> Yes, there are perfectly valid reasons to wish to enact regime change in Iran. The Islamic Republic has long been a menace to the region and a sponsor of terror worldwide. It does pose an “existential threat” to Israel, as the Israelis are never tired of saying. And, yes, the regime recently engaged in a brutal repression of protestors, killing an estimated 30-40,000 people. But, as extensive reporting has documented, the decision to attack Iran had more to do with a calculation that this would be a geopolitically opportune moment to strike as opposed to believing that imminent threats from Iran warranted the escalated use of force.
What an odd quote.
You get to "as the Israelis are never tired of saying" before "killing an estimate 30-40,000 people". To finish it off, the note that now is a easy time rather than a forced time. Many Americans would not wait for Iran to point a nuke at them before attacking!
The Iranian Islamist regime was clearly intent on manufacturing nuclear weapons, presumably for use not only against Israel but against the US as well, which its leaders have persistently vilified as "the great Satan." The ayatollahs and their followers are religious fanatics, moreover, who glorify suicidal attacks that, like those of 9/11, involve indiscriminate slaughter of Israeli or American "infidels" as religious martyrdom that will be richly rewarded in a postmortem paradise. Hence there's good reason to suppose that if the ayatollahs were to have nuclear weapons at their disposal they would not be deterred by concern for self-preservation from using them to attack population centers in the US and Israel. Given that, US and Israeli leaders had, and still have, an ethical obligation to use any means necessary to prevent them from acquiring such weapons -- regardless of the preferences of UN officials, other political leaders, self-appointed moral arbiters, or popular sentiment.
What a dunce. That's the thought I have every time I read Sam Kahn. Do you think we should attack at an inopportune moment? The world is better off with the Iranian regime gone. Finish the job.
the PROBLEM is they will NOT :"finish the job". The regime is way too entrenched, institutionally. Only way would be boots on ground and that's a price Trump won't pay (though I would pay it)
nah BALDERDASH Mr. Kahn....... if there is ONE geopolitical threat that is worth overthrowing, even with boots on the ground (temporarily) it is THIS regime. This is merely some of the payback they deserve for the 1979 hostages and the bombing of Marine Barracks in 1980 which caused Reagan to hightail it out of the MIddle East. Every POTUS has declared they will not allow it to get nuclear weapons and every POTUS has failed to do anything about it, perhaps because they deemed the costs too high. Well.. at THIS particular time, the costs were NOT too high and finally one person had the cojones to stay true to his/US word. The "moral high ground" would be the eternal gratitude of about 75% of the Iranian people, 85% under 45. THAT is a moral high ground worth aspiring to, even without the geopolitical factors.
> Yes, there are perfectly valid reasons to wish to enact regime change in Iran. The Islamic Republic has long been a menace to the region and a sponsor of terror worldwide. It does pose an “existential threat” to Israel, as the Israelis are never tired of saying. And, yes, the regime recently engaged in a brutal repression of protestors, killing an estimated 30-40,000 people. But, as extensive reporting has documented, the decision to attack Iran had more to do with a calculation that this would be a geopolitically opportune moment to strike as opposed to believing that imminent threats from Iran warranted the escalated use of force.
What an odd quote.
You get to "as the Israelis are never tired of saying" before "killing an estimate 30-40,000 people". To finish it off, the note that now is a easy time rather than a forced time. Many Americans would not wait for Iran to point a nuke at them before attacking!
The Iranian Islamist regime was clearly intent on manufacturing nuclear weapons, presumably for use not only against Israel but against the US as well, which its leaders have persistently vilified as "the great Satan." The ayatollahs and their followers are religious fanatics, moreover, who glorify suicidal attacks that, like those of 9/11, involve indiscriminate slaughter of Israeli or American "infidels" as religious martyrdom that will be richly rewarded in a postmortem paradise. Hence there's good reason to suppose that if the ayatollahs were to have nuclear weapons at their disposal they would not be deterred by concern for self-preservation from using them to attack population centers in the US and Israel. Given that, US and Israeli leaders had, and still have, an ethical obligation to use any means necessary to prevent them from acquiring such weapons -- regardless of the preferences of UN officials, other political leaders, self-appointed moral arbiters, or popular sentiment.
What a dunce. That's the thought I have every time I read Sam Kahn. Do you think we should attack at an inopportune moment? The world is better off with the Iranian regime gone. Finish the job.
the PROBLEM is they will NOT :"finish the job". The regime is way too entrenched, institutionally. Only way would be boots on ground and that's a price Trump won't pay (though I would pay it)
nah BALDERDASH Mr. Kahn....... if there is ONE geopolitical threat that is worth overthrowing, even with boots on the ground (temporarily) it is THIS regime. This is merely some of the payback they deserve for the 1979 hostages and the bombing of Marine Barracks in 1980 which caused Reagan to hightail it out of the MIddle East. Every POTUS has declared they will not allow it to get nuclear weapons and every POTUS has failed to do anything about it, perhaps because they deemed the costs too high. Well.. at THIS particular time, the costs were NOT too high and finally one person had the cojones to stay true to his/US word. The "moral high ground" would be the eternal gratitude of about 75% of the Iranian people, 85% under 45. THAT is a moral high ground worth aspiring to, even without the geopolitical factors.