Top U.S. Military Officer: Iran Is In a Shooting War With America. OK, Where’s the Policy Response?

[Kuciwalker]

Zevico

The correct policy response is to get our soldiers out of Iraq so that Iranian-armed Iraqi insurgents don't shoot at them anymore. Duh!

[Pax]

Felch,
Cool. I just know OCS is tough. I've seen a lot of people quit OCS, Boot Camp and the Police Academy. I know it's always easier when you've got people in your corner. Also with OCS and Boot Camp you're isolated so the last words you read or hear have to carry you for a long time. No matter which one of you guys were going into something like that I would wish you the best.

[Zevico]

Asher has a fictional view of what he thinks America is.

I take it that by this you mean that Asher's view of what America is belongs in the realms of fiction.
This is an interesting assertion. What do you think Asher's view of America is?

You're an Israelophile.

Another interesting assertion. Would you mind expounding upon it further?

[Dinner]

I'd like to point out that Asher is half American and used to live in the US.

[Berzerker]

ok, lets sell Iran some weapons and hide tracking devices inside them to see where they end up


oops

[Zevico]

The correct policy response is to get our soldiers out of Iraq so that Iranian-armed Iraqi insurgents don't shoot at them anymore. Duh!

Firstly, the question of withdrawal from Iraq is partly related to this issue, but also relates to the conditions in Iraq. In other words, it is simplistic to assert--as I think you do, but correct me if I am mistaken--that it is for the United States to weigh its interest in remaining in Iraq (if any) with its interest in continuing proxy war with Iran, as if the choice between the two were mutually exclusive. This is not actually the case. A withdrawal from Iraq can occur concurrently with actions such as these against Iran. It is self-evidently in American interests to identify and pursue those who arm or support groups that attack Americans. It makes plain that the murder of Americans comes at a cost the attacker (Iran) would be unwilling to pay.

This has far reaching implications in the relations between Iran and the United States. Iran will continue to support attacks on American soldiers and civilians in Iraq and elsewhere if it thinks it can get away with it. It harbors members of Al Qaeda specifically because it thinks it can get away with it. Putting economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran will at the very least weaken it and prevent it from investing more in terrorist groups, at the best encourage it to threaten those groups with aid draw-downs if they target Western interests too much.

This does happen, you know--they reduced aid to Hezballah after the 2006 war as a warning, specifically because Hezballah decided to provoke a war. Hezballah got the message: recently it prevented Lebanese civilians from cross into Israel as part of the "Nakba" protests. It did so by killing the protesters--or more accurately, by letting people in Lebanese army uniforms come onto their turf and shoot dead 10 protesters. While bloody, this action nevertheless sent a signal that it was not interested in increasing tensions with Israel directly and causing another Hezballah-Israel war, as a result.

[BeBMan]

Putting economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran

That's already happening. Contrary to the guy in the op article I doubt the west could force China or Russia to participate when they don't want. Lotsa media even suspect the sabotage thing is already on (stuxnet), but I doubt if it is we'd get official confirmation for it.

As for "shooting war" due to weapons supply to third parties he is wrong, unless he wants to rewrite the entire history of the cold war.

[C0ckney]

Another interesting assertion. Would you mind expounding upon it further?

he means this.

Sounds like you just want the US to be an extension of Israeli policy.

for all your words, this is what your position boils down to. although maybe you mean the entire western world and not just the US. he's hardly the first the note it...

[Zevico]

for all your words, this is what your position boils down to. although maybe you mean the entire western world and not just the US. he's hardly the first the note it...

Such perspicacity! Tell me: why, in your opinion, do my politics boil down to this single proposition?

Is it because (heaven forbid!) I think movements that give Al Qaeda political and material support may hold to beliefs that include, for example, the basic notion that destroying the West is a good thing--a holy and commendable goal?

[C0ckney]

you tell me. i do find it a bit curious to see an aussie think about israel/the west in the terms you do, but they're your opinions.

as for why i think it, well it's your posts on this forum that lead me to that conclusion.

[Zevico]

you tell me. i do find it a bit curious to see an aussie think about israel/the west in the terms you do, but they're your opinions.

