No Good Military Option For Iran
This author, who I will admit disagree with, contends that Iran if attacked would unleash a lot of problems. He mentions economic, military, oil issues etc. He even mentions India will keep buying oil from them which I find terrible. In the end who knows if the US is going to attack Iran. I don't know how we can just allow them to get a nuke. What do you guys think?
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-...litary-option/
Why would that be terrible? It would be in keeping with their strategic interests - just like right now they're ignoring US-led sanctions in that regard. India is independent, and its policy is independent and always has been. Iran is not any kind of threat to them.Originally Posted by travis911
If they get a nuke?
The military option does not and cannot guarantee that Iran will be unable to resume work on its nuclear projects, that much is known. At best it slows things down - but a delay does not solve the problem per se. So, time... to do what?
Plus, it paves the way for all kinds of consequences - chiefly, an Iranian retaliation, if not against Israel itself, against some of its allies, or some of its allies' allies.
As for India, I'll bet on it keeping on buying Iranian oil. India has a rapidly developing economy, and such economies are quite oil-hungry. It also does not have to approve a strike against Iran, nor does it have to share the analysis backing up a strike. India will do what is in India's best interest, which may or may not coincide with the desires of either party to this conflictual issue.
Scary times my friend...
Funny thing some seem to miss is that if Iran gets nukes they're still going to pull all the stupid $hit they do now- there will just be less than we can do about it. So do you fix the problem while you can or wait until there's nothing you can do?
Some would say we can't do anything now with so much underground
But a strike on nuclear facilities won't change the stuff they do - it can delay the nuclear program, buy some time, yes, but in the end of the day once the dust settles it's still the same Iran which can, does and will stir **** and which can, does and will resume working on its nuclear program...
A delay could give more time for the sanctions to take effect. Iran already has economic problems. Being under sanctions, its economy may not have the strenght to rebuild the nuclear program and may collapse before achieving it.
Whatever we can do now, it will be a damn site less when they get nukes.
I've been told so many times (re Iran, re Iraq...) that sanctions were not working/never work/are for sissies that I have to wonder : won't it be like striking, and then doing nothing, meaning we're going to contemplate the same issue in 2-3 years?
400K+ of a Nato invasion, nothing less that would suffice, and it would a long and bloody war.
Not really, the new sanctions are working. Though, we have a certain time frame so we need tougher sanctions that will work in a shorter time.
Read some Iranian newspapers, Iranians are transferring money out of banks, inflations is extremely high and food is becoming very expensive, trade has come to a halt because people don't buy merchandise they rather save the money, there are large transport ships waiting outside Iranian sea ports because business owners don't have money to pay for the goods, the new government budget suggest raising taxes by 20%...
What you say is logical. I raised the hypothesis because rebuilding destroyed nuclear facilities is expensive and under the pressure of sanctions it should be harder.
Even though the sanctions did not bring Saddam's fall, they made it impossible for him to rebuilt his army and the WMD facilities he had before Gulf War 1.
But can sanctions effectively prevent a ruined Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iraq was ruined as well in 2003, and under sanctions, and it had suffered a disastrous war.... and yet we were told it was developing weapons of mass destruction, were we not?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
