America would lose on both counts.
So, I’m supposed to believe a couple beta males at The National Interest are end-all experts on foreign affairs Ave national security?
Sorry stopped reading right there. That is such a .B.S. statement that I won't continue on. But seriously, President Trump is not, let me repeat, NOT, going to get the U.S. into a war with Iran, PERIOD!!!! But he will get extremely tough on Iran with massive sanctions.
Farcesensitive
Since Jun 27, 2019
Any attack on Iran would be far too costly and only end up benefiting Al Qaeda and ISIS among other groups far worse than Iran.
America would lose on both counts.
Really? You would prefer Iran with Nukes?
The 23 Oct 1983 account needs to be paid.
While I agree that attacking Iran would be a disaster these guys’ reasoning is up in the night. Iran is conservative? Jihad is conservative? Funding suicide bombers is conservative? Lol!
I support a surgical attack on Iran. Destroy the regime. Destroy their entire nuclear enrichment system. Destroy their missile delivery system.
The many Iranian attacks against the U.S.A. were acts of insanity. An attack on Iran would be an act of self-defense.
How much did the ruling Iranian mullahs pay these two clowns - Robert Gaines & Scott Horton - to write this propaganda piece?
If so, this is a battle we will fight or pay for mightily in the future. We should have decapitated them 15-20 years ago. Screw the nation building or occupation, take out the theocracy and let them figure it out afterwards...
Who wrote that article?
If iran attacks the US, or an ally, then military action is appropriate. They already hate us. muzz’s in the area already hate us.
But they won’t, as long as Trump is pres. However, if wuss-face from South Bend, or any other dem is elected, iran will try something because nothing will be done to counter it.
This doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
Our Israeli allies took care of the Iraq reactor. I see no reason they couldn’t do the same to Iran.
Not necessarily. Unconventional attacks done with intent of “plausible deniability” could cripple Iran, yet leave no evidence of US involvement.
For example, Iran is very reliant for water and power on its many hydroelectric dams. Were we to pop a few of these dams with Russian or Chinese made weapons, while they would still blame the US, international investigators would have to conclude that the attacks were from an indeterminate source.
And such dams are often on a chain on a river, so when the highest one goes, it takes two or three others with it. This happened many years ago in Soviet Georgia.
It will eventually happen.
And in all likelihood Israel will be the one to pull it off.
They’ll destroy every bridge and dam in the country and fry their electric grid with EMP. Once the Ayatollahs have to worry about feeding 80 million people they’ll have no time left for mischief.
“Any attack on Iran would be far too costly and only end up benefiting Al Qaeda and ISIS among other groups far worse than Iran.”
What would be the cost of an Iranian built nuclear device being exploded in or above the USA? Incalculable? The Iranian government routinely threatens the USA with total destruction. Iran is our SWORN enemy.
How are small groups such a ISIS & Al Qaeda far worse than a nuclear armed, ballistic missile capable nation with billions of dollars in assets, determined to destroy the USA & Israel? Which do you fear more: A charging chihuahua or a charging bear?
How does killing one rabid dog benefit another rabid dog? Nonsense.
If FDR had said the same thing - substituting Germany/Japan for Iran & ISIS/Al Qaeda for the USSR - the world would now be a far worse place to live.
“Iran is a conservative state in a region otherwise awash in radicalism.”
Really can’t get beyond that idiocy, so did not read any further.