ISIS can unify the Muslim world. It is hacking through great swathes of land without an air force, in the face of coalition air attacks. The Shiites are like Islam's Mormons. They will never be accepted as mainstream Muslims. Apart from Iran's nukes, Shiites are a nit (10%, at best of the world's Muslim population). Sunnis already have nukes (Pakistan), but no Sunni country has ever threatened to nuke Israel. What Obama needs to do is erase Iran's air force and institute a no-fly zone over the country that periodically rubbles any suspicious installations. But he won't do that because he's a dove. (GWB did not do it because he would have been impeached by Democratic majorities in both chambers). And that is why Iran will get its nukes.
Given Iran's inability to rein in ISIS, both in Iraq and Syria, I suspect even it, too, is vulnerable to conquest by ISIS. The long-term risk is that ISIS conquers Iran and Pakistan, thereby getting its long-sought nukes, in addition to the Gulf kingdoms, whose populations are far more radical than their current fun-loving moderate rulers (who make a show of public piety while drinking and whoring their way through the lands of the infidel), and therefore more than ready to join ISIS.
OK but back to your WWII analogy? Which side should we be backing? Which is the greater threat, ISIS or Iran?
You seem to be saying that it’s alright to temporarily team up with a less than savory group short term in order to ward off a more immediate and/or greater threat.
And we ARE taking sides. We have been taking sides. We supported the Shia in Iraq. Are you suggesting we have been (strategically) supporting the wrong side? There is another article up on FR right now claiming that we are teaming up with Iran to go after ISIS. So which group is (strategically) the best one to team up with right now?
I tend to think neither one. But I’m trying to work within your WWII analogy. If we go with your analogy we should be supporting ISIS (and indeed it seems the Obama admin has been arming and training them in Syria).
Now we seem to be asking our military to risk their lives to fight ISIS which evidence is starting to suggest we armed and trained in Syria and Libya.
Others think our military should start a war with Iran to pre-empt nuclear capability.
My question, which I think is more than valid, is WHY are we supporting or teaming up with either side? Why are we there? What is our objective? For what are we asking our military to fight and die for over there.
If it’s national defense, then the only ones close to threatening that on a large scale right now is Iran. We can and should, of course, be stopping any terrorist group who is planning an attack on our home soil. But that’s not what we have been doing over there in Iraq. We’ve been setting up one group of Muslims to dominate over another group of Muslims. How is this 1) our business or 2) in our strategic best interest?