Every Sunday I open the editorial page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and read Charles Krauthammer's column. Usually I snicker as Charles snipes about President Obama or some political item on his mind.

Today I was treated to something else entirely. Krauthammer writes on the Iran nuclear issue and does so in a way which really made me think about their intentions and the consequences of what they might do. There were no mentions of either political party, just a contrast of how mutual assured destruction kept the U.S and the Soviets at bay during the cold war and how that policy cannot work in today's world. It certainly made me rethink my position on Iran and what needs to be done to prevent them from developing even one nuke, as that would be all it would take to completely and permanently eliminate Israel.

In my opinion, this is one of the finest columns Krauthammer has ever written. That's saying a lot, because I usually look at his writing as puppet pieces for the extreme right wing. Any comments?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/charles-krauthammer/charles-krauthammer-the-deterrence-works-fantasy/article_f640704a-6b45-5843-ae90-2bd950048a91.html

He makes a lot of good points. However, it's not clear to me that Krauthammer's preference, pre-emptive military strike by Israel, is the solution. Even Gen. Martin Dempsey, our highest ranking military officer, believes that a pre-emptive military strike will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb and will only drive their program more underground. So, I don't know what the answer is.

I guess it is just a matter on how true they are to their faith as the Supreme Ruler has stated that Iran using a nuke would be an unforgivable sin and against Islam. I don't see the point in arguing this. After the next election the war will begin no matter who wins.

Stupid article. Neocons never learn.

Krauthammer is right. Mutual Assured Destruction cannot work when one side is attached to a radical, suicidal ideology.

As for the best option with Iran, I'm not sure what that is. The Israelis can handle their problems just fine, but this isn't 1967 anymore, and who knows what the domino consequences might be.

jhay78;1260457 wrote: when one side is attached to a radical, suicidal ideology.

LOL. yeah, Iranians all want to die.

Footwedge;1260532 wrote:LOL. yeah, Iranians all want to die.

Not all...But their radical, hard-core Islamic leadership seems to have a death wish. Nice twist though.

Someone with some brains. Nice.

believer;1260577 wrote:Not all...But their radical, hard-core Islamic leadership seems to have a death wish. Nice twist though.

The radical, hard-care Islamic leadership that the Iranians attempted to overthrow in 2009...

believer;1260577 wrote:Not all...But their radical, hard-core Islamic leadership seems to have a death wish. Nice twist though.

Those radical, hard core Islamic leadership have started exactly zero wars in 200 years. How many wars has Israel started in their 68 year history? But Iranians all want to die. Yeah, OK. The reason why Israel is so offensive minded is that they know their history....a history whereby their own prime ministers were full blown, acknowledged terrorists. As in blowing people up. People who actually walked the walk...vs talked the talk.

A letter from Albert Eistein to the New York Times decrying the fascist, terrorist activities of Menachin Begin. Why we allign with these people is beyond me. The massacre of hundreds of women and children at Deir Yassin is a disgrace. But one of hundreds.

Yet, we continue to fund their military coiffers as if we actually owe them something.

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_orig.html

1. Krauthammer is an writer for the Post, and here is the original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/nationals-vs-cardinals-stephen-strasburg-sparkles-as-washington-holds-off-st-louis-4-3/2012/09/02/ee5e9c7c-f534-11e1-aab7-f199a16396cf_story.html

2. I agree this is one of the best articles in a long time. It ushers back to the days when he was an academic writing in International Relations journals and publications.

3. I agree completely that the nature of deterrence is different with Iran and Israel and the USSR and U.S. The two cannot be compared. Two different circumstances.

4. However, Iran (if they obtain nukes) and Israel can be compared to two other states that do not feel each other should exist, one has better technology, and the other has a regime that is sketchy at best: India and Pakistan.
Both states believe the other should not exist, both have nukes, yet both have not launched a wide scale war since 1999.
That said, it is still near the edge constantly, and could head to a nuke confrontation at any minute.
That is usually the comparison made when speaking of whether of not Iran can be deterred.

5. The administration has stated it is not looking at deterrence factors. But, they sort of are, in throwing a ton of military aid, and missile defense components to the Gulf States. The U.S. is creating an informal missile defense network with PAC-3 missiles, X-band radars, and Aegis ships in the Gulf. Also, with more naval weapons. Also, the U.S. is paying for Israel's Iron Dome, and David's Sling missile defense systems.
Add to that, the U.S. is adding a ton of mine ships, cruisers, and another Carrier to the regime. And the Naval base at Bahrain is growing tremendously.

6. Iran has a history of provoking and then backing off, whether it is in Lebanon, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, they provoke and then decide to pull back once the fires get too hot. If the nature of the regime is threatened, it will decide to pull back. Plus, if the straits are closed or threatened to be closed, it hurts the regime as well, and they will pull back as a result.

7. Bottom line, it was a nice article to see, a breath of fresh air in the ton of crap lately. But, I think a better comparison would be to compare deterrence with Iran and Israel and Pakistan and India.

