lwarmonger,
Quote:
|
Interesting point. The best answers I can come up with is one: we have allies who are far more engaged with the North Korean issue than we are (South Korea and Japan), and have far more to lose than we do. And two, the North Koreans (probably) already have nukes, and it is therefore far more problematic to dispose of their nuclear capability with little loss than it is to pre-empt the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.
|
yes, i think the latter point is what the administration is considering. however, they also know that the costs of military action, even now, are high, and not just because we have iraq as a millstone around our necks...
i think there's a big trade-off to consider, if we're looking at the military option.
we're looking at delaying or obstructing the production of nuclear weapons (with only a slim possibility of eliminating the threat altogether, given that we don't know where everything is), in exchange for completely alienating the iranian populace and driving them into the hands of the heretofore hated mullahs. THAT will reduce the chance of either 1. regime change, 2. regime reform (aka china model).
it's just part of the calculus here. obviously if we're dealing with a complete crazy who's just waiting for a nuke to push the red button, it's time to go in, the iranian people be damned. but if we're dealing with a rational actor who can be expected to generally follow the rules of "the game", then...