Knowing Iran's intentions and yet leaving it to only Israel to obstruct them, the West has been disappointingly spineless in acquiesing to -- nay, enabling -- the regime's progress toward bomb grade material. Despite his flaws, Trump is currently the only non-Israeli leader to show the necessary spine.
Negotiating per se isn't spineless. But the Western parties to the JCPOA turned a blind eye to the nature and zealotry of the Iranian regime and its high level enrichment program, so that they could pretend that the agreement was truly effective. It's the pretense that I call spineless.
You missed a 6th important question, perhaps the most important one:
Will allowing a sworn enemy to continue building its strength ultimately lead to more death and destruction than dealing with the blowback of hitting them at their weakest now? There's a chance this action saves future Americans (and potentially others) from ever having to be involved in a larger war, whereas appeasement seems certain only to postpone one.
You also stated that "No civilian can know with certainty whether Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon". Much of the reason for that is Iran's refusal to submit to legitimate inspections, which of course would not be the case if they were only using nuclear power for civilian purposes. They clearly have much to hide.
Great balance in judging the pros and cons against each other, Philip.
While not directly stated, I think it was implied by stating Iran can't be allowed to get the bomb.
Oh ya, they're going after the bomb, it just comes down to what "close" is. I just meant we (civilians) don't have access to intelligence so we can't know how close they are.
Lost in the debate is why Iran, with the third most oil reserves in the world, would be researching nuclear power for civilian reasons. It's certainly not because they care about climate change. I have a post in my head about this.
Frankly, I don't think that the question of how close Iran is to having a functional nuclear weapon is particularly important. The known fact, seldom acknowledged by Western media, that the Iranian regime has a religious fervour for obliterating Israel, and that they have no regard for collateral loss of life, means that they must be prevented from having the ability to do so. What sense is there in acquiesing to uranium enrichment beyond reactor grade?
Of course "climate change" is not a concern for the regime. I just learned that Iran has one operational reactor, which leaves me with the suspicion that its main purpose is to make the "peaceful purposes" claim plausible to the gullible. But I now can see that's a pure lie, when it's clear that Iran has enriched its uranium far beyond reactor grade.
Further to debunking Iran's "peaceful purposes" claim is this remarkable* CBC program (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GitCpe8SN9M) that delves into the many ways Iran's nuclear program makes no sense, other than as attempted deception.
None of this makes sense, at all. Iran has attacked another country in 300 years, while israel is MASS MURDERING thousands of people and has illegally attacked other countries for decades. I would say your "article" rises to the level of "sick Nazi apologist shit".
Imagine what would have happened on June 6th, 1944, if "something could go wrong" was the thinking process of the Allied leaders.
Hey, Nazi Germany wasn't that bad, right?
"Wars never go as planned" is not an excuse for doing nothing.
History is full of failures, but it's also full of successes. You assess the risks the best you can, develop a plan, and then execute it.
Doing nothing is a plan, but it's not always the right one either. World War II might not have happened if Chamberlain hadn't agreed to the Munich Agreement.
I don't know if bombing Iran was the right decision, but I can understand the logic behind it.
Of course they don't. We all know the line about there is planning and then the plan hits the enemy and gets thrown out the window. Nobody really disputes what Iran's intentions have been regarding obtaining nukes. The only question has been how close are they.
War, as you define it, hasn't happened here. We bombed Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In this, it was similar to random military action taken by almost every administration since forever.
Pearl Harbor and the Nazi invasion of Russia were formal war declarations - of course the Japanese forgot to get that message decoded in time. But they were part of open protracted hostilities. Of course Hitler got the German army stalled in Stalingrad, which prevented getting to Moscow in time to capture it. And the Japanese learned to their horror that the US carriers weren't at Pearl, thus speeding up their own day of reckoning.
There is no desire to send in troops. There is no idea to install a US puppet. What Israel may wish to do is up to them, they are taking the brunt of it. If the Persians wish to take back their country, I am sure we would be all for it.
Knowing Iran's intentions and yet leaving it to only Israel to obstruct them, the West has been disappointingly spineless in acquiesing to -- nay, enabling -- the regime's progress toward bomb grade material. Despite his flaws, Trump is currently the only non-Israeli leader to show the necessary spine.
I don't think prioritizing negotiations is spineless, I just think we're past that point.
Negotiating per se isn't spineless. But the Western parties to the JCPOA turned a blind eye to the nature and zealotry of the Iranian regime and its high level enrichment program, so that they could pretend that the agreement was truly effective. It's the pretense that I call spineless.
