In The Case for Invading Iran, Thomas Holsinger provides in-depth analyses of the justifications to invade, the military strategy and methodology of invasion, and the costs. Mr. Holsinger makes a convincing case, including the high probability Iran already possesses nuclear weapons. After reading this essay and the supporting collateral information, I believe invasion makes sense, as opposed to bombing known Iranian nuclear facilities.
There’s just one little problem.
It’s doubtful we, and by “we” I mean the collective body-politic, have the resolve to act quickly and forcefully given the political climate in this country right now. The President simply cannot order an invasion of Iran and let the chips fall where they may. Our system requires Congress to give its assent. It’s highly unlikely the President could make a case to initiate another war, what with the perception that Iraq is a “quagmire.” When it comes right down to it, how would the President make the case for war? Given their past failures, our intelligence services have serious credibility problems. Any intelligence, no matter how reliable the source, no matter how recent the information, no matter who or where it came from, would be viewed as suspect by “certain parties.” It’s almost to the point where one would need to drop (and I mean “give” or “place”) an actual, functioning Iranian nuclear weapon, gift wrapped, into the laps of Reid, Pelosi, et al, before they would believe it’s time to act. And even then, I suspect they’d not believe their eyes.
Aren’t the bellicose, threatening statements of the current Iranian regime enough? History seems to say “no.” Isn’t there adequate evidence at the moment to intervene, what with the IAEA going on the record as stating the Iranian’s intentions are “suspect?” It takes a lot to make a skeptic out of Mohammad El-Baradei, and he is skeptical about the true intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. Even the Germans and the French acknowledge the EU negotiations were a failure, and they are advocating referring Iran to the UN Security Council. As I wrote last evening about the efficacy of the Security Council: Yeah, that will work.
It’s apparent there is a clear and present danger. I hope we, collectively, recognize it as such and have the will to ACT.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's not about empire, Gunnel. It's about negating a mortal threat. Iranian president Ahmedinajad is just one more lunatic in a long line of lunatics spouting "Great Satan" rhetoric. I take them at their word, do you?
ReplyDeleteAnd here's a question for you: Let's assume we let the Iranians proceed apace, they produce The Islamic Bomb, place a medium-yield device on a container ship, sail that ship into New York harbor and detonate the device. Or, considering Iran already has intermediate range ballistic missiles, suppose they lob a few nukes into Tel Aviv. Would either of these scenarios be positve or negative developments?
You know the answer. So do I.
Trillerpiller:
ReplyDeleteI did not avoid your original question as much as ignore it. It does, after all, sound a lot like “Have you quit beating your wife?” The US has neither desire nor need for “empire.” The US, on the other hand, DOES have an interest in promulgating democracy throughout the Middle East, and this is the stated aim and goal of US foreign policy. We are perfectly free to leave Iraq at any point in time; the leaders of the US Democratic party are advocating such a withdrawal right now. Those people are in the minority, presently. Most of us want to remain in Iraq until the job is complete, i.e., when the Iraqi army and other security forces are capable of providing for their own security and when the popularly elected government and all required institutions (courts, ministries, et al) are fully-functional. At that point in time you can bet your last kroner we’ll be out of there, post haste.
As you live in famously-neutral Sweden, you probably are right not to fear Iran. At the moment. You will have quite a few reasons to fear a nuclear-armed Islamic theocracy, should that event come to pass. As for Iran not attacking another country, your thinking is very 19th-century. International conflict, defined as nation-state against nation-state, has been largely superseded by decentralized trans-national organizations with a specific agenda in mind. As examples, I give you al Qaeda and Hamas. Iran is a well-known supporter of Hamas and contributes the lion’s share of Hamas’ funding. If you want to look at global conflict in 19th century terms, that’s your problem. But this is the 21st century.
Regarding the thinking of “most North Americans:” I doubt the great majority of Canadians or Mexicans are too concerned with Iran at the moment. As a matter of fact, most citizens of the United States probably don’t care all that much, either. We, as a nation, are famously insular and isolationist. We don’t much care what happens beyond our shores, for better or worse. There is, however, a significant number of us who are aware of the nature of the Iranian threat. I see you spent an hour and 45 minutes on my blog today. Hopefully you followed, and read, the links to the articles I provided in my posts on Iran. If you read those essays, you have a very good idea why we Americans are so concerned with Iran, as are the French, the British, and the Germans. Here’s another article you may find interesting: The First Terrorist War. You might also want to see Iran’s illustrious president standing in front of a very telling graphic at “The World Without Zionism" conference. The entire article accompanying the images is also worth a read.
In closing, thanks for dropping by the blog. Feel free to return, any time.