Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Is the Iran deal the only alternative to war?

Since the Iran deal has been made public, Obama, and just about all who support it, claim that it's this deal or war. I would say I generally agree, but perhaps this isn't entirely fair. Near as I can tell, conservatives or "hard liners" within the US and Israel have drawn a line in the sand. This line is that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and arguably, Iran will not even be allowed to have nuclear power. If Iran persists, I think it is fair to say this group has made it clear that Iran needs to be struck militarily to prevent advancement of a nuclear program. We may quibble about what other methods may be on the table, and whether they may work, but I don't think my presentation of the end goal is inaccurate. Correct me if I am wrong.

I have to admit, that while I firmly believe there are more than a few war hawks who are ready right this minute to attempt surgical strikes into Iran, there are probably a lot who do not want this as a first and only solution and it is probably not fair to portray it that way. That said, I also feel like the response is a bit of a whine from the right to keep claiming it is so unfair to portray them as war mongers when they really aren't offering anything in response. Similarly, Republicans have spent several years now bitching about Obamacare without offering any sort of comprehensive response that could actually be used to "repeal and replace" it. It seems to me that sanctions HAVE brought pain to Iran that is pushing them in a direction we want them to go. Of course, this will be openly disputed because they still chant death to America and Israel.

Time to spray your computer screens with coffee and laugh with cynical histrionics (can we start a pool on how many responses start cleverly with LMFAO) : Obama, to me, is doing what most presidents before him have done, he is trying to offer leadership. In true negotiations, nobody gets 100% of what they want. If they do, it is not a negotiation and instead signals a capitulation by the other side who was forced into it one way or another. I'll concede that perhaps not everyone right of center actually wants war. That said, at this moment, I feel that the right of center position is that Iran will not have nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Period. Without seeing any plan from the right that seems to have some world cooperation to help make it stick, I don't see anything we are going to do that is going to accomplish a goal of no nukes whatsoever for Iran that does not include physically forcing them into capitulation. What is the right of center plan and if my portrayal of the goal is wrong, what is the goal?

In advance, rhetorically asking why Iran needs nuclear power when they have so much oil is not, IMO, a response. I'll hang up and listen to your answers.


  1. Israel would like nothing better than for us to go to war with Iran while they stand by and ring their hands. What would Marco Rubio do? Throw away thousands of American lives for nothing, just like his hero, George W. Bush. International negotiations are not appeasement, they are a necessary part of political jockeying in the relationships between nations.


  2. After our showing in Iraq the Mullahs have got to licking their lips to get American troops on their soil. It's a no win situation. The treaty is the best of all the bad choices.

  3. Agreed, however a number of former military officers have declared that there are options other than war. For instance, clandestine operations, cyber attacks and sanctions on trade. But, in my opinion, those are also forms of war. While they may not kill people directly they are still hostile actions against their target. So, it comes down to semantics, what do you mean by war. Of course trade sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table in the first place. All of these should be considered if the current agreements fail. I think we should give it a chance.

  4. Barack Obama is the prince of false choices, his enablers insist that the choice is between this deal — not any deal, but this deal — and war. That is bunkum, as even the Obama administration admitted that fact when they insisted that it would walk away from negotiations unless it could get a good deal.

    1. False choices is what politics is about, even in the best of circumstances. Conservatives could call his bluff, and actually come up with something on their own, and they haven't. The threat of military action from hard liners is not a fantasy, most of them have talked openly about the need for it. I'll concede that not all want war Lou, but I still have yet to hear anything from conservatives that is not basically a cold war solution. IE make military threats, keep trying to squeeze them with sanctions, and never talk to them as anything but an entity who is beneath them. I think it is in everyone's interest if somebody at some time starts a deal

    2. The false choice is either sign on to my agreement or war.

      Help me here, why would it mean war?

      We have experienced the status quo nearly forever.

      Hardliners do not run the government or make a choice of war or peace.

      Democratic presidents have more enthusiastically embraced the role of “peacemaker,” and by “role” I mean just that: Democratic peacemaking has amounted to very little more than political theater. From Carter to Clinton to Obama, the Democrats have not been peace-makers but peace-fakers.

      Cuba hasn’t lost its taste for terrorism — the Castro regime maintains ties with FARC terrorists in Colombia and ETA terrorists in Spain

      The rulers of Iran have had their long fingers in practically every terrorist pie from Iraq to Syria to Yemen, and quite likely Georgia, Thailand, and India as well. Iran’s rulers have reaffirmed their commitment to financing and assisting jihadist violence around the world.

      At one time we did not pretend to be friends with regimes that support terrorism. My how times have changed.

    3. Why do the Repub's need to come up with something else???