Here you can read Noah Pollak bemoaning the inconvenient fact that Iranian oil belongs... to Iran. A corollary to the idea that a nation's resources are its resources, of course, is that they can wield those resources as a form of soft strategic power--a corollary that, unfortunately, cuts against the notion that America should just hegemonize the entire region.
So we should stick to our cobbled-together menu of policies in the Persian Gulf that've thusfar worked out so well for everybody. And, if Iran can't be allowed to counter American influence with influence of its own, then its nuclear program must be bombed out of existence:
I am not a military analyst and do not have access to the relevant intelligence, but from what I've read it seems clear that our armed forces should be able to end the Iranian nuclear program without a full-scale ground invasion and occupation.
Indeed, the military analysts who share these crazy views about how America ought to conduct itself in the world do seem to think bombing Iran would be an easy, and productive, way to go. But if you ask dispassionate military analysts, like retired Air Force (yes, Air Force) Col. Sam Gardiner, or actual leaders of the armed forces, like Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, (or, for that matter, anybody who cares about the consequences of our strategic decisions in the region) whether this would be either easy or productive, they, obviously, say no.
Comments
Pollack: from what I've read it seems clear that our armed forces should be able to end the Iranian nuclear program without a full-scale ground invasion and occupation.
Ummm, I wonder if Pollack's mind even considers where there might be, you know, repurcussions or reactions from the Iranians (or others) that might impact the overall result? Closing the Hormuz straits; activating Shia attacks on the US forces in Iraq; China's reaction to having their oil flow from Iran cut off; Nuclear fallout everywhere east of Iran (including China, Japan, Indonesia, et. al.), etc.
Pollack could just as well have suggested that we could just elminate Iran and its people from the face of the earth as long as consequences don't matter.
We really need some new criminal statutes on the books. If conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, why isn't conspiracy to commit genocide or aggressive-preemptive war a crime? Surely these neo-cons are as much 'unlawful combatants' (or those who give aid and comfort to them) as any of those in Guantanamo. In this Alice in Wonderland world, let's just just the neo-cons guilty and then hold the trial later on.
Brain gas-emission corrected: "In this Alice in Wonderland world, let's just judge the neo-cons guilty and then hold the trial later on."
Post A Comment