. I actually posted my response, above, to AR before I read your take, and basically you've said what I said in different words.
I agree. Well said.
Actually, I don't think they should bomb Iran, either. But it's a moot point, really, because if they did bomb Iran, it would be with our consent, either tacit or stated, and most likely our active help — as with selling them the bombs to do it. So it's really the U.S. doing it in either case.
I'm not sure we do much “allowing” when it comes to Israeli military action. However they will need over flight clearance to get to Iran for bombing. We should do so openly now by stating so and leave it up to Israel to decide when.
As far as second guessing the, “Muslim world”, I think its time to call a spade, a spade, because I think the Muslims appreciate that better than horsecrap.
There's also the Christian Reconstructionist movement in general, which if I understand correctly, underlies and informs the beliefs of people like John Hagee.
Hey, if you're cool with a nuclear middle east…okay, lets allow the entire region to arm itself. What happens to your green dreams with the nuclear fallout of that war spreads across the planet? Sure, we will be forced to into serious alternative energy research, but the planet will be so poisoned that it won't matter.
I'm not worried about Iran nuking us. I don't trust that region with nuclear weapons.
No, they won't. They'll see it in the light of reality — which is that the U.S. is the prime mover, just as with, for example, the 12-year sanctions regime on Iraq. The right's response to criticisms of the sanctions on human rights grounds was always that they weren't U.S. sanctions, they were U.N. sanctions. Technically true, but it was the U.S. that wanted them and it was U.S. superpower status in the world that enabled us to impose our will on everyone else.
Kathy -
And your position (and redbus's, and many others) seems to be that bombing Iran is in our self-interest.
As I said to HemmD, not quite. My position is that bombing Iran MAY be in our best interest, and it is certainly in our best interest for Iran to be concerned we might. That is the whole essence of deterrence. If there is no concern, there is no deterrence.
There is no reason (nor any excuse) for being irrationally opposed to our use of large conventional bombs, specialized bombs against deeply buried or heavily reinforced targets, or nuclear bombs, nor any reason (or excuse!) for opposing such actions by the USA simply because it means the USA using force (or confrontation, or merely disapproval?) against an enemy or adversary (who “should” be favored?).
Shannonlee, I'm a realist. China can't keep the Internet out and neither can Iran. They can't stop cell phones, and we can't stop nuclear technology. The ONLY country EVER that has nuked anyone is US. However, accidental nuclear releases have happened all over the world. THAT is more of a threat, and I think you're ignoring the greater of two risks. If we blast Iran to buy 2 years, and they finance terrorists to blast their way into hospital radiology departments and civilian nuclear plants, WE lose. I do not fear Iran having nukes. I do think it would be foolish for us to stir up a hornets nest and wrong to betray our own principles by unleashing fallout by our own actions.
nicrivera -
He became infamous because Nazi Germany attacked and then occupied another nation, and Chamberlain acquiesced to the Nazis.
You are wrong, and need to go back and re-read your history.
Neville is infamous for appeasing Germany (the Munich Agreement), legitimizing Hitler, trying to pacify him (the failed 'containment' policy), which ultimately led Hitler to attack and occupy other countries due to his utter contempt and lack of fear of Chamberlain or reprisals, which then finally started WW II. You have your cause and effect backwards.
As it has been said before, I don't think anyone here is talking about us dropping nukes on anyone. And the one time we did use nukes, it was to end a world war….save countless American lives at the price of an enemy that attacked us while pretending to be at the negotiating table. So lets not play that card.
I think your point is that if we do attack with conventional bombs, we will rally the younger generations of Iranians against us. You are saying that technology will help them revolt against the mullahs and we must wait for that to happen. Good points, but we are still talking about a very oppressive government that has been torturing and murdering people from the last protests. Revolt could be a decade down the road.
I'm all for economic sanctions first…talking…UN, EU, everything but bombing…but lets not take it off the table.