From their view: to counter a nuclear country that keeps bombing their country. They have probably noticed that no one attacks a country that likely has nukes.
A nuclear arsenal is the only safeguard a country truly has anymore. And we keep proving that with every reckless action.
Protest pay is just so good. Thanks, Soros!
Fair enough. I just think people too quickly frame these issues as "accept X policy consequence or you support the worst-case scenario." Reality is usually more complicated than that.
We've tried to have conversations about binary choices here before. It's a tough row to hoe.Fair enough. I just think people too quickly frame these issues as "accept X policy consequence or you support the worst-case scenario." Reality is usually more complicated than that.
And since you asked...I don't support a nuclear Iran & I don't think most people questioning this strategy do either. My issue is acting like the only options are "support escalation" or "support Iran getting nukes." ...again, binary choices where there is nuance. I am so tired of the Sith mindset.
This also isn't new information. We've known about Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. That's why things like Stuxnet, sanctions, covert operations, sabotage, intelligence operations, etc. have been used for years to slow their program rather than jumping straight into another large-scale ME conflict. Stuxnet alone damaged or destroyed a significant number of centrifuges at Natanz without an invasion.
Frankly, I'd be more supportive of ops specifically aimed at degrading Iran's ability to fund and coordinate terrorism through proxies than broad "shock and awe" style crap justified primarily through nuclear rhetoric.
Speaking of shock and awe, watching this mess unfold feels uncomfortably reminiscent of the lead-up to OIF...not necessarily identical circumstances but similar over-confidence that overwhelming US military power automatically translates into strategic success. We had no idea what the heck to do with Iraq after we "won the war."
So the issue then becomes have we learned anything about the ME over the last 20+ years. It's looking like we haven't learned a dadgum thing.
Surprised you have not learned this over the last 20+ years, AK.Fair enough. I just think people too quickly frame these issues as "accept X policy consequence or you support the worst-case scenario." Reality is usually more complicated than that.
And since you asked...I don't support a nuclear Iran & I don't think most people questioning this strategy do either. My issue is acting like the only options are "support escalation" or "support Iran getting nukes." ...again, binary choices where there is nuance. I am so tired of the Sith mindset.
This also isn't new information. We've known about Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. That's why things like Stuxnet, sanctions, covert operations, sabotage, intelligence operations, etc. have been used for years to slow their program rather than jumping straight into another large-scale ME conflict. Stuxnet alone damaged or destroyed a significant number of centrifuges at Natanz without an invasion.
Frankly, I'd be more supportive of ops specifically aimed at degrading Iran's ability to fund and coordinate terrorism through proxies than broad "shock and awe" style crap justified primarily through nuclear rhetoric.
Speaking of shock and awe, watching this mess unfold feels uncomfortably reminiscent of the lead-up to OIF...not necessarily identical circumstances but similar over-confidence that overwhelming US military power automatically translates into strategic success. We had no idea what the heck to do with Iraq after we "won the war."
So the issue then becomes have we learned anything about the ME over the last 20+ years. It's looking like we haven't learned a dadgum thing.
When was the dem cracking point on this massive crime against children?
Was Trump’s own intelligence agencies wrong when they said there was no threat to America from Iranian nuclear weapons?
Tulsi told the American program the IC doesn't provide that sort of information.
You believe Iran over the US intelligence agencies? Interesting.
Where in my response did you get the impression I was trying to say, "Iran is being honest?" Seriously, Riveting. Your respones are quoting me, but feel like they're meant for someone else.
Your words:
I believe Iran has more knowledge of its nuke program than do our intel agencies. Don't you?
And? Again, I never disputed Iran has lied about aspects of its nuclear program.
To be fair, most of the world trusts Trump less than they trust Iran.
I don't think the goal is a stable, pro-Western outcome - although that would be nice.
Anything to back up your absurd claim other than what you hear from pro-Hamas dems?
Hopefully not. But since we no longer have inspectors there because the deal we and the European Union had with Iran had Obama's name on it and Trump pulled us out, who knows.
Of course Iran knows more about its own nuclear program than outside intelligence agencies. That's true of virtually every country and every clandestine program on Earth.
I think you may be misunderstanding the point. The fact of the matter is that we've been hearing that Iran's been "15 minutes" away from getting a nuke since the early 2000s and yet here we are 20 years later and Iran's still ALMOST THERE on getting one (even though we OBLITERATED their nuclear program less than a year ago). Make of that what you will...
Absolutely not. Iran's always been full of **** and they still are. The problem is that I used to think you could always believe our Intelligence/Military Agencies, but with Trump and our Sec of War running the show, you simply can't anymore. They will lie in a heartbeat.
