Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama ready for war with Iran: Time Mag (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not sure what that means, it's (6+ / 0-)

    the administration's job to "be ready" for war.

    With anyone, even Canada I am told (or should I say "especially" Canada?).

    I guess what I'm interested in is if tangible action has gone into this (e.g., moving war materials into position), or this is just rhetoric (and behind the scenes planning) at this point.

    •  Materials moved (5+ / 0-)

      Squadron of F-22's, two Army Brigades to Kuwait. Doubling of the number of mine sweepers.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:10:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, that's rather troubling (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, poopdogcomedy

        although I can't imagine that anyone in the Obama administration really is stupid enough to start a war with Iran.

        Even I can't (and I say that as someone who hasn't * always * been as big of a supporter of the POTUS as you . . .. )

        •  The F-22's don't bother me (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, Aspe4

          Because they are easy to move around.

          The two brigades (15,000 men)? Yeah, that's a signal.

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:15:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But what about Netanyahu? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue aardvark

          And if Israel starts a war in Iran, how do we stay out of it?

          "In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the human species, selfishness is extinction." -Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

          by rigcath on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:23:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That may be driving Obama's decision (5+ / 0-)

            How could we stand by and watch that?

            Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

            by blue aardvark on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:25:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  By staying out of it (5+ / 0-)


            by Paleo on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:26:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tautology for the win! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rigcath, corvo, SilentBrook, antooo

              Now, what would the domestic political ramifications be?

              Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

              by blue aardvark on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:57:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That would be very interesting, no? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                native, blue aardvark, SilentBrook, KenBee

                certainly clean up a lot of rumors and doubt, one way or the other.
                But I doubt it will get to that.
                The Pentagon and Joint Chiefs have all weighed in against any kind of attack on Iran, including "allowing" an Israeli one. And Hagel is not likely to push for it. The Administration warned Israel that they were not to use Iraqi airspace, I doubt Syria would clear them, Turkey has warned them not to come over them as has NATO. They'd have to go around the Arabian Peninsula, stay over water, refuel twice...and still they'd be flying over at least one of our carrier groups, who would intercept them and send them home.
                No one in their right mind wants a war in the Persian Gulf.
                Too much of the world's economy depends on the Straights being open and that is Iran's nuke. They could choke Wall Street, London and Hong Kong.
                I believe what you are seeing is bargaining positioning. A rough Bazaari hustle. Unfortunately, our State Department has had a very Hawkish head and so the bargaining on our side has been heavily biased, we have sided far too much with Israel and the Saudis and backed Iran into a corner. And like any cornered animal, they are reacting.
                I had hoped that Obama would be able to change that dynamic with his offer of an outstretched hand. I'm afraid his choice at SoS prevented that. I hope this one does better.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:03:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  For a rational and knowledgeable assessment (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  of the "threat" posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, read this detailed perspective from Dr. Christopher Bolan of the U.S. Army War College:


                  •  That's excellent, Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    native, KenBee

                    I'm not sure that I can agree with 5, 7 and 8 and here's why.
                    5) If Iran's nuclear program is strictly for domestic energy generation, not a cover for a nuclear weapons program, it would be the only such nuke program in the world. Everybody else who has developed their own nuclear energy program has the bomb (with the possible exception of Japan, but that is under debate).
                    7&8) Iran with a bomb would almost immediately lead to a Saudi bomb then a UAR bomb. The idea that they will act coldly rationally, consider the pros and cons, goes out the window when dealing with the egos and insecurities of the Monarchies. They have bought billions of dollars worth of jet fighters that are basically ego-boosters for the Sheikhs and toys for their favored sons, their "defense" spending is not based on actual defense.
                    The comparison to China Vs Korea and Japan is a mismatch, Japan and South Korea are (or have been since WWII) US client states. They have been under our "umbrella" so to speak, so they did not need to (and in Japan's case were barred from) developing weapons systems of their own. They became, de facto nuclear powers every time our carriers were in the neighborhood, which has been pretty much constant.
                    That principle is not in force in SouthWest Asia and I fear that nukes would proliferate and destabilize the region even more than it is already.
                    While I believe that Iran would only want to obtain nukes for defense, doing so would be perceived by their rivals as aggressive and would spur them to retaliate or worse, preempt.
                    I would love to be proven wrong, but better yet, I'd love to see a resolution that ends up with no nuclear program at all, civil or weapon, in that entire region (and the rest of the world, too, for that matter).
                    And IIRC, Ahmedinejad was proposing that the entire Middle East be a Nuclear Free Zone, the sticking point being Israel's official denial of the nukes that everyone knows they have, because how do you verify that they got rid of something they claim they don''t have in the first place?

                    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                    by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:20:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You posit a nuclear-free Middle East (0+ / 0-)

                      which is hardly achievable. Regardless of whether or not Iranian intention is to achieve a nuclear weapon, there is no legitimate reason to attack and vilify it now, for what is merely a supposed intention.

                      The very idea of unleashing American military power on Iran is not only morally and legally reprehensible - it would if effectuated be utterly disastrous.

          •  If Bibi starts it, we won't stay out. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That much should be clear.

            Only question is whether we want Bibi to start it.

    •  Our naval resources have been building up in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, corvo, SilentBrook

      the area for at least two years

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site