Why put an attack on Iran back on the table?
Foreign Policy / Marc Lynch
19-Jul-2010 (4 comments)

There's been a mini-boomlet of late in arguments to put a military strike against Iran back on the table. Joe Klein had a solid article in Time last week arguing that the U.S. is reconsidering a military strike on Iran. There's a marginal poll showing 56% support for an Israeli strike on Iran (actually quite a low number, given the general enthusiasm of Americans for bombing things). There are Israeli reports that it has convinced the U.S. of the viability of a military option. There's Reuel Gerecht's long brief for military action in the Weekly Standard. There's yet another Washington Post op-ed arguing for brandishing a military threat. This is odd. The argument for a military strike is no stronger now than it has been in the past --- and in many ways it is considerably weaker.

Why is the argument weaker? Mainly because Iran is weaker. If you set aside the hype, it is pretty obvious that for all of the flaws in President Obama's strategy, Iran today is considerably weaker than it was when he took office. Go back to 2005-07, when the Bush administration was supposedly taking the Iranian threat seriously, with a regional diplomacy focused upon polarizing the region against Iran. In that period, Iranian "soft power" throughout the region rose rapidly, as it seized the mantle of the leader of the "resistance" camp which the U.S. eagerly granted it. Hezbollah and Hamas, viewed in Washington at least as Iranian proxies, were riding high both in their own ... >>>

recommended by Onlyiran

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Abarmard

Bavafa the problem in Iraq was miscalculations

by Abarmard on Tue Jul 20, 2010 07:45 AM PDT

The plan was to squeeze Iran while strongly hold the Middle East under your umbrella. US recognized that its influence is shrinking and assumed a long term benefit for the cost of war. We shall see how things unfold but for now US does not seem to have accomplished what it set to do.

As far as Iran, the issue is based on regional influence Vs. arm sales. if US is successful in portraying Iran as the enemy of the region then US can sale arms while keeping Iran in check. However if Iran can gain momentum in bringing in more pro Iranian forces, not necessarily on the surface, then have no doubt that there would be a war. There is no way that Western stake holders would allow the jewel to slip out of their control by a "weak" third world nation.


  •  
Bavafa

Regarding cost and benefit

by Bavafa on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:16 AM PDT

Considering that I am a bit cynical about these things, one would need to calculate cost/benefit from an individual/company perspective rather then the nation as a whole.

For instance, the Iraq war has proven to be very beneficial for some companies (Halliburton, blackwater, etc) and very damaging to the US and tax payers as a whole.

Mehrdad


  •  
Onlyiran

I don't think they will attack

by Onlyiran on Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:03 AM PDT

costs will be too high and benefits too little and too uncertain....

that's my two cents.   


  •  
Bavafa

Was the military option ever off the table?

by Bavafa on Mon Jul 19, 2010 09:41 AM PDT

The only SURE factor and outcome in a military option against Iran is the West desire for prolonging IRI regime.

There is no doubt in [every one mind] that such action, first and foremost will ensure and would be extending the [much needed] life support IRI.

Mehrdad


  •