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

[Zevico]

And ****ing with the democratically-elected government of Lebanon is extremely questionable...[.]

A set of propositions here, each of which merit attention.
(1) Lebanon is a democracy. Well, confessionalism is not democracy by any criteria I can identify. Confessionalism is an agreement between different ethnic groups: give us a degree of power in one area, you get a degree of power in another, and we won't slaughter each other for now (but give us a few years and some kalashnikovs, and we'll see). Lebanon is a confessional state, not a democracy.
(2) Lebanon's government is "democratically elected." Well, when half the seats are reserved for Christians--who make up an estimated 20-10% of the population--that's not democracy. There was an election, but it wasn't democratic by any means.
(3) Messing with Lebanon is "extremely questionable." This begs the question: who is in charge of "Lebanon"? A: Hezballah, with the assistance of Iran and Syria. They kill people who beg to differ, like the Prime Minister that opposed their continued dominance, Rafik Hariri. You may remember that sparked a movement to kick Syria's army out of the country, which Hezballah stridently opposed. Is "messing with" Hezballah "questionable"? Well, they're messing with your country right now. They're training, sponsoring and endorsing the murder of American soldiers and civilians.

[Kitschum]

Huh? Either you are repeating neocon talking points or not. Why so defensive if it is what you believe?

Since you haven't you should watch Iranium. It will 'open your eyes'.

[Zevico]

Huh? Either you are repeating neocon talking points or not. Why so defensive if it is what you believe?

My point, sir, is that neoconservatism consists of two propositions: "democratic countries tend not to go to war" and "therefore, we should encourage democratic movements to arise."
Past that, there are no neocon talking points. The premise of your argument is that "neocon taking points" support an argument for war in Iran--but democrats just as easily defended (for example) the decision not to have Obama openly support the Iranian protest movement for fear that it would be branded an American plot. Equally, Al B. Sure may think democracy in Iran would be a good thing, but (I speculate) he may think that democracy is unlikely to arise if the Iranian people are forced to unite by way of a war against them. That, too, is a "neocon talking point."

These are "neoconservative" viewpoints as each are premised on the view that the Iranian protest movement is democratic, and that its success is desirable, and may lead (in the long term) to better ties between Iran and the West. Conversely, one may argue that the US' open opposition to the Iranian regime would give moral (or material) comfort to Iranian protesters. This too, is a neoconservative argument.

For my part, I do not see how these two "neoconservative" propositions necessarily lead one to any particular conclusion on a foreign policy issue at any given time. The particular circumstances of a case (e.g. Iranian-American relations) matter far more. International relations are a complex mix of social, economic, political, religious and cultural issues, and it is wrong to assert that politics can be reduced to these two propositions.

[Kitschum]

First of all, please don't call me sir even in jest. Second, you're dodging the question.

Seeing as you're sensitive about the neocon label, let's call you a Richard Perle-ite. Richard Perle appears to share your opinions on Iran (see the provided link). Now seeing as how Richard Perle has been wrong about everything from the Iraq war and on you see how your views might be considered controversial by any reasonable person.

Now, consider me. I have friends who live in Iran. Those friends of mine have families. All of them are facing the prospect of being murdered by the Perle-ites if his wishes are fulfilled. You see my dilemma. I can't wish for the success of your kind, i.e. the Perle-ites. Sure, maybe you personally don't want to kill anybody at all. Perhaps you just want to impoverish them and make their lives miserable, but I'm no fool. I know who you've allied yourself with - Richard Perle that is - and I know what he's worth, so those nuances don't mean much to me.

[Zevico]

First of all, please don't call me sir even in jest. Second, you're dodging the question.

Seeing as you're sensitive about the neocon label

No, I think the label basically applies to any argument made in which one premise is "spreading democracy is good."

let's call you a Richard Perle-ite. Richard Perle appears to share your opinions on Iran (see the provided link).

Well, no, he doesn't. The provided link states that military action against Iran should occur.
The article I provided states that war with Iran is a "mistake, no doubt about it."

Now, consider me. I have friends who live in Iran.

