If you think I'm a disciple of Chamberlain, you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm simply stating that we shouldn't be so quick to go to war just because someone's beliefs make them think we should. Iran already does pretty much as they please. Syria is already in their pocket. Lebanon and Iraq are chaos incarnate. Jordan is fairly independent and Turkey is as well. Turkey won't even concede ground to the Kurds, and you think they would for Iranians? You have to remember that beneath the surface level nomenclature, they're still the Ottomans, Persians, Arabs, etc., all of whom hate each other as an institutionalized form of tribalism. On the surface they all seem united because of their shared enemy Israel. Take that away and they're right back to petty backbiting over who will control the prized piece of the pie.
Regardless, you've still not made a case for Israel having any strategic value. If any major threat to the entire region came into being, I can assure you that the U.S. could and should project diplomacy and if necessary, force to protect our interests. Iran is not currently that threat. Even a nuclear equipped Iran will still fall to the United States in any form of warfare, nuclear or otherwise. As crazy as the Iranians are, North Korea is far crazier and nuclear Pakistan is a powder keg with the fuse waiting to be lit. Iran is like Cuba. We've institutionalized our loathing of them in the form of diplomatic policy. They aren't even remotely our most eminent threat. The time and resources we expend on them is all out of proportion, due to some narrow special interest groups that push those policies. Were we to logically analyze our foreign policy, we might come to the conclusion that our enmity with Iran is counter productive, for both nations and the world at large.
BTW, this is coming from someone who's personally been shot at by Iran. 1988 was an interesting year.
Last edited:
