The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.Here
and
Now
opinions
Why the U.S. may still have to go to war against Iran
WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
29 Comments
Login to comment
katsu78
Man, people keep beating the drum for war with Iran, but I don't hear anyone talking about how the winners of such a war would occupy/rebuild the country in the aftermath. Did we learn nothing from Iraq? Are we that desperate to create more playgrounds for ISIS/Daesh?
So we have fought fewer wars to stop nations from becoming potential nuclear powers (and that's setting aside the dubiousness of these two examples) than we have encouraged nations to voluntarily give up nukes, but we're still going to talk like war is an inevitability we need to consider?
Huh, and no author's name is attached to this article. Funny that.
Kabukilover
Welcome to the nasty little world of the neocons and right wing Israeli politics. In a sentence, why go to war against a country that is causing no one any trouble?
Please note. Israel is not victim of Iran. It is the ay around.
kcjapan
Unsurprisingly, AWOL Bush marched seven trillion in debt at a 38 year mortgage, ending 2053. So, as far as "going to war with Iran"? Forget it. The American has paid for AWOL's war, and continues to pay till 2053. So, Iran? What the {blank} for?
Chasing Iran around the nuclear block may make for thrilling netcopy and political stagecraft, but, really? The whole conflict of deception ignores the reality of nuclear disaster. It's the end. No water. No food. The end.
So, who are these wise men who march to the desert, again, to defeat, what? Mutual destruction? With teenagers? And a DRAFT? Who are these Brave Men? Marching off to IRAN! Why is an education so important?
BertieWooster
It's about time the US joined WA (Wars Anonymous), admitted that it is a warholic and started to seriously cut down.
SenseNotSoCommon
The author (according to the Reuters original, link below) is Bennet Ramberg, who has elsewhere written:
With Rumsfeld being put on a pedestal here, have we fallen into some hawkish neocon timewarp?
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-ramberg-phd/the-bombing-of-osirak-les_b_872538.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/26/why-the-u-s-may-still-have-to-go-to-war-against-iran/
Wakarimasen
Makes sense really. Once the will to fight the other Islamic factions wanes they will need a new demon to slay.
dcog9065
Accepting Iran as a nuclear power would lead to a few different conclusions: As they hold nuclear weapons, if they ever used them they could always be threatened with total nuclear annihilation as all nuclear powers understand, so the risks of using these weapons and even conventional weapons rises significantly once they are a nuclear power - perversely resulting in a possibly safer world.
However, the real question is whether humanity could survive any more nuclear weapon players than it already has..
sighclops
I highly recommend checking out this talk on Stuxnet:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon?language=en
Basically, a 'superweapon' virus was used to destroy one of Iran's secret enrichment facilities. Truly fascinating stuff.
Scrote
Saudi Arabia should be first in line for a good bombing if the US is desperate to start another war.
Spanki
Sounds like a great idea, what could possibly go wrong.... :-/
GalapagosnoGairaishu
Might as well bring back the military draft and go after North Korea while they're at it. With China and possibly Russia waiting in the wings. No doubt Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld would point out that the US had 15 million men and women under arms during WW2, and with its current population, 30 million should be easy.
nandakandamanda
Irresponsible journalism.
nandakandamanda
BB, not to defend the article in any way, but the auther does call it: "the nadir on the violence spectrum", ie the lowest of the low.
SenseNotSoCommon
It's murder, regardless of what euphemism is employed.
Moonraker
Such talk seems to be counter-productive. Talk of attack would surely harden resolve to create a defence, nuclear or otherwise, especially for a country that has seen the US lay waste to two of its neighbours, one on trumped-up charges of having WMDs. Of course, I am making the naive assumption that the US doesn't really want to have to attack Iran. There are probably hawkish factions who can't wait. And as with all targets of US bullying, Iran is considered not to have the right to self-defence. Preparations for that defence is paradoxically the reason to attack.
Commodore Shmidlap (Retired)
These neocon guys really want their war against Iran. I'm no fan of Iran but I'm wondering who pays the author to write this drivel. Probably someone with a real dog in the fight and a certain agenda. Hey, did you know the Pentagon built a gas station in Afghanistan and it only cost a measly 43 million dollars? I wonder how much we can get the US taxpayers on the hook for in Iran? Not to mention that one key ally we have over there that's also champing at the bit to have a go at Iran themselves.
