lwarmonger

But we will not buy those products if we do not need them. However, my point is also simple. Directly supporting our enemies with weapons that will clearly be used to kill American soldiers is a hostile act. The United States will respond to a hostile act against it with another hostile act. If Russia is shipping in weapons to Iran while Iran and the United States are at war, then as soon as those weapons enter Iranian territory, they are viable targets... whether their Russian transporters are still with them or not.


I wasn't suggesting that we back the dictators that are in power. I was suggesting backing their opposition movements, therefore overthrowing regimes that are essentially puppets of Moscow.

Which is why Ukraine recently voted in a government that is very emphatically pro-West? There are significant numbers of Muslims in those former republics who still resent Russian influence (athiestic socialism didn't fit in too well with Islam). That appears to have been partly mitigated, and partly perpetuated by the demographic changes which occured in the Central Asian Republics under Soviet rule (Russians make up a considerable proportion of the population in these countries, which changes the political situation... however they are also there to remind the natives of their lost land and relative poverty).

Incursions into Russia from many of these nations (of Islamists and nationalists) have been a substantial problem, and with active American support and encouragement could be again. Supplying SAMs and guided anti-tank missiles would seriously damage Russia, and hurt them in a manner that is far more serious than the Russian supply of arms to Iran could hurt us. Once again, you have to distinguish the population from the government.

Consider Saudi Arabia. They are highly reliant upon the West (for they require the oil trade as much as we do), but significant proportions of their population hate the West independent of (or sometimes as a part of) the government. So while the government is very pro-West (because it has to be), their population is more than willing to try and kill Americans and Europeans.


Were it to come to that, we could shut Russia off from all sea trade, which would hurt Russia a great deal more than confiscating the assets of American corporations would hurt the US.

Things can escalate very quickly, I agree. However, I must reiterate that at no time would the US need to consider the use of atomic weapons to achieve our ends. Therefore we could keep things purely conventional (at any level), and still win. If we don't think that Russia would go nuclear (and personally I don't think they would for the sake of Iran), then why should we tolerate losses that could be easily prevented (by taking out Russian weapons systems that are in Iran before they are operational)?

We were already removing the missiles because they were obsolete. What did it look like to the world?


Carrier battle groups could make anything less than full Backfire regiments irrelevant. However, that being said, Russia lacks the spare parts and logistical support to really make a go of it against the United States Air Force and navy.

Our electronics and logistical support is unmatched (I won't take up the "Flanker vs Eagle" debate, as that has been discussed extensively elsewhere). That is an air war that we would win... and if Russia actually decided to pour conventional forces into a direct conflict with American troops in the Middle East (a major escalation), then the probability of both conventional and nuclear escalation (into Russia itself) goes up dramatically.

WWI and WWII, both sides targeted neutral shipping for destruction and confiscation. However, I am not even talking about Russian ships in neutral waters. I am referring to hitting them while they are docked in Iranian ports. Then they are a legitimate target, and can be sunk accordingly.

One of the biggest reasons why we lost Vietnam, was a weak kneed unwillingness to actually take out the sources of NVA weapons. That is a mistake I do not think that the current administration would repeat. And one must remember history at that time. Would China have gone to war with the United States if we had started hitting their railheads? Probably. Would the Soviet Union have objected to the United States glassing China? Probably not (since the Soviets came to us with an offer of a combined nuclear offensive to arrest China's nuclear development a few years later). Would the USSR have gone to war with the United States over Haiphong harbor being taken out? Probably not, and I base this on the fact that Soviet planners (at least for foriegn policy) tended to be pretty rational. They understood the ramifications of the Sino-Soviet split alot better than the US did at the time, and would most likely not have gone to war with the United States until their position vis a vis the Chinese could be clarified.


I understand perfectly that is what the Kurds want. But I also understand that they are willing to settle for unofficial autonomy, especially if that autonomy is backed up by a direct US military presence on their soil. In fact, from a Kurdish perspective, that is probably better than complete independence without a direct American presence, because US troops ensure that neither Iraq, Iran, or Turkey move in to crush their new state.

And for now, we aren't stopping that. If we took a more aggressive stance towards Iran, and actually went to war with them, and Russia continued supplying weapons that were killing American soldiers.... then things would change.