Monday, May 07, 2012

Rant Time. Lets get real about Iran.

Rant time guys.

Let's start being honest about our foreign policy concerns.

The first thing we need to do is to be honest about Iran and the region.

Have you been paying attention or have you swallowed the talking points given at the US State Dept and the UN?  Let me enlighten you.

Iran is not a threat to Israel.  That card is played to get the support of conservatives and the Christian right.  Both groups are staunch Israel supporters and both would send troops to defend her in a heart beat.

If you want to know the real 51st state then realize that its in the Middle East.

But if we're being honest Israel can easily defend itself against anything the Iranians can throw at it.  As a matter of fact the biggest threat that Israel faces from Iran is an unleashed Hezbollah.  A Hezbollah that's fully armed and engaged in attacks against the Israeli people.

Israel doesn't fear Iranian nuclear weapons....but Iraq does...so does Saudi Arabia...UAE and a host of other oil supplying Middle Eastern nations.

I don't mind us taking the stance that Iran shouldn't get the bomb, but I just wish we were being a bit more honest about why we're doing it.  Its in our own national interests.  If Saudi Arabia can be blackmailed because of a threat against their oil fields with nuclear weapons then we would face 20 dollar plus a gallon gas.  If a strike against those oil fields were carried out and they became contaminated then the world would face a global depression and the economic system that we're currently involved in would disintegrate.


That's why the war drums are beating against Iran.  Not to protect Israel but to protect our economy.

5 comments :

  1. On the flip side, how many sand wars can we take on before it starts to take a cumulative toll on our military and fiscal vitality?

    ReplyDelete
  2. nope.

    that's not the question.

    the question is. how do you determine what is a war of necessity and one of convience?

    the Libyan conflict was pure politics.

    the situation in Syria shows that to be the case.

    a potential conflict with Iran over its weapons would be one of necessity but we should be honest with the populations of the west on why it is.

    thats the real difference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy at times seems as broad as a neo-conservative's and the public is tired of war, so they wave the Israel flag and cry of atrocities.

    Maybe it's a war of necessity, but Iraq is unstable, and we still have troops in Afghanistan (which these idiots have made long term unknown commitments to).

    If we attacked Iran and let the cards fall where they may, maybe, MAYBE I could go along with it, but I'm afraid that we could easily get over invested in supporting various freedom fighters/terrorists across the whole region (including Iran).

    ReplyDelete
  4. solomon,

    as an "outed" liberial commentator, i must object, you lib bashing, conservatives, never talk sense. please stop, putting forth a view point, i agree with.

    stop messing with the world order, and talk rubbish, or atleast things i disagree with, so we can argue, thruout these comment sections.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's also worth pointing out besides direct threat to the oil fields, and hence the world economy, that two other factors are important in terms of Iran going nuclear.

    The first would be the resulting nuclear arms race. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and other others would be compelled to go nuclear in response to the Persian and Shia bomb. The UAE has already bought reactors from France and Saudi Arabia reportedly has an understanding with Pakistan that if Iran goes nuclear they get some Pak nukes given they helped pay for them.

    The second and more direct issue is given Iran is by far the largest supporter of state terror and has not been much deterred from this policy exactly how will they be pressured once they go nuclear? Furthermore, will a nuclear Iran be emboldened in this area?

    Which brings up a basic point of whether Iran is a rational actor in Western terms and can in fact be deterred from using nuclear weapons?

    The Iranian nuclear program goes back to the 1970's under the Shah. That regime actually had good relations with both the US and Israel and the West wouldn't have had a problem with that regime going nuclear. A future non fundamentalist Iran (theocratic police state) might very well go nuclear without the same level of concern much of the world shows for this regime.

    If we decided we can't live with a nuclear Iran the days to week long air campaign will be an act of war but it's not going to be a war in the sense we invade them. It's possible the fallout from that campaign is worse than expected but it's also possible striking regime targets in mass could weaken the regime significantly as well.

    Frankly Israel has been preparing for round 2 with Hezbollah and they will not make the same mistake in overly relying on air and not sending in enough ground troops the next time. They probably will also not make the same PR mistake in striking all over Lebanon. In theory Lebanon should be held responsible for what happens within it's borders but in reality Lebanon is a fractured state where theory doesn't meet reality.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.