If one separates US interests from Israeli interests, then Iran has not been such an intolerable problem as you suggest. Pakistan is currently far more problematic for the US. What do we do about their nukes?
As for laughing off reciprocal relations with Iran, we’ve never tried in good faith
Pakistan? We share intelligence with Pakistan. Even though they're not a true "ally" in the traditional sense, it's at least a transactional relationship. Iran isn't anywhere near that position with the US. India should be far more concerned about Pakistani nukes.
On oil, the world supply determines the price and we get very little oil or natural gas type energies from the Middle East so that’s not really an issue.
Iran with nuclear capabilities is not “in our backyard.“ But that’s where the argument becomes unrealistic. The bad actors you’re referring to will sooner or later acquire a nuke somehow or another. What then? To paraphrase bin Laden, there’s a reason Sweden’s not an enemy. Israel is doomed. It’s only a matter of time. Do we want to create enemies of a billion plus Muslims to ally with genocidal maniacs?
Stalin and Mao killed far more of their own citizens than Hitler killed Jews and yet we move on and deal with Russia, China and Germany. The only reason we attack Iran is because Israel keeps provoking its neighbors.
If we had the refining capacity we could probalby push our dependence on foreign oil to zero but we're not there yet. However, much of Europe's oil still comes from the ME and they remain strategic partners.
Iran with nuclear capabilities becomes North Korea in an even greater tinderbox. Obviously you detest Irsrael as evidenced by the vitriol in these posts, but they remain (along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE) our most devoted strategic partners in an area of the world where we lack our traditional trade/military influences.
Stalin and Mao killed far more of their own citizens than Hitler killed Jews and yet we move on and deal with Russia, China and Germany. The only reason we attack Iran is because Israel keeps provoking its neighbors.
I'm not sur e what the first sentence even means. As to the second sentence, yes, Israel is like hte friend that can get you into a fight occasionally but they are also willing to do a lot of the heavy lifting for you in a region you find difficult to navigate. Their intelligence is unmatched. Should we just be blind to one of the most geopolitically important areas of the world. Additionally, Israel is a liberal democracy. The thing we wnat to promote in the world. Further, the tide of Arab hate against Israel is turning. Iran is pissing off far more countries these days than Israel. the only reason you care is because of the so called Palestinian genocide. Tell me, why haven't the Arab nations stepped in to help their Palestinian brothers and sisters? Taken them in. formed coallitions to attack Israel?
I agree it will take a long time to understand if it was a success or not. I disagree that we need to know why this admin went in to judge whether or not the end result will be worth it. Those reasons change all the time in many wars or actions, and we're never going to get a straight answer out of this administration.For Iran, to know what success is we have to know why we launched the attacks. Someone might say they are making dinner and pop out with a delicious strawberry milkshake. It might be great, but it isn't dinner so isn't a success.
So we have to know why we attacked to judge success. We don't know why we went in, and judging by comments made by the administration, I am not sure anyone knows.
I doubt we get a government that is very different. We allegedly already set their nuclear program back. We have clearly damaged their missile capabilities, but that is temporary. Same for drones. Are the Iranians that were being fired upon a month ago happy we did this?
In 20 years we might know how successful this is. History can take a while to finish writing.
If we thought they were still making nuclear progress and that is why we attacked, we could get a "different" government that still wants a nuke. Would that be a success?
You sort of have to define success by the goal. The Japanese attack at Pearl looked like a success, the US Pacific fleet was destroyed. But I think in context of a bigger goal, sinking the fleet wasn't the end game. In 6 months, Kido Butai would be sunk at Midway. So judged by the goal of winning a war, failure.
So we have to know why we attacked to judge success. We don't know why we went in, and judging by comments made by the administration, I am not sure anyone knows.
I actually think Rubio gave the most honest answer. Israel was going to attack Iran regardless of what we did (though I am sure they feel alot better knowing that we are supporting them). Iran was going to respond, regardless of whether we helped or not. American interests (bases, buildings / ships that would affect us economically, etc.) were going to be targeted.
Trump was faced with the choice, either support Israel and try to minimize the damage that Iran's response would be by taking out missile sites and offensive capabilities, or don't support Israel (which would mean keeping his word about not getting involved in new middle east conflicts) and hoping that the Iranian response would be similar to their response last year when we hit the nuke site (which Iran's response was essentially minor damage to some bases but enough for Iran to say to its people that they got revenge).
With regards to what success is, I think that Arthur is right in that we are not really going to know for decades as to whether our actions in that war are going to be considered a success. Lars was saying that Iran needs a secular leader, but that doesn't always work out well. We had high hopes that Sadam was going to successfully lead Iraq into a modern secular government independent of the Muslim theocracy and that didn't exactly turn out well.
