By my count, at least four GOP candidates, including Mitt Romney, advocated war against Iran if that was the only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Assuming that the various other things that they advocated prove futile (no, Prince Herman, it doesn't really seem likely that the US can achieve energy independence before Iran gets the bomb, nor is it clear exactly how that would stop a nuclear campaign, anyway)...do you expect war with Iran if the Republicans win the White House in 2012?
I'd say probably not. The candidates have to talk a tough foreign policy game to fire up the right wing base, but the reality of a war with Iran would be disastrous for us, for Iran, and for the image of the administration. And secondly, the republicans can (probably) only win the white house if they get behind one of the smarter, more moderate candidates such as Romney or Huntsman, who are far less likely to do something so rash. That's my two cents - I hope I'm right.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the premise of the question. It depends far more on what Iran does than whether a Republican or Democrat wins (I'm assuming that one of the libertarians doesn't win the GOP nomination).
ReplyDeleteThe notion of invading a sovereign nation to prevent it from developing nuclear warheads is patently ridiculous. The idea rests on the assumption that the good people of that country are aligned with the US' non-nuclear aspirations, and if we only bomb the crap out of their land they will thank us for the opportunity not to develop more powerful materiel.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, it seems to me that the commenters on both threads are largely missing the point: this is not about war with Iran, or nuclear detente, or any related matter.
In the coming US budgetary austerity, the only sure-fire way for the military-industrial complex to guarantee no budget cuts is a massive foreign occupation, particularly one with boots on the ground. Massive foreign occupations are, if you will, "off-balance sheet" - if the government is trying to reduce the debt on its balance sheet, its a fine plan to move your spending somewhere else. Iraq is over and Afghanistan has long since lost its luster.
So on to Iran. I don't think there's much more to it than that.
CSH: I'm a libertarian and even I don't think things are that bad. So can we assume you're a Ron Paul supporter now ;)
ReplyDeleteCouves: Absolutely! I certainly am a Ron Paul supporter. But to clarify, and in the spirit of what's on tv in the background:
ReplyDeleteI'm a Ron Paul supporter in a way perhaps similar to how Rex Ryan is a Bill Belichick supporter: not my best-case scenario, but the world is a whole lot worse without him :).
CSH: Good to hear! I assumed not, based on your past take on libertarians -- but I should have known better, Paul attracts a diverse lot... including eclectic contrarians like yourself ;)
ReplyDelete