Basically, I've read a number history books and articles on the Middle East and other areas which have led me to analyse this situation in a manner that differs from you.
For example, after reading several books on the history of modern Egypt, I conclude that its society is intensely anti-Western for historical reasons--namely, as a society, it is still trying to explain away the fact that the faith and culture to which its people belong ("Islam") are relatively backwards. This "Islamic" influence, coupled with influence from modern day ideologies like Marxism-Leninism and Nazism inform the perspective of the Egyptian people on the world. Of course this is not true of every Egyptian, but the basic undercurrents of Egyptian thought run the gamut from Islamist radical, Leftist radical and Pan-Arabist. Islamism is on the rise, leftist radicalism and pan-arabism in Egypt are in decline since Nasser's defeat in 1967. Democrats are few in number and disorganised. Egyptian Christians are targets for "normalised" outpourings of violence, rape and intimidation by "true" Egyptians. Egyptian Jews were basically rendered non-persons by the 50's, and nearly all of them left for Israel or elsewhere at that point. It has come to the point where a pack rape of a woman is perfectly justified, and accompanied with shouts that the woman is a Jew. I speak of an American-South African journalist, Lara Logan. Being American is being "Jewish", it seems, and that is excuse enough for a few hundred men to engage in this atrocity. This is the "Egyptian Spring."

Honour killings are another example of this the radically different way in which human beings are conceived of in the Arab world. In a region with no concept of true shame for their disgraces, Jordan and the Palestinian territories have effectively endorsed honour killings. The punishment for killing a woman for "honour related" reasons is---at most--imprisonment for a year or so at most, if memory serves. This is codified in Jordanian statutes that are also enforced in the Territories. In a society where the slaughter of women is nothing, the slaughter of humans generally is, unsurprisingly, a cause for celebration if the aim is sufficiently "just." Why is it, do you think, that Gazans celebrated 9/11? Or that Hamas condemned the killing of Bin Laden? "Rage"? Anger at "the occupation"? Or a broader (if simplistic and ignorant) sympathy for his actions?

Why is it, then, that members of the Muslim Brotherhood simultaneously deny that Bin Laden so much as exists, and on the other mourn his passing? Does this denialism not remind you of Holocaust denial and its neo-Nazi proponents?

[Kitschum]

Zevico, have you been watching Iranium? Your article sounds like a product of the same neocon propaganda machine.

“Iran is at war with the United States, and we are not responding,” declared Michael Ledeen at the February 8th screening of a new film, Iranium, on Capitol Hill. The film, which is also being screened across the country, including at AMC Theatres, calls for “crippling sanctions” against Iran and asserts that “if economic pressure is not successful then military force may be utilized.” The Capitol Hill event was sponsored by Endowment for Middle East Truth and the Republican Jewish Coalition, in association with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).

http://www.niacouncil.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7046&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

[Asher]

Asher has a fiction of what he thinks America is. You're an Israelophile.

You're a fool if you think America's foreign policies don't tightly align with Israel's.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're a fool if you think America's foreign policies don't tightly align with Israel's.

And yet the Zionist lobby representatives Barry Rubin and Zevico don't think we're even close to where we should be!

[Zevico]

Zevico, have you been watching Iranium? Your article sounds like a product of the same neocon propaganda machine.

It is strange that you assume the existence of a propaganda machine, when there is no particular mass movement, or overaching movement, advocating for the same goals with which one can identify with "neoconservative" reasoning. It is easy to identify the propaganda of a state with a state-owned newspaper where, for example, the state is authoritarian, owns the newspaper, and only allows the publication of views favourable to the government. It is easy to identify a pamphlet belonging to a political party with a political party. But neoconservatism as a political movement is neither. At most, it is the basic proposition, espoused by and accepted by the present Obama administration, that the spread of democracy is in the United States' national interest. Well, that is well and good in abstract but it really says nothing at all about the particular foreign policy excursions of the United States.

For example, the article you quote states that "military force may be utilized [against Iran]", whereas Rubin states that war with Iran would be "a mistake, no doubt about it." You assume a congruity of views where no such congruity exists. (Rubin even accuses Obama of adhering to "neo-con" beliefs!)

I also note that the article does not claim the existence of a propaganda machine, either. It merely states that the movie features interviews with various people who happen to agree that the current Iranian government is a threat to American interests.

No, I haven't seen it.