Time to Attack Iran

[abelenkpe]

Time to Attack Iran


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran


In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon -- particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

(more at link)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O HELL NO! Why are some people so determined to keep this country at war all the time?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Send in the assassins, drones, bombers. Demand more money for the MIC.

Works every time.

[tabatha]

2. Will not happen.

I should count the number of times the "war on Iran" threads are posted.

These have been going on for 10 years.

The Iranians revolted and were massacred - a perfect excuse to get involved. Did not happen.

[Hutzpa]

3. "Why are some people so determined to keep this country at war all the time?

simple answer, because it benefited the top 1%.

[ThomThom]

4. If we did bomb this nuclear facility are we not going to spread radiation?

If they don't have the stuff cooking then what the hell is going on with our intelligence? I always wondered about that in Iraq but our bombs there did the job of spreading radiation on their own. War is a response of a small mind.

[Owlet]

5. "But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would

pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond"

Such as? I mean, aside from Michele Bachmann, how many people seriously believe that the first act of Iran upon successfully developing a nuclear weapon will be to lob it toward Israel? I'm in my eighth decade on the planet, and you'd think that by this time I'd have outgrown any naivete, but honestly, I just can't see what all the flap is about. So add one more member to the nuclear club. Big whoop. And they might have - what - 1 or 2 devices in a year or so? Last time I looked the US had (reported, anyway) around 2200 strategic nuclear warheads, and who knows how may tactical ones. As much as we always like to portray our potential adversaries as "madmen" (a label we have now extended to domestic political enemies as well e.g. the aforementioned "insane" Ms. Bachmann) that name-calling rarely reflects reality.

So color me skeptical. It'll blend nicely with the shade of 'cynical' I mostly paint up with in the morning.

[abelenkpe]

6. we do seem to avoid conflict with other nuclear powers

sometimes I think the big push to attack is more about attacking them before they have such a deterrent.

[JHB]

7. Meet the new Paul Wolfowitz...

...same as the old Paul Wolfowitz.