Right, in a 'free' and 'Democratic' country a war that 7 out of 10 of its citizens are against is 'necessary'!
Forget about Congressional approval, does anyone care about international law anymore? The UN charter clearly states that member nations can't attack each other unless attacked first or if they have permission from the security council. Just because a government is ruthlessly authoritarian doesn't mean you can bomb the country to pieces.
This war is not about defending Democracy. It's about installing a puppet regime of the US and Israel. One Dictatorship will be replaced by another.
The Security Council is irrelevant at this point. Russia has a veto and just invaded its neighbor for the most imperialistic of reasons. And Congress is just hopeless as welll.
If the Security Council is irrelevant, which from how the US is acting it clearly is, humanity is practically doomed in the long run. If you want to know what happens when law and order break down, look at the second world war. The failure of the league of nations led to WW2. The failure of the UN will likely lead to another one, except this time we might not live to tell the tale.
Ought implies can. Your post implicitly assumes that there exists a feasible military strategy that would lead to the toppling of the Iranian regime. It is not at all clear that that is the case. Air power alone basically never does it, there is no insurgent army on the ground to which we might give air support, and a US led ground invasion of Iran would make the current war look like a super popular cakewalk.
Containment was working-- not perfectly, but well enough-- under the 2015 JCPOA. Trump tore that up at the urging of hawks. In retrospect that looks even dumber than it looked at the time. The proper task for Democrats is to find a way back to something resembling the JCPOA, not to nurture fantasies of glorious liberation that are not within our power.
Failing to mention that THE ONLY ONE who benefits from the Trump debacle in Iran is Putin, and who is probably at the bottom of it, is baffling to me! What happened to Gary Kasparov?!
Cost-benefit. Unless the interdiction is complete (How can it be if any Iranians or sympathizers are left standing?), costs will include increased animosity to those who have been dropping the bombs. Survivors will use the tools they have. Terrorism from small sized groups, destabilizing foreign militias enhanced, dangerous technologies spread, a dirty bomb from the obliterated enrichment sites or a functioning reactor, assassination of enemy leaders with poisons, guns, or drones, etc. Ending today without plans to mitigate costs would definitely be unwise. A containment plan needs to be thought through and implemented. It's not like US troops could march in and be seen as deliverers of freedom. There needs to be serious PR work and an offer to rebuild. Also an unwinding of the proxy networks Iran had been supporting. Strengthening Russia is probably not the wisest plan towards this goal. Mitigation however faces the America First obstacle, a huge obstacle against making America Great Again. The world, at least the world as we want it, needs a plan.
Same in that NK has Chinese and Russian support. Different in that NK has the bomb and knows that instills fear and protection. After seeing what happened to Iran (without the bomb) many leaders must be giving serious thought to developing a weapon as a defensive protection.
If the Democrats are to lead, they must be able to take command of the military. That means we need to replace the Commander In Chief. That is a difficult process that we have attempted twice before with this President. The process cannot begin until next year.
What you wrote about Iran is correct. But most of those descriptions also applies to Saudi Arabia. Should US do regime change in Saudi Arabia?
Right, in a 'free' and 'Democratic' country a war that 7 out of 10 of its citizens are against is 'necessary'!
Forget about Congressional approval, does anyone care about international law anymore? The UN charter clearly states that member nations can't attack each other unless attacked first or if they have permission from the security council. Just because a government is ruthlessly authoritarian doesn't mean you can bomb the country to pieces.
This war is not about defending Democracy. It's about installing a puppet regime of the US and Israel. One Dictatorship will be replaced by another.
The Security Council is irrelevant at this point. Russia has a veto and just invaded its neighbor for the most imperialistic of reasons. And Congress is just hopeless as welll.
If the Security Council is irrelevant, which from how the US is acting it clearly is, humanity is practically doomed in the long run. If you want to know what happens when law and order break down, look at the second world war. The failure of the league of nations led to WW2. The failure of the UN will likely lead to another one, except this time we might not live to tell the tale.
Your confusing symptom for cause.
Ought implies can. Your post implicitly assumes that there exists a feasible military strategy that would lead to the toppling of the Iranian regime. It is not at all clear that that is the case. Air power alone basically never does it, there is no insurgent army on the ground to which we might give air support, and a US led ground invasion of Iran would make the current war look like a super popular cakewalk.
Containment was working-- not perfectly, but well enough-- under the 2015 JCPOA. Trump tore that up at the urging of hawks. In retrospect that looks even dumber than it looked at the time. The proper task for Democrats is to find a way back to something resembling the JCPOA, not to nurture fantasies of glorious liberation that are not within our power.
Failing to mention that THE ONLY ONE who benefits from the Trump debacle in Iran is Putin, and who is probably at the bottom of it, is baffling to me! What happened to Gary Kasparov?!
Cost-benefit. Unless the interdiction is complete (How can it be if any Iranians or sympathizers are left standing?), costs will include increased animosity to those who have been dropping the bombs. Survivors will use the tools they have. Terrorism from small sized groups, destabilizing foreign militias enhanced, dangerous technologies spread, a dirty bomb from the obliterated enrichment sites or a functioning reactor, assassination of enemy leaders with poisons, guns, or drones, etc. Ending today without plans to mitigate costs would definitely be unwise. A containment plan needs to be thought through and implemented. It's not like US troops could march in and be seen as deliverers of freedom. There needs to be serious PR work and an offer to rebuild. Also an unwinding of the proxy networks Iran had been supporting. Strengthening Russia is probably not the wisest plan towards this goal. Mitigation however faces the America First obstacle, a huge obstacle against making America Great Again. The world, at least the world as we want it, needs a plan.
We’ve been at war with North Korea since the 1950s. Same analysis or different?
Same in that NK has Chinese and Russian support. Different in that NK has the bomb and knows that instills fear and protection. After seeing what happened to Iran (without the bomb) many leaders must be giving serious thought to developing a weapon as a defensive protection.
If the Democrats are to lead, they must be able to take command of the military. That means we need to replace the Commander In Chief. That is a difficult process that we have attempted twice before with this President. The process cannot begin until next year.
Much will happen between now and a year from now.
My main question would be: What is Trump‘s next move in an asymmetric war?