Romney Comments on Israel

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think it's so much about Israel ans that they are our only ally in the region. We can't afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran no matter what. So we are clearly on Israel's side on this. As far as I am concerned, Obama is acting like a big wuss with all this.

Mark my words. If Obama wins re-election the following will happen:

1. Iran will get nukes.
2. Terrorists will hit us with one.

Brilliant.

Let's pursue this a little further by looking at some options:

1) Surgical airstrikes. I have serious doubts that Iran built their research and development infrastructure such that we could knock it out with airstrikes. So does attacking in this fashion make us less safe or more safe? I think it would solidify anti-US sentiment in Iran, strengthen the regime, and make it more likely that we would one day be a target of a terrorist-based nuclear strike.

2) Massive invasion. This is the only way to wipe out their nuclear program completely. But there is no way the US has the will to spend the blood and treasure it would take to accomplish this. And do you invade North Korea too? Horrible idea.

3) Current approach. Diplomacy, sanctions, etc. