Former CIA Chief Michael Hayden says a United States military strike against Iran “seems inexorable” because diplomacy is failing.
Diplomacy is failing because the other side has no interest in diplomacy except as a means to keep the West off their back until their nuclear programs are completed.
Who wrote this? John Lee Hooker?
It’s not that there aren’t legitimate American interests in various parts of the globe. The problem is that we never go in to “win”.
We worry more about our image and our enemies casualties than ourselves.
I would die for my country, but not for some BS political excercise.
Wow - I didn't know anybody actually still believed that report.
“inexorable”? Someone has been bitten by a Thesaurus.
So what’s Boom Boom’s advice in this article? End Empire America and kick Mexico’s butt? Then what? Nation build in Mexico? Put them all on the health care system? It’s the same old assumption that without troops overseas and the military industrial complex nobody will be mad at us or try to take advantage of us. Oh yeah and we won’t need anyone else because we built windmills or something? This seems to push the same old anti-war buttons without much of a serious plan about how to get there.
Nothing like a military strike to stir-up some pro-American support for the President just before the mid-term elections. Another October surprise. Will the voters go for it? Just wondering...
Maybe this will be timed to go with the mortgage foregiveness/restructuring surprise as a way to buy some support for this flagging Administration.
Never let democrats lead you into a war. Never.
And you believe that, Mr. Livingston?
But there’s a marxist mulsim apologist in the White House.
Fizzle. Fizzle. Fizzle.
This is nothing but an anti-military liberal blog. Hardly news, much less breaking news.
So why did we take out Iraq who was the enemy of Iran? FUBAR
BOOM BOOM BOOM!
No, Americans are growing sick of wars that we refuse to fight to win because of the political class' cynical political calculations.
After 9/11, we should have followed Ann Coulter's advice: 'invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity', in other words, a new Crusade.
But instead, we went shopping, while a brave warrior class took the fight to the enemy (whose animating ideology was described by our leaders as a 'Religion of Peace'). And we allowed the Leftist 5th column (and some fellow travelers on the Paleo Right) to spread their 'anti-war' (really anti-American) propaganda to undermine the troops' effort (as they did so successfully in Vietnam).
So that's what Americans are truly growing sick of. Fight to win, or get out.
Q: How will a medium sized nuclear war happen?
A: Israel is attacked with at least one nuclear missile, and retaliates not just against the offending country, but a group of others, all of whom at one point or another threatened to destroy Israel. Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons.
Q: Why should the US care?
A: Because of a fluke in planetary weather, the jet stream has a downdraft right over the middle of America. A medium sized nuclear exchange in the Middle East will contaminate much of America’s breadbasket.
Q: Why should the US participate in keeping a war non nuclear?
A: Because Israel is *not* Iran’s primary goal. Its primary goal is to persuade or induce the United States to leave the Middle East for good. This is because Iran believe it would become the dominant regional power. Many in Iran think that without US support, Israel will just quickly wither away. Some in Iran even hold to the fantasy of creating a “Shiite Crescent”, from Pakistan to Lebanon.
For this reason, once Iran has nuclear missiles, US aircraft carrier groups are their primary target.
Fourth Turning - Crisis (The 4th of 4 eras in saeculum history that we are currently in the early stages of. - OB1)
A CRISIS arises in response to sudden threats that previously would have been ignored or deferred, but which are now perceived as dire. Great worldly perils boil off the clutter and complexity of life, leaving behind one simple imperative: The society must prevail. This requires a solid public consensus, aggressive institutions, and personal sacrifice.
People support new efforts to wield public authority, whose perceived successes soon justify more of the same. Government governs, community obstacles are removed, and laws and customs that resisted change for decades are swiftly shunted aside. A grim preoccupation with civic peril causes spiritual curiosity to decline. A sense of public urgency contributes to a clampdown on “bad” conduct or “anti-social” lifestyles. People begin feeling shameful about what they earlier did to absolve guilt. Public order tightens, private risk-taking abates, and crime and substance abuse decline. Families strengthen, gender distinctions widen, and child-rearing reaches a smothering degree of protection and structure. The young focus their energy on worldly achievements, leaving values in the hands of the old. Wars are fought with fury and for maximum result.
Eventually, the mood transforms into one of exhaustion, relief, and optimism. Buoyed by a new-born faith in the group and in authority, leaders plan, people hope, and a society yearns for good and simple things.
Today’s older Americans recognize this as the mood of the Great Depression and World War II, but a similar mood has been present in all the other great gates of our history, from the Civil War and Revolution back into colonial and English history.
Recall America’s conception of the future during the darkest years of its last Crisis: From “Somewhere over the Rainbow” to the glimmering Futurama at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, people felt hope, determination, and a solid consensus about where society should go: toward spiritual simplicity (home and apple pie) and material abundance (bigger, better, and more homes and pies). All this seemed within reach, conditioned on a triumph that demanded unity from all, sacrifices from many.
...from The Fourth Turning (Chapter 4)
ran’s nuclear program is quite open. They are enriching uranium past the point needed for civilian uses. They refused an offer of cheap refined uranium that would be under Russian control. They are openly developing ICBMs.
Nothing would guarantee WWIII more than Iranian nukes. It has already lead to Saudi and Egyptian nuclear programs.
And with multiple nuclear nations in the region, it just Tel Aviv that is toast, NYC and DC are too. It suddenly becomes rational for Iran to nuke us using Hizbollah. They can rationally believe that tracing the bomb would be difficult and given the uncertainties we would not retaliate.
In turn, this would lead to a massive nuclear war.
And putting aside the threat to the US, Iran would gladly use Hizbollah to nuke Israel. This would also lead to theater wide nuclear war.
But the truth is worse. Iran is not a rational country. President Rafsanjani made this clear years ago when he said
“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”
And this doesn’t even begin to deal with the idea of the Twelvers who think that the Mahdi will come only when the Islamic world is purified by fire. Some of them think a nuclear exchange would be a precursor to their bloody messianic era.
So the issues is not whether war, but when. It is far more moral to act now, when casualties would be low.