Well, since we really have not followed the "pre-emption" doctrine yet in Iran, I do not see how this would be a "crushing setback". Pre-emption, I thought, was attacking someone before they attacked us, which since we have not attacked Iran yet, that statement does not make sense.
Secondly, America has only used the UN and Europe to get Iran to stop with the nukes, because we know they cannot touch us yet. While they could bomb Europe with a nuke as soon as they get one. So if Iran gets a nuke, it should reflect badly on Europe, not the US. Of course, Europe still will blame the US, but that will be just shifting blame from their selves, Russia, Libya, North Korean, Pakistan, and China, who have all helped in some small way to get Iran their nukes.
Now if we attack Iran with an actual army, and they still get nukes, I would agree that it would be a setback for Bush.
"“This administration's entire foreign policy, in the name of which we have fought two wars, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, would look hollow,” said Walter Russell Mead (search), a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“I think it's a realistic threat that Iran could give nuclear weapons to terrorists,” Mead said.
So lets go ahead and attack them to stop that, or lets just let them get nukes so we can criticize the president.
"The nightmare does not end with Iran passing an atomic bomb to terrorists. Iran already has missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could strike Israel and even Europe.
Biden said the tension surrounding Iran nears Cold War proportions.
“It ratchets up everything,” Biden said. “It makes the neighborhood a hell of a lot more dangerous.”"
Not really for the US. The mainland is probably ok, because it should be hard to get nukes inside the border, though Alaska is probably screwed and any interests overseas are also probably screwed. Though many of our major interests are in Europe, so in effect they are screwed by our interests being screwed.
Basically, if Iran gets nukes they are going to use them. Our best bets are to make sure that they cannot hit use and we can shoot down their missiles to protect Europe (We can backcharge them for the service later probably.)
cube
3 comments:
We don't really have enough of an army to fight another country before we finish with Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone promoting further warfare should be ready to volunteer their services as a draft would have to follow. Our only other options would be pre-emptive nuclear strikes or outsourcing this war to another country (like Israel). And we aren't worried as much with direct nuclear attacks as much as Iran providing nuclear technology and material to terrorist who could sneak dirty bombs in across the Mexican border.
"We don't really have enough of an army to fight another country before we finish with Iraq and Afghanistan."
Not for a land invasion, but we could always bomb from afar, until they give up or we run out of bombs.
"And we aren't worried as much with direct nuclear attacks as much as Iran providing nuclear technology and material to terrorist who could sneak dirty bombs in across the Mexican border."
Yea we are not worried (about direct nuclear attacks) but Isreal is worried and Europe should be worried.
What i am afraid will happen is that Isreal starts a war by bombing the nuclear sites within Iran (just like they did to Iraq in the 80's)
And needless to say the same thing would have to happen in North Korea. We aren't happy about "axis of evi" nations having nukes, and these the situations in these two countries are going to form our national response to such incidents.
Post a Comment