1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Iraq II: Will we be THAT stupid again?

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by dog428, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Charlie K. absolutely nailed the threat that we face from Iran and the perils of attacking it. I think the scenarios he gives basically play out, with one big change. I don't see the U.S. being the one who attacks the reactors -- I think we encourage Israel to do it behind closed doors. Israel, believing that Iran is its biggest enemy in the region and the primary supporter of Hezbollah, tries to recreate its 1981 strike on Saddam's nuclear reactor. We give them as much help as we can while keeping plausible deniability. Within hours, there is a U.N. resolution condemning the attacks and asking for sanctions against Israel and after some public hem-hawwing, we block the resolution. From there....well, Krauthammer laid it out pretty well.

    One problem which Charlie K. did not highlight is that an Iran strike would be much more difficult than the 81 Iraq strike. In Iraq, there was a single reactor and everyone knew that destroying it would set back Saddam's nuclear ambitions for decades. In this case, we don't know where every reactor is and it would be nearly impossible to render every single one to be non-operational. "If it launched an attack and removed some unknown proportion of the facilities, the United States might retard Iran's progress by an unknown number of months or years—at the cost of inviting all-out Iranian retaliation." (That came from an article by the always excellent James Fallows in the Dec. 2004 Atlantic Monthly.)

    The worst of it is that there isn't a good solution. We could have a man who was a combination of the best qualities of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan in office and that man wouldn't have a good solution. We cannot afford to let Iran get tactical nuclear weapons and become the preeminent power in the Middle East and there is no good way, diplomatically or militarily, to keep that from happening.
  2. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Pope, I share a lot of those fears about Iran, and go back and forth right now debating how immediate the threat is. I think what we're learning though is that we invaded the wrong country a few years back. Iran was a lot more complicit to terrorist activity than Iraq was, and there was an equal argument back before the facts were known, and a better argument now for going there instead of Iraq. Obviously it's too late now. But the situation in Iran could be one of the worst consequences of going into Iraq yet.
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    And Jack Ryan
  4. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Great piece by Krauthamer.
  5. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Junkie, the biggest reason for hope with Iran is that the younger generation is very pro-Western and could be the key into turning Iran into another Turkey: a stable, modern Islamic country. But how do we behead the monster on top without alienating the very people we want to run the country.
  6. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    By equipping them to do the job for us, kinda like all of our Central American schemes of the past.
  7. Of all the insane, bloodthirsty ramblings on the subject, I'd have to say his was the most stylish.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page