Footwedge;1260595 wrote:Those radical, hard core Islamic leadership have started exactly zero wars in 200 years. How many wars has Israel started in their 68 year history? But Iranians all want to die. Yeah, OK. The reason why Israel is so offensive minded is that they know their history....a history whereby their own prime ministers were full blown, acknowledged terrorists. As in blowing people up. People who actually walked the walk...vs talked the talk.

Perhaps not started traditional wars, but they have influenced several namely:
The 1979 Shia attack at the Kabba in Saudi Arabia
The open support of Hezbollah in the Lebanese Civil War, and continued to support till today
Continued support for Hamas
Support for the insurgents in Iran in 2006-2012
Support for the Syrian regime currently during the Syrian civil war.

ptown_trojans_1;1260626 wrote:Perhaps not started traditional wars, but they have influenced several namely:
The 1979 Shia attack at the Kabba in Saudi Arabia
The open support of Hezbollah in the Lebanese Civil War, and continued to support till today
Continued support for Hamas
Support for the insurgents in Iran in 2006-2012
Support for the Syrian regime currently during the Syrian civil war.

Iran is certainly an antagonist at the very least.

To Footwdege, I'm not naive enough to believe that Israel is innocent by any stretch, but in all fairness, the Israelis have had nukes for decades and have never - to my knowledge - threatened to use them to "eradicate" any of their clearly hostile neighbors.

Yet not only has the state of Israel been attacked continually since they were granted statehood, but the Israeli people have been attacked and persecuted by the millions over centuries - well - thousands of years.

Their tactics may not always be politically correct, but I can certainly empathize with their "no bullshit" approach to foreign policy.

It's pretty obvious to me that Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuke development on their own. They would need big-time support from us to do it right. The problem, as I see it, is how do we contain the political (and military) fallout? It would take a massive strike, and it would have to be on a very large scale to ensure success, with many civilian casualties. Many of the bad guys in the world (Russia, North Korea and the terrorists) would condemn our actions. The free world powers (Britain and the others) may be silent but support us behind the scenes. I just don't know. I really believe that we would only go in with Israel if it were the last resort, if Iran were days away from a weapon.

ptown_trojans_1;1260626 wrote:Perhaps not started traditional wars, but they have influenced several namely:
The 1979 Shia attack at the Kabba in Saudi Arabia
The open support of Hezbollah in the Lebanese Civil War, and continued to support till today
Continued support for Hamas
Support for the insurgents in Iran in 2006-2012
Support for the Syrian regime currently during the Syrian civil war.

Whereby it is true the mullahs need to keep their effin mouths shut, the fact remains they have not started any wars over there. Backing organizations through money or munitions is not the same thing...at all.

You claim that they back Hamas and Hezbollah....so? We back the other terrorists in the region. Before Israel was granted statehood, Irgun, Lehi, and the Stern Group countered British apartheid policies by doing the exact same thing as the PLO did under Arafat. Since statehood, the Israeli Zionist rule have promoted a system of unequal rights, based on religion. A caste system if you will. The majority of Israeli citizens want nothing to do with war. They really don't. And they could care less what Iran's government does.

But, as with other pro military states, the nationalists rule the roost...and the citizens ultimately lose.

As for the India/Pakistan situation, you better believe that the mutual total destruction has kept peace over there between the two. If Iran would somehow develop nukes, the entire region would be a lot safer...for all of the reasons listed above. but....as of today...according the IAEA and our own intelligence agencies, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

believer;1260659 wrote:Iran is certainly an antagonist at the very least.

To Footwdege, I'm not naive enough to believe that Israel is innocent by any stretch, but in all fairness, the Israelis have had nukes for decades and have never - to my knowledge - threatened to use them to "eradicate" any of their clearly hostile neighbors.

Yet not only has the state of Israel been attacked continually since they were granted statehood, but the Israeli people have been attacked and persecuted by the millions over centuries - well - thousands of years.

Their tactics may not always be politically correct, but I can certainly empathize with their "no bullshit" approach to foreign policy.

You have a very one sided view of what the ME is....and what it isn't. Israel has implemented the exact same foreign policies that their people decried for millenia.

Does it bother you in the least that Menachin Begin, a true terrorist, was the prime minister? Does it bother you that Einstein and a whole host of rabbis wrote a letter to the Times that Begin's agenda was not at all dissimilar to Musolini? Hitler? And other fascists? That ethnic cleansing was OK?

The American view of history since 1947 is quite remarkable.

What if Israel, after being granted statehood, ran a true democracy without all the descriminatory policies towards others, in particular, Palestinians? Do you think that Israel would have a target on their back had they done so?

stlouiedipalma;1260703 wrote:It's pretty obvious to me that Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuke development on their own. They would need big-time support from us to do it right. The problem, as I see it, is how do we contain the political (and military) fallout? It would take a massive strike, and it would have to be on a very large scale to ensure success, with many civilian casualties. Many of the bad guys in the world (Russia, North Korea and the terrorists) would condemn our actions. The free world powers (Britain and the others) may be silent but support us behind the scenes. I just don't know. I really believe that we would only go in with Israel if it were the last resort, if Iran were days away from a weapon.