You missed a 6th important question, perhaps the most important one:
Will allowing a sworn enemy to continue building its strength ultimately lead to more death and destruction than dealing with the blowback of hitting them at their weakest now? There's a chance this action saves future Americans (and potentially others) from ever having to be involved in a larger war, whereas appeasement seems certain only to postpone one.
You also stated that "No civilian can know with certainty whether Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon". Much of the reason for that is Iran's refusal to submit to legitimate inspections, which of course would not be the case if they were only using nuclear power for civilian purposes. They clearly have much to hide.
Great balance in judging the pros and cons against each other, Philip.
ZL
While not directly stated, I think it was implied by stating Iran can't be allowed to get the bomb.
Oh ya, they're going after the bomb, it just comes down to what "close" is. I just meant we (civilians) don't have access to intelligence so we can't know how close they are.
Lost in the debate is why Iran, with the third most oil reserves in the world, would be researching nuclear power for civilian reasons. It's certainly not because they care about climate change. I have a post in my head about this.
Thanks Z!
Frankly, I don't think that the question of how close Iran is to having a functional nuclear weapon is particularly important. The known fact, seldom acknowledged by Western media, that the Iranian regime has a religious fervour for obliterating Israel, and that they have no regard for collateral loss of life, means that they must be prevented from having the ability to do so. What sense is there in acquiesing to uranium enrichment beyond reactor grade?
Something missed in these discussion is, why does the 8th leading producer of oil need nuclear energy?
I frankly don't buy that they're concerned with climate change.
Of course "climate change" is not a concern for the regime. I just learned that Iran has one operational reactor, which leaves me with the suspicion that its main purpose is to make the "peaceful purposes" claim plausible to the gullible. But I now can see that's a pure lie, when it's clear that Iran has enriched its uranium far beyond reactor grade.
Further to debunking Iran's "peaceful purposes" claim is this remarkable* CBC program (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GitCpe8SN9M) that delves into the many ways Iran's nuclear program makes no sense, other than as attempted deception.
*remarkable for the often biased CBC
Reactor grade uranium is 3-5%.
Typo alert: Isreal
Dammit! I used spell check, Grok, and a real person to review this and I still made this spelling error 8 times.
It's fixed now. Thanks!
Intelligent and objective analysis. Great post.
Thanks!
None of this makes sense, at all. Iran has attacked another country in 300 years, while israel is MASS MURDERING thousands of people and has illegally attacked other countries for decades. I would say your "article" rises to the level of "sick Nazi apologist shit".
So you won't be subscribing?
*Israel defends itself*
Anti-Semites: Why is Israel attacking other countries?
Ok. All sounds good.
Imagine the headlines in the Tokyo newspapers the day after Pearl Harbor! Brilliant planning and execution. Necessary for Japan.
How did that turn out?
Imagine Hitler’s staff at the onset of operation Barbarossa. Blitzkrieg brilliance.
Wars never go as planned.
Imagine what would have happened on June 6th, 1944, if "something could go wrong" was the thinking process of the Allied leaders.
Hey, Nazi Germany wasn't that bad, right?
"Wars never go as planned" is not an excuse for doing nothing.
History is full of failures, but it's also full of successes. You assess the risks the best you can, develop a plan, and then execute it.
Doing nothing is a plan, but it's not always the right one either. World War II might not have happened if Chamberlain hadn't agreed to the Munich Agreement.
I don't know if bombing Iran was the right decision, but I can understand the logic behind it.
Of course they don't. We all know the line about there is planning and then the plan hits the enemy and gets thrown out the window. Nobody really disputes what Iran's intentions have been regarding obtaining nukes. The only question has been how close are they.
War, as you define it, hasn't happened here. We bombed Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In this, it was similar to random military action taken by almost every administration since forever.
Pearl Harbor and the Nazi invasion of Russia were formal war declarations - of course the Japanese forgot to get that message decoded in time. But they were part of open protracted hostilities. Of course Hitler got the German army stalled in Stalingrad, which prevented getting to Moscow in time to capture it. And the Japanese learned to their horror that the US carriers weren't at Pearl, thus speeding up their own day of reckoning.
There is no desire to send in troops. There is no idea to install a US puppet. What Israel may wish to do is up to them, they are taking the brunt of it. If the Persians wish to take back their country, I am sure we would be all for it.