At this point, in my opinion, we have two options:
1) Go all in. It's Afghanistan all over again, but maybe we can take some lessons-learned from that and do a better job with Iran. It will be a decade minimum of occupation. Trillions of dollars. 50/50 chance of creating lasting change.
2) Get out NOW. Israel has taken their pound of flesh. Hezbollah is going to be weakened for a decade (at least until they can refill their ranks with the next generation of young men with too much time on their hands). Iran is now a little more leary knowing that we are more likely to level a building on a whim if there are just rumors that something nefarious is happening. Cycle continues, but we'll get a decade of relative peace out of it.
Sometimes, you might get a result you didn't anticipate, despite your goals. For example, if we find out that the admin just wanted to destroy the nuclear program and didn't care about regime change or secularization--or at least that wasn't really the goal--but this action ends up creating that, even if it doesn't end the nuke program, I'd consider that a success.If we thought they were still making nuclear progress and that is why we attacked, we could get a "different" government that still wants a nuke. Would that be a success?
You sort of have to define success by the goal. The Japanese attack at Pearl looked like a success, the US Pacific fleet was destroyed. But I think in context of a bigger goal, sinking the fleet wasn't the end game. In 6 months, Kido Butai would be sunk at Midway. So judged by the goal of winning a war, failure.
Because our fear isn't that another nation, in the abstract, has nuclear weapons. It's that a nation of religious maniacs would, and one that is very hostile to the United States. Despite hhlurker's glowup of Iran, its leaders have been calling the United States the Great Satan for going on 50 years now.
Your question implies fighting is the only option. Of course it’s not and I know you don’t think that.Tell me, why haven't the Arab nations stepped in to help their Palestinian brothers and sisters? Taken them in. formed coallitions to attack Israel?
One week after October 7th, before Netanyahu had formulated their plan to attack Hamas back, my sister and I had a conversation. And I always was talking about how this was the perfect time for Israel to Garner the force of world opinion against Hamas, similar to what President Bush did after 911.
Use that world pressure to force Hamas to return the hostages first and foremost and second to surrender and yield power. at the very least garnering that world outrage and pressure would have put Israel in a much better position for the counterattack.
What did Netanyahu do instead? Just go it on their own pretty much with the support of the United States and a few other allies in some minor way.
Stupid. Neanderthal.
the world is better than that in general, the civilized world. The civilized world has moved on from such Neanderthal practices. Netanyahu in Gaza, Putin in Ukraine, these are Neanderthals.
Fighting is no longer the first solution except if you’re a psychopath, such as Netanyahu..
Edit: I don’t have any particular bone with Israel by the way, just the psychopaths calling the shots there. Same with Russia. I may have conflated Israel with Netanyahu in my posts here. That was simply me not being careful or precise enough with my communication.
For example, if we find out that the admin just wanted to destroy the nuclear program and didn't care about regime change or secularization--or at least that wasn't really the goal--but this action ends up creating that, even if it doesn't end the nuke program, I'd consider that a success.
Counterfactuals are tricky. Say in 5 years there is a coup and a pro-west government takes over. Yippee, clearly this major event played a role
Except for all we know, minus this war, a similar coup might have happened anyway. Maybe even sooner.
Or to take your example, a new regime who is much better at international relations, who says the right things but would be willing to very surreptitiously funnel nuclear material might be worse.
Fighting is no longer the first solution except if you’re a psychopath, such as Netanyahu..
Fighting wasn’t the first solution in Iran.
Sorry gotta mention Trump. I think a big piece of his policy for the western hemisphere is to rid the area of cartels. Putting Maduro in jail is part of that. I think Trump confirmed this by backing Rodriguez instead of Machado to lead Venezuela. Venezuela victory is complete and does not involve a new government. But the place is volatile and things could change.
Iran is much more complicated and problems have been going on since Carter. Nukes are a big part of success and so is cutting off Iran serving as the mother ship of anti- Israel fighting throughout the region. The success of the Abraham accords is part of Iranian success, but the final outcome is yet to be dertermined.
Since before Carter.Sorry gotta mention Trump. I think a big piece of his policy for the western hemisphere is to rid the area of cartels. Putting Maduro in jail is part of that. I think Trump confirmed this by backing Rodriguez instead of Machado to lead Venezuela. Venezuela victory is complete and does not involve a new government. But the place is volatile and things could change.
Iran is much more complicated and problems have been going on since Carter. Nukes are a big part of success and so is cutting off Iran serving as the mother ship of anti- Israel fighting throughout the region. The success of the Abraham accords is part of Iranian success, but the final outcome is yet to be dertermined.
It was the first solution for Netanyahu as soon as Trump wanted to negotiate a deal with Iran.Fighting is no longer the first solution except if you’re a psychopath, such as Netanyahu..
