Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Without a doubt capability equals threat, posture mated up with capability equals a credible threat. And if yo don't take a credible threat seriously and it come sback to haunt you you have lost your manuvering room.
|
Hi Zraver,
Maneuvering room is a moot point if nobody chooses to maneuver.
Quote:
|
We recently re-discovered that in North Korea. Clinton changed our nuclear posture and kept the Korean regime afloat and now we have a nucelar power in direct confrontation with US troops and the urge for South Korea to go nuclea rnow in the next few years will be great as now they have a nuclear border and are sandwiched between the rising tensiosn between Japan and China.
|
Clinton was faced with the same policy choices as President Bush: maintain the status quo, increasing friction/risk war on the Korean Penninsula and containment and/or rollback of a nuclear North Korea.
Quote:
|
Iran could fail without US intervention, but without US intervention Iran could get a nuclear capability that would allow it to export its violence without restraint.
|
Three things are for certain:
1. Iran as a failed state is not in the interests of the United States or its allies;
2. A wider war in the Middle East and Central Asia is not in the interests of the United States or its allies;
3. Iran in posession of fission weapons and delivery systems is not in the interests of the United States or its allies.
Anyway you cut it, though, option #3 is not the worst of the lot though I am not to enamored with it. Option #3 offers the greatest opportunity to control the situation but why let it get that far if we do not have to?
The U.S. and its allies know how to handle nuclear states.
As to restraint, history has proven that a state's behavior tends to be changed and constrained by acquisition of fission weapons.
Too, history has proven that the international system is quite capable of absorbing and balancing out new players to the nuclear club and any contingency planning will no doubt take that into account.
Quote:
|
Iran has been engaged in nearly 30 years of anti-Amrican/Anti-western, Anti-Israeli violence. America is most definiately not the agressor.
|
You might want to take a look at U.S. involvement with Iran over the last fifty years before you jump to the conclusion that the U.S. has not been aggressive towards Iran.
Quote:
|
America is not the state threatening genocide, missile strikes agasinst the GCC, oil blockade, and exportign arms and terrorist to groups doing thier damnbest to keep the body count up, and the peace proccess dead.
|
One might make the argument that with a credible nuclear deterrent in hand, Iran would not have to resort to many of these offsets.
Quote:
|
Letting them get a nuclear capability is not manipulation its appeasement and an abandonement of our allies.
|
Converting Iran into a failed state with its attendant effects on energy security, increasing terrorist activity, allowing its WMD materials and know how slip away, increasing regional instability, etc., etc. is the abandonment of our allies as well but comes at a higher price than attempting to roll back or contain a nuclear armed Iran.
Why are you so Hell bent on abandoning our interests and allies at the highest price possible?
Quote:
|
History isn't indoctrination, your Barney like "why can't we all jsut get along" hippiesque is. You seme to think you can talk a madman sane.
|
The Iranians are anything but mad. They have, since their Revolution, demonstrated a fair degree of strategic acumen and sophistication.
Quote:
|
Lybia folded after years of sanctions at an early age prevented the dream from going forward.
|
That is not exactly the whole story.
Quote:
|
Iran has a much better technological base and sanctiosn alone will not stop thier progress.
|
And neither will military action without long term occupation and management.
Sanctions might actually be helping the Iranians more than hurting them for they reinforce the regime's domestic position to an extent.
Quote:
|
South Africa gave up its quest after a regiime change and a totally changed threat enviroment.
|
Thank you. You have made my argument for me.
Regime change and altering the threat environment can lead to roll back.
Regime change usually tends to follow prosperity. Without economic liberalization and prosperity, expectations of any degree of political liberalization are kind of fool hardy.
Tyranny feeds on empty bellies.
Sure you can endorse OIF style regime change if you want but if it does not deliver in Iraq, can we expect it to deliver in Iran?
As to changing the threat environment, I have already advocated that in the case of Iran but this is not possible because it is Barneyesque appeasment some strange reason.
Quote:
|
And convetional wisdom is usally wrong.
|
Umm...ah...you opened your last rebuttal with conventional wisdom, did you not?
Quote:
|
History says those who fail to pay the piper today, only have a bigger bill to pay later.
|
Be that as it may, tune, payment, payment method, etc. are all negotiable.
Putting the piper aside, history also tells us that if you allow yourself to be decoyed by the Sirens, your ship will be dashed upon the rocks. The Siren song of a ruler's advisers enticing him into ill advised military adventurism has dashed more than one ship of state upon the rocks over the last 5,000 years.
Regards,
William