- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 68,846
- Reaction score
- 52,039
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The logical flaw in the indictment of a looming “very bad” nuclear deal with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered before Congress this month was his claim that we could secure a “good deal” by calling Iran’s bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.
Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb. Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.
This is an opinion piece, not breaking news at all. Should be in the ME forum.
This is an opinion piece, not breaking news at all. Should be in the ME forum.
How do I report a thread??? Help please.
The little alert sign in the lower left corner of the OP posting.
Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result. Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.
Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb. Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.
War with Iran is probably our best option - The Washington Post
Let the false accusations fly and the fear mongering begin and we'll see how long it takes Americans to line up behind the next failed military adventure, only to realize it was stupid after the fact, again. I wonder if Germany, China, the UK, France and Russia all agree that another middle eastern war has any merit?
Thoughts on war with Iran?
Pakistan has had nukes for decades, and haven't used them. North Korea has nukes and aren't using them. Merely having nuclear capabilities does not constitute a direct threat. We have absolutely no business having a war with Iran. We have nothing at all to gain. We only have things to lose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?