Quote:
|
I was speaking to a security expert the other day who just got back from Iraq (and who generally supports the US policy in the region if not some of its methods). He made a point, I absolutely agree with. An armed attack on Iran would be an absolute catastrophe for the US as it would drive the deeply patriotic Iranian public into the hands of the clerics (exactly what happened in the eighties after Saddam - who most Iranians felt was acting on the US behalf- invaded Iran). It would essentially destroy the broad support the US can now count on for pro-western policies among the public.
|
If that is true, why did the Iraqis not demand that Saddam be returned to pwoer after we invaded?
Clearly, they had many chances to make such feelings known. At the very least, they could have rejected the Constitution. Why didnt they?
Quote:
|
In effect it would be a dream come true for the Iranian hardliners, giving them back public support they now lack.
|
If the alternative is to allow them to develop nukes, I am willing to take that risk.
Quote:
|
Interestingly he thought that while any attack now on Iran was unlikely, if it happened the US would try to get Israel to do it for them (which I doubt, but is an interesting idea).
|
Why not? Israel has more interest in preventing Iran from getting nukes than we do. They are more at risk than we are.
Quote:
|
He also argued that sanctions would have limited effect since China would buy all the Iranian oil they could get. The solution he suggested was to encourage economic growth and a middle class in Iran, the exact opposite of what a military or sanction based policy would achieve.
|
How does this prevent them from developing nukes?
Quote:
|
It would appear that even Bush now agrees with this logic, military solutions are no longer really on the table.
|
How do you know that?
Military solutions are
conditionally no longer on the table. It remains to be seen if Iran will comply with our demands.
06-07-2006, 07:25 AM
...
Linear Mode
