Posted on 09/20/2019 5:01:01 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
A strategy paying dividends
Ultimately, Irans summer brinkmanship paid off. First, Tehran demonstrated that it poses a highly credible military threat to the Strait of Hormuz. Second, it exposed Trumps extreme reticence about engulfing the United States in another Middle Eastern war. Third, rather than bring European powers closer to the U.S. sanctions strategy on Iran, Tehrans threat to commerce in one of the worlds busiest shipping lanes sent the Elysee into a diplomatic frenzy, paving the way for Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarifs surprise visit to the G-7 in Biarritz to discuss a French proposal for a $15 billion oil-backed credit line. Fourth, it laid bare the growing skittishness of Trumps Gulf supporters, who have a lot to lose from an actual war in the Persian Gulf.
And fifth, the United States struggle to cobble together a maritime coalition to deter Iranian tanker attacks exposed the diplomatic cost of the White Houses unilateral policies on Iran: Only Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom have joined the U.S.-led mission. Japan, for one, says it will run its own patrols in the Bab el-Mandeb strait between Yemen and Djibouti as part of anti-piracy missions, while India is conducting independent patrols. And before Boris Johnson became British prime minister, London boldly said it would launch a European-led mission apart from the U.S.-led undertaking; Johnson has since reversed course to join Washington, but European defense chiefs are still debating an EU-only coalition.
But regardless of which country is part of which mission, there are simply too many vessels transiting the narrow Strait of Hormuz and not enough military escorts to prevent Iran from launching further attacks. In other words, the United States (and its allies) are still faced with a massive dilemma in trying to deter the Islamic republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Wrong. The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the President that power.
It's basic commonsense that President has to have the power to act to an immediate threat.
This is not an immediate threat. Not even close.
But, you're the guy that thinks the Iranians should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Its not up to me or my country what other countries should be allowed to do.
Thats a formula for perpetual war, and our people are sick of it.
Iran is a direct threat to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. If Iran has to be neutralized those countries have the means to do so.
That is precisely Valerie Jarrett said. And, that sure as hell is not what I voted for.
It's beyond ridiculous to let a country like Iran, which would use nukes without provocation, to have such power.
Literally, your position is no different than the far left. And, just like with "compassionate conservatism", that mentality would destroy the Republican party if Iran killed thousands of Americans because of it.
Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?
Republicans/leaners: 60% yes. Democrats/leaners: 68% no.
If they kill Americans, we have an obligation to retaliate.
Did you favor Obama's deal with Iran or was too tough on Iran to you?
President is commander in chief.
Iran will use the nuclear weapons and give other countries the weapons to use.
Trump needs to stop Iran and jail the obamas and clintons and the other crooks or our way of life is over.
they kill Americans, we have an obligation to retaliate
Correct.
And if they dont?
President is commander in chief
And who raises the Army and provides for the Navy?
Why did Congress find it necessary to direct FDR to use the Army and the Navy to wage war against Japan?
“Which every President has used since 1973.”
Which every president has ignored since 1973 since the war powers act does not stop the president from dispatching troops into combat. It only makes it required for a 48 hour warning and they will not stay for more than the allotted time. It’s a loophole. Vietnam, Kosovo, Korea...and many more locations have had our boots on the ground and/or birds in the air dropping without congressional approval. So there is nothing in the Constitution to stop a president from sending troops into combat. Only how long they can stay.
And over the past 30 years that has been ignored also. They even have been awarding medals for service. For Iraq, they created the Iraq Service Medal during the Bush administration. They also awarded purple hearts to injured soldiers during non-war declared scenarios along with other decorations. So these campaigns not under war conditions have been turned into war conditions by executive order as far back as 1984. So the thinking is that if it is shot at you, it is a war.
rwood
We don't have to wait for the Iranians to use nuclear weapons if they obtain them because those running Iran are crazy enough to use them without provocation.
Thank you.
Problem is if they (the real bad guys) kinda, sorta help facilitate Americans getting killed, they can count on people with this mindset to believe in this "obligation to retaliate".
It gives a lot of license to do a lot of bad things that make a small amount of people very rich and does untold damage.
Our problems are right here in the lower 48. As it stands we are turning into a Brazil/South Africa hybrid with a lot of capabilities a Brazil should never have.
Sorry, it's the truth.
The president is destroying Iran with out firing a shot
Iran can’t retaliate effectively
Iran is losing.....big time
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.