(I think much of our disagreement on this hinges on that notion...was it necessary?), but it's dragging on and on and on with no end in sight, its hurting us economically, the ceasefires either get violated by our "ally" Israel, or, if Iran does, we look foolish, like they stalled, they (Iran) seem emboldened, etc etc etc to say nothing of motive (was it "they're about to get a nuke"? Or was it "Israel said, "Lol, do what we say Goy Bitch"). I think much of the disgruntlement on OUR part (again, fuck Iran) comes when Trump says the economy is fine, or, he's polling at 99% in Israel, when people can't afford to feed their AMERICAN kids.
IMHO you are looking at one piece of a larger puzzle and not recognizing it for what it is. In fairness, you must have the same opinion about my position lest we would be in agreement. Let me give you my perspective and we can go from there: This is not an isolated "deal with Iran" stand alone plan. IMHO China is our biggest long term national security threat, and I think we can agree to that.
Now the question becomes how do we counter that threat? First, you get them out of the Panama Canal and Venezuela while making their investments there worthless and denying them oil. Then you get rid of their ME influence, specifically Iran. To do that, Hamas and Hezbollah have to be at least crippled lest you have three fronts, 2 of which are purely reactionary/defensive. If you want real peace, they have to be destroyed. Who is better equipped to do that than Israel as we focus on Iran? Don't get mistaken, Iran getting a nuke isn't the only reason we are pushing their shit in. The truth of the matter is that if we are going to counter the Chinese, we have to deal with Iran first. China is the goal, Iran is a Chinese tool that has to be countered. I will address the dragging on part in a minute.
Of course not. But if you're gonna start something, shouldn't you truly finish it?
Absolutely and I suggest you are taking a myopic view of how Iran fits into the entire America First mantra.
I am no modern military historian (antiquity, I am, depending on when/era), and defer to you in knowledge of military anyway given your background, but can you explain to me how or why this is so different? If anything it seems to me this is a worse situation as Iran can shut down the global economy in a way the others could not.
I am no historian either but let me give you my observations on why this is different:
1. The military is not being treated as an be all/end all or political statement. It is being used to achieve a plainly stated goal AND it is just one of
the many tools, including time that is on our side.
2. The military is being used to preform both its roles,
deterrence and destruction, with clear objectives and sensible rules of engagement. I can't
stress how rare this has become. People seem to be unaware what the deterrence value is during a cease fire but when done right is more
frightening than the actual gunfire to the political elite.
3. Compare Iran to the Iraq or Afghanistan timeline. We could have overrun their entire country militarily speaking by now had we chosen to do
so. For you not to see any difference, you must not have remembered much of either invasion we had and the decades of occupation that
resulted. I mean we can go through the differences if you need to but IMHO this was probably a bad rhetorical device you employed.
Again, like I say, I think this is where we have different ...not priorities, but, the way we view it. I am 100% against iran getting a nuke. I cannot, however, trust Israeli intel they were about to get one. Israel lies. Always. I'll even cut them the slimmest break because one could argue they HAVE to, if they think the end justifies. But a year ago we supposedly destroyed their ability to create a nuke. So was that a lie? If not, why was the information SO bad then yet so CERTAIN now? Especially since regieme change didn't happen, and nothing THEY said would happen has come to pass? And now, many think Iran HAS a nuclear weapon (or mroe) given to them...if that is the case, than this entire thing was utterly COUNTER productive (to your top priority), and thus, a disaster.
Again, Iran was close to getting a nuke but that is only one aspect of why we are dealing with it now. IMHO it is the most important, but the truth is that we can't deal with China properly until Iran is dealt with first. Our military cannot handle both, even in just projecting power as a deterrence. As far as destroying their capabilities, I never believed that wording. I distrust the DOD/DOW and our IC more than you. I will say that in a sense we did destroy their capabilities, but only by denying them access to the sites for a limited time. Did the IC lie to us ... you know better to ask that question with a straight face.
Also, want to reiterate...I was against attacking Iran, but once we did, I was all in. I still would be if we went ALL IN. We're doing half measures. Bomb and gas them until they're all dead, at this point. They've had amble time to surrender, overthrow, or flee.
Again, were we to follow your plan, we will have boots on the ground for decades and you know the results when we leave. I understand the impulse no matter how neocon it is.
