Posted on 09/24/2005 1:58:40 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
Is Iran next? As the United States and Europe huff and puff about the country's nuclear ambitions and threaten to report it to the UN security council, we might be forgiven for experiencing a sense of deja vu. But is Iran really on the brink of developing a nuclear weapons programme, or is it simply bluffing and sabre-rattling?
We can hazard a guess, but the fact is that we simply don't know. Confronted with cases like these, lawyers tend to take refuge in the canons of international law and journalists tend to flatter themselves that everything can be traced to hidden agendas and smoking guns. Social scientists, on the other hand, have traditionally taken a more considered approach. Nuclear brinkmanship, according to theorists of decision-making, is no more than a game of risk, one in which we weigh the risks of doing nothing against the risks of applying greater political and military pressure.
That was until the precautionary principle came along. The precautionary principle started life on the fringes of the environmental movement in the 1970s as a way of nipping potential harm in the bud. Rather than arriving at a decision by weighing the risks against the likelihood of their occurrence, the precautionary principle ranks alternative courses of action by their worst possible outcome in order to make its decision. Put bluntly, it prefers to play safe. It evolved from its humble origins on the fringes of the environmental movement to other areas of social policy, and by the early 21st century, the principle - even if it didn't dare speak its name - had exploded into a doctrine to justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. What the precautionary principle brings to foreign policy is the idea that if we are not sure about the arsenal and intentions of rogue states and there is a danger of a nuclear catastrophe, we are perfectly justified in having recourse to military preventive action.
Donald Rumsfeld's ominous declaration about the "unknown unknowns" in dealing with the Iraqi nuclear threat is not as risible as his critics make out, but is hugely and silently indebted to the idea of the precautionary principle. Likewise, Tony Blair's post-facto admission that he was right to wage war on Iraq given the information available to him at the time is perfectly consistent with his application of the precautionary principle.
The same principle, sadly, can just as easily be said to apply to Iran. At least for anti-war environmentalists, the moral of the story is to handle principles with care. Without proper training - and a little like weapons of mass destruction - they are likely to blow up in your face.
"But is Iran really on the brink of developing a nuclear weapons programme, or is it simply bluffing and sabre-rattling?"
I believe that question can be answered if they ask the Israelis.
Forgive my ignorance of Social Science, but what, exactly, is the difference between " the risks of applying greater political and military pressure" and when there is "a danger of a nuclear catastrophe, we are perfectly justified in having recourse to military preventive action"?
But the question now is "Are We Capable of another War with a country like Iran"?
Andrew Sullivan is a flaming idiot
Yes. You are a pilot. You know we can do it, question is SHOULD we do it right now? Pretty much means China and NK can do what ever they want cause we will not have the force for a fourth military problem without scrapeing one of the 1st two to the bone. Don't forget we still have to keep an eye on Afganistan right now. NATO is starting to take on some more of the burden but we aren't home yet.
Russia and China could go along with taking Iran's 4 million barrels / day off the world market, especially if they can arrange to import it via pipeline northwards themselves, and then "rotate" Russian crude to China and Europe.
This will keep up their own energy supplies and economies, while putting crude prices in the US and Japan up over $100/barrel.
Change has to come from within concerning Iran. IMHO, we should not expend ground troops into taking them out. Just sending in lots of cruise missiles and or taking out their airforce as they attempted to knock down a superior US Navy/Airforce air campaign to eliminate all their military ground offenses, e.g. SAM sites etc., still require at least a full Division or more of US soldiers/SF/airborne/Marines to go in and secure the country and set up things for some form of democratic type takeover. The congress is not going to give the POTUS a go ahead on that type of venture. We must face the realities of things concerning Iran. They do, that is why they continue to posture themselves as they do.
Really? The Germans did that?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
I agree with you. Sending our troops would probably be unnecessary.
Anti-Mullah Iranians are pro-West, aren't they?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
agreed!
"Anti-Mullah Iranians are pro-West, aren't they?"
Based on the Iranina blog sites and various articles we continue to read from somewhat conservative oriented journalist and think tanks, yes. Even lib papers have commented in recent years about more Iranians simply wanting an end to theocracy. Many know how well the westernized nations live, and want the same. They want a free will to worship as they choice, and freedom from such a represive police state the 50 Mullahs control via. a government that is proped up to appear somewhat democratic in nature.
I believe the long term Bush Doctrine to surround Iran, a correct overall plan to deal with Iran once and for all, after other smaller problems were cleaned up. This doctrine could obviously never be stated, in part due to the obstructionist appeasing liberals, whom are already acting up.
The likelihood of deceive action against nuclear Iran seems to fit the timetable of mid-winter. If we wait much longer the Iranians will gain the upper hand.
Oil prices will assuredly soar to beyond the imagined but if the mullahs are allowed to nuke cities high energy prices won't really matter if one is at the mullah's ground zero.
Once Iranian issue is settled, the whole mideast will be calm and peaceful!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.