Those friends of mine have families. All of them are facing the prospect of being murdered by the Perle-ites if his wishes are fulfilled.
You see my dilemma. I can't wish for the success of your kind, i.e. the Perle-ites. Sure, maybe you personally don't want to kill anybody at all. Perhaps you just want to impoverish them and make their lives miserable, but I'm no fool. I know who you've allied yourself with - Richard Perle that is - and I know what he's worth, so those nuances don't mean much to me.

Ultimately, we can't make foreign policy based on the plight of suffering innocent individuals living in dictatorial regimes. We have to oppose dictatorships as and when necessary--because if we don't, the result is often more suffering, death and repression for the people living under that regime and the world at large. If weakening Iran meant Iran cutting off aid from Syria, many Syrians would no doubt rejoice at this blow to the ruling regime. Ditto, Lebanese and Hezballah. How do I weigh your friends in Iran with Syrians and Lebanese, or, for that matter, Australians and how Australians would be affected? In international politics, we ultimately have to act in the interests of nations, not individuals.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Or we could just withdraw from Iraq, leave Iran the **** alone, and stop putting soldiers in places where Iran can and wants to shoot at them. Fewer people die, it costs less money, and there's no chance of us getting dragged into another ****ing war.

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.

Blah blah blah blah where exactly is Iran going to attack us? Afghanistan? Oh wait, we should be long gone from there too.

**** Iran, and **** all the *******s who keep trying to get us to bomb it. Spend my tax dollars on something useful please.

[C0ckney]

but don't you see kuci, that will mean that the terrorists win. why do you hate america?

[dannubis]

and Israel ?

[Dr Strangelove]

It seems to me that the vast majority of the terrorism in Iraq recently has been from Sunnis directed against Shias. Occassionally some al-Qaeda types get a punch in on Americans or allied troops.

It really is time to leave. The work remaining in Iraq is for the government to find some way to make peace with the Sunnis. Failing that, God help the Sunnis who don't seem to realise that they're outnumbered 4 to 1 and aren't in possession of the army anymore.

[DinoDoc]

Clearly the proper policy response is a war of choice with Libya.

[Hauldren Collider]

If Iran got nukes, it could attack us anywhere it wanted. Or our allies. A rowboat in the Hudson River would be all it takes. Really, this isn't a country that thinks in terms of its own self-interest, which makes outrageous acts of aggression completely within the realm of possibility.

We're talking about a rogue state with explicit goals to acquire nuclear technology. That alone is enough to make us worry. The Saudis and the Israelis have been pushing us to act harder even when Bush was president.

[giblets]

Countries don't think in some sort of national self-interest. Their ruling elites think in their own self-interest. I'm really not sure why Iranian elites would want to stick a nuclear bomb on a rowboat and send it sailing around the world toward the Hudson River.

[BeBMan]

Well, I hope their elite is overall a bit less nutty than the Ahmadinaguy with his eschatolic "return of the mahdi" ****.

[Kuciwalker]

If Iran got nukes, it could attack us anywhere it wanted. Or our allies. A rowboat in the Hudson River would be all it takes. Really, this isn't a country that thinks in terms of its own self-interest, which makes outrageous acts of aggression completely within the realm of possibility.

blah blah blah

If they act as you claim, then bombing them a few times isn't going to act as a deterrent. The only policy response that can handle a regime like you describe is, coincidentally, invasion and occupation. Well **** that. Look at North Korea, an actual crazy nation, and look how massively better off South Korea is for not substantially retaliating to their provocations.

[Hauldren Collider]

blah blah blah

If they act as you claim, then bombing them a few times isn't going to act as a deterrent. The only policy response that can handle a regime like you describe is, coincidentally, invasion and occupation. Well **** that. Look at North Korea, an actual crazy nation, and look how massively better off South Korea is for not substantially retaliating to their provocations.

blah blah blah I don't think it's clear at all blah blah blah that they are in fact **** ****** *** ****** ** blah blah **** blah better off for not ***** *** blah blah **** retaliating.