Fighting wasn’t the first solution in Iran.
Unless you’re suggesting Trump wasn’t negotiating in good faith…
2) Get out NOW. Israel has taken their pound of flesh. Hezbollah is going to be weakened for a decade (at least until they can refill their ranks with the next generation of young men with too much time on their hands). Iran is now a little more leary knowing that we are more likely to level a building on a whim if there are just rumors that something nefarious is happening. Cycle continues, but we'll get a decade of relative peace out of it.
This is the "Mow the Yard" option currently being discussed. Every so often, we'll have to go back and mow the yard, AKA bomb the shit out of them, again.
Personally, I think the entire situation is a no-win for everyone involved. The idea of success seems to be the option that sucks a little less than the other, but not sure if we've quite figured out what that is yet. Or if we will.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
The U.S. has now ousted the heads of Venezuela and Iran and used tactical strikes on both countries. What does real success look like in each?
To me, a requirement of success is that it creates more good than the harm done to our rep, money spent, lives lost, enmity among terrorists, etc. What would satisfy that?
PLEASE: no mention of Trump, Republicans, Democrats, Biden, Obama, etc. Focus on the issue.
Venezuela: I'd be happy with a free and fair election followed by stable government. This was a relatively low-cost adventure on our part, and that basic outcome would be enough to make it a good deal.
Iran: I honestly don't see any success here. I guess regime change if and only if a secular government results? But even then, I'd have grave doubts it could be maintained. And the cost of making it happen wouldn't be worth it if it weren't maintained. Completely annihilating Iran's ability to project aggression outside their borders might be a worthy outcome, but in the same line of thinking, I can't imagine that would come at a cost remotely reasonable enough to classify as a success.
I agree with you about the better alternative for Israel after 10/7.Your question implies fighting is the only option. Of course it’s not and I know you don’t think that.Tell me, why haven't the Arab nations stepped in to help their Palestinian brothers and sisters? Taken them in. formed coallitions to attack Israel?
One week after October 7th, before Netanyahu had formulated their plan to attack Hamas back, my sister and I had a conversation. And I always was talking about how this was the perfect time for Israel to Garner the force of world opinion against Hamas, similar to what President Bush did after 911.
Use that world pressure to force Hamas to return the hostages first and foremost and second to surrender and yield power. at the very least garnering that world outrage and pressure would have put Israel in a much better position for the counterattack.
What did Netanyahu do instead? Just go it on their own pretty much with the support of the United States and a few other allies in some minor way.
Stupid. Neanderthal.
the world is better than that in general, the civilized world. The civilized world has moved on from such Neanderthal practices. Netanyahu in Gaza, Putin in Ukraine, these are Neanderthals.
Fighting is no longer the first solution except if you’re a psychopath, such as Netanyahu..
Edit: I don’t have any particular bone with Israel by the way, just the psychopaths calling the shots there. Same with Russia. I may have conflated Israel with Netanyahu in my posts here. That was simply me not being careful or precise enough with my communication.
But I don't blame Israel for what they did--I disagree that you have to be a pyschopath if you use force to defend yourself against such attacks.
We are in agreement. Using force to defend oneself does not mean one is a psychopath.I agree with you about the better alternative for Israel after 10/7.Your question implies fighting is the only option. Of course it’s not and I know you don’t think that.Tell me, why haven't the Arab nations stepped in to help their Palestinian brothers and sisters? Taken them in. formed coallitions to attack Israel?
One week after October 7th, before Netanyahu had formulated their plan to attack Hamas back, my sister and I had a conversation. And I always was talking about how this was the perfect time for Israel to Garner the force of world opinion against Hamas, similar to what President Bush did after 911.
Use that world pressure to force Hamas to return the hostages first and foremost and second to surrender and yield power. at the very least garnering that world outrage and pressure would have put Israel in a much better position for the counterattack.
What did Netanyahu do instead? Just go it on their own pretty much with the support of the United States and a few other allies in some minor way.
Stupid. Neanderthal.
the world is better than that in general, the civilized world. The civilized world has moved on from such Neanderthal practices. Netanyahu in Gaza, Putin in Ukraine, these are Neanderthals.
Fighting is no longer the first solution except if you’re a psychopath, such as Netanyahu..
Edit: I don’t have any particular bone with Israel by the way, just the psychopaths calling the shots there. Same with Russia. I may have conflated Israel with Netanyahu in my posts here. That was simply me not being careful or precise enough with my communication.
But I don't blame Israel for what they did--I disagree that you have to be a pyschopath if you use force to defend yourself against such attacks.
Netanyahu is a psychopath. Netanyahu is a war criminal. Netanyahu has committed crimes against humanity.
Trump is on the path to adding himself to the list.
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Steven Alkire Recent Posts Unread Posts
