Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Thats not totally honest, Iran's anti-tanker threat is very high and very well developed. They stand a real chance of choking off the oil long enough to cause a global recession. Iran has the tools, the men, the doctrine, the target, and the location to wage a massive oil war. The US's best bet vs this threat is pre-emptive action beofre Iran can mobalize.
|
Zraver,
Question: in the grand scheme of things, does capability necessarily translate into threat?
Too, the idea of pre emption...or lets call it what it really is: naked aggression...would not naked U.S. aggression by any practical or international legal standard fully justify what ever retaliatory measures Iran and whatever allies it can muster see fit?
Also, what might the systemic effects of widening our war in the Middle East and Central Asia be?
If we operate on the widely held assumption that the numero uno Iranian offset will be to disrupt energy flows out of the region, than your proposed naked aggression against the Iranians is almost assuredly going to cause just that to happen. Wider war whether they initiate or we initiate is going to lead to just what you seek to prevent with that war in the first place: global recession.
Moving along, if you think that Iran in its current form is a threat to U.S. interests, what kind of threat to U.S. interests do you think Iran as a failed stated will pose?
Iran could fail as a result of widening war in the Middle East or a few years down the line as a result of financial collapse. What we would then have is a belt of instability extending from the beaches of Lebanon to the border of China broken only by shaky Syria.
How would such a situation forward stated U.S. interests in the region? Answer: it won't.
Regards,
William