They've flourished since 1979 and we have not lifted a finger against them. You can think what you want obviously, but the schmucks in charge over there know the US a lot better than you do.
Exactly. This is why Rand has no idea what he’s talking about. Iran is continuing to pursue nukes precisely because they DON’T feel threatened. Khaddafi felt threatened, and that’s why he gave his nuke program up.
The implication that Iran would be less belligerent if the US left them alone isn’t just silly, it’s dangerous. They’ll feel emboldened to develop nuclear weapons and embark on a quest to dominate the region militarily and gain de facto control of the Persian Gulf oil supply. Also, the loss of the American nuclear umbrella will mean that the Saudis and Turks WILL feel threatened and will either bandwagon with the Iranians or pursue their own nuclear program. Either way, things get a lot more dangerous for everyone.
It’s easy for isolationists like the Pauls and Buchanans of the world to blame the US for making the world more dangerous, but the truth is quite the opposite. What peace there is in the world is a direct consequence of America’s armed strength and her willingness to use it. You can argue that we could have used it more judiciously or effectively over the last 10 or even 60 years (I certainly have), but to argue that it has caused rather than deterred dangerous conflict in the world is just to ignore history.
Agreed. It was a statement of desire, not fact.