WilliB
Katsu78:
Are we reading different articles? The article said nothing bout occupying/rebulding the country. And actually, I don´t know anybody who has ever talked about that. The issue is taking out the Iranien nuclear bomb facilities, which should have happened long ago. Now, it is probably too late. Anyway, don´t worry ... snowball`s chance in hell that Obama would do that.
What do you mean by "Iraq"? You mean Israels bombing of the Ozirak reactor, which successfully took out the Iraqi nuclear program? That did work, and it did not involve any occupation or rebuilding.
Iran is a playground for terrorists now, albeit not of the ISIS variety (ISIS is sunni). But ever since since Shah was overthrown by Khomeini, the Islamic republic has been a solid sponsor for terrorism.
bass4funk
You should be thankful without the US you wouldn't be enjoying you freedom to dissent like this. No one likes a war, but sometimes war is necessary to keep and ensure peace.
Not surprisingly, Add Obama's 20 Trillion to that and one can see how screwed we truly are.
And don't forget Obama's war....I mean, small skirmish or conflict...whatever euphemism the White House wants to call it these days, we'll pay beyond that.
So then why would Obama and Lurch be so stupid as to make this ludicrous deal with Iran knowing that this WILL lead to eventual conflict? Wait, let me guess....for his legacy, his Nobel....a seat next to Ellen or Fallon and to brag on The View?
Oh, dear Lord!
Kabukilover
The U.S. has way too many enemies. An attack on Iran, which is not bothering anyone, will simply create more enemies.
Meanwhile, Japan, stay out of this.
katsu78
Yes, that's rather my point. Any proposal for war must include a proposal for how to rebuild the defeated country after the war is finished.
I mean that the US and its allies fought a war against Iraq without giving a second thought on how to put the country back together afterwards, because they were more interested in showing off their sabers to the folks back home than in achieving strategic victories. And there has been instability for over a decade since.
Yeah, that's not exactly news. But let's not pretend for even a moment that the terrorism coming from Iran is remotely comparable to the death and destruction caused by ISIS/Daesh. Because it's not.
Laguna
Pointless drivel. Google the conditions of the snapback and you'll see that it is as failsafe as any international agreement could be. The only way it could fail is if international order completely breaks down - and in that scenario, Iran would be a very minor worry.
mukashiyokatta
Learn your lesson, already!! War does not solve anything.
bass4funk
If that were true, Israel would have been destroyed a long time ago, as well as the US.
Kabukilover
Since there is no byline, may we assume that this is Reuter's opinion? Rather low stuff for a supposed news agency.
RichardPearce
I wonder why the author isn't advocating the bombing of the Israeli nuclear weapons program? After all, the logic (the need to enforce the NNPT on rogue nuclear states) is the same, and unlike with the Iranian program (which the IAEA on site inspectors, and EVERY intelligence agency, even the Israeli ones, have determined to be a civilian nuclear energy and medical program in every aspect) no one, other than venal politicians, pretends the Israeli program is something other than a weapons program. Even better, the Israeli regime's nuclear weapons sites are well known (the Iranian nuclear weapons ones are as ephemeral as the Iraqi WMDs ready to launch, absolutely positively, conclusively somewhere, we are told, but never where the inspectors look, and look, and look) positively identified, and vulnerable to surgical air strikes and commando attacks if the radiation release from bombing the sites is determined to be to risky to the civilian population.
turbotsat
Because he's Bennett Ramberg? (Googling the first sentence turned up the article at blogs.reuter.com.)
Why would USA want to bomb Israel? Isn't that carrying fairness too far?
Doo-Bop
Yeah, the Iraqi nuclear program that was legit and Israel was condemned by the UN for attacking it. I agree with RichardPearce, if there is one nuclear facility that should be bombed, it's the Israeli one, but if anyone n Iran would mention that the entire western media and politicians would have a fit.
No, the US has nothing to do with us having freedom. If anything, the US seems to be working hard to take away these freedoms.
Most of the countries at war now were in peace before the US stuck its nose in them and stirred things up. The US is responsible for the lack of peace.