How is Russia the bad guy here? North Korea? N. Korea is capable of doing exactly nothing. But.....an attack by Israel could lead to a whole pile of really bad things. Gas prices at 7 bucks a gallon at the very least....and possibly a third world war at the other end.

Footwedge;1260716 wrote:What if Israel, after being granted statehood, ran a true democracy without all the descriminatory policies towards others, in particular, Palestinians? Do you think that Israel would have a target on their back had they done so?

Absolutely. They are Jews not Muslims.

believer;1260833 wrote:Absolutely. They are Jews not Muslims.

But in Footie's dream world, the Muslims are nice guys who have been picked on by the Jews.

Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted by just about everyone at one time or another. Goes way back before there was a Jewish state, too. Can you fault them for feeling threatened?

Footwedge;1260707 wrote:
You claim that they back Hamas and Hezbollah....so? We back the other terrorists in the region. Before Israel was granted statehood, Irgun, Lehi, and the Stern Group countered British apartheid policies by doing the exact same thing as the PLO did under Arafat. Since statehood, the Israeli Zionist rule have promoted a system of unequal rights, based on religion. A caste system if you will. The majority of Israeli citizens want nothing to do with war. They really don't. And they could care less what Iran's government does.

Just because we may have done it, does not make a good policy. Iran is wrong to do that, and is in the most cases inciting instability in the region. The one thing that unites Sunnis and Israelis are Iran.

As for the India/Pakistan situation, you better believe that the mutual total destruction has kept peace over there between the two. If Iran would somehow develop nukes, the entire region would be a lot safer...for all of the reasons listed above. but....as of today...according the IAEA and our own intelligence agencies, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

It is a really, really, really uneasy peace, and not a great example. It is the most likely place for a nuclear conflict, and is not a good situation to model after. Iran not having a nuclear weapon and not putting the world in that situation is the best. Hell, Pakistan keeps its nukes on hair trigger alert, and is not exactly in the best of safe keeping.

Is Israel wrong to have nukes, and not tell the world, yes, but neither should Iran pursue nukes. I do not want to live in a world where even the slim possibility of a nuclear exchange occurs.

superman;1260879 wrote:But in Footie's dream world, the Muslims are nice guys who have been picked on by the Jews.

Not a dream world at all. The Zionist regime have killed wayyy more Muslims than have Muslims killed Israelis in my lifetime. Look it up. The only dreamworld out there is the one sided view on the ME that the American media would have you believe.

Most Muslims are nice guys. I know several here in the states, mainly doctors. I know some Jews too. Jews are the funniest people I know...and I say that in a very positive way.

It's not the people dude....it's the statists that pound their puds to the drumbeat of war....from both sides.

So tell me....if you were born in Iran, what religion would you be following? How about you, Believer?

I guess if you were born there you would be described as slimeballs by us Americans, eh?

ptown_trojans_1;1260926 wrote:Just because we may have done it, does not make a good policy. Iran is wrong to do that, and is in the most cases inciting instability in the region. The one thing that unites Sunnis and Israelis are Iran.

American exceptionalism at it's finest folks. Do as we say, not as we do. Is that it?

It is a really, really, really uneasy peace, and not a great example. It is the most likely place for a nuclear conflict, and is not a good situation to model after. Iran not having a nuclear weapon and not putting the world in that situation is the best. Hell, Pakistan keeps its nukes on hair trigger alert, and is not exactly in the best of safe keeping

Everyone has a their nukes on hair trigger. You never replied to:

A. The AIEA states Iran is not making nuclear grade uranium, and
B. All of our agencies are on public record that Iran is not making nuclear grade uranium.

Yet, a war with Iran is A-OK, inspite of all the negative ramifications of such a war. WWI was started with a single bullet to the noggin of some political leader. I just wonder if China and Russia will sit this one out knowing that the US bankrolled Israel in a military strike on a country that have no WMD...for a second time...in less than a decade. Oh, I forgot, they are just Muslims, my bad.

Is Israel wrong to have nukes, and not tell the world, yes, but neither should Iran pursue nukes. I do not want to live in a world where even the slim possibility of a nuclear exchange occurs.

Two things....the world already knows that Israel has nukes...about 200 at last count. But again, show me some evidence...any evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes. You're in the defense department, right? All the declassified reports from our intel say they are not pursuing them.

stlouiedipalma;1260924 wrote:Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted by just about everyone at one time or another. Goes way back before there was a Jewish state, too. Can you fault them for feeling threatened?

They were given reparations after WWII and rightfully so. The state of Isreal was granted after the war. A whole pile of Jews including men of the Jewish cloth and that dumbass Einstein thought that they could set the bar a little bit differently in how they handled their new found homeland. But they chose to be assholes instead.

And Believer is wrong regarding who has been the war aggressor. Israel has started more wars than their neighbors have. Israel defied the generosity granted them by brutally capturing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Golan Heights...areas that they had no right in attacking. There were other settlement sights taken as well.

Funny behavior in my view for a country to practice barbarism after they lost 6 million of their own through similar brutality I would think.