A "proportionate" response to Iran

LOLOL You know who says stuff like that.

 

Since the days of Nixon Iran and Israel have threatened the US "or else" they would bomb the Saudi oil fields. That's SOP.

 

Why would you pretend that Iran has no proxies?

Oddly, you appear to think that Saudi Arabia has its own proxies--that really does not stretch your imagination--but Iran is entirely innocent of any such thing.

Strange, is it not?

 

And where, in all of this, is there any mention of "ground troops?

 

1. I have pretended no such thing. I have not denied Iranian 'proxies' because until we have a mutual definition, its silly to debate who's proxy list is longer or better. But I am not willing to conflate a sovereign nation with its own defined borders, foreign policy apparatus, diplomatic corps, and governmental institutions/ structure, with terrorist organizations. Suffice it to say they both have plenty of alliances with terror organization.
2. 
   
3. Why don't you spend your time coming up with an argument that we should be walking towards yet another war in the Middle East for a terrorist sponsoring state, with plenty of treasure to fund its own war, when we are billions of dollars in debt and can't manage to pay for our last two wars.

 

Translation: You are "not willing" to see terrorist sponsorship in a state that regularly sponsors terrorism...

I will certainly agree that Saudi Arabia should take the lead here. After all, it was its own oil refinery that was bombed.

But it is absurd, I believe, to make monetary considerations a part of the calculus--indeed, a very large part of the calculus, as you have it here--as concerning whether or not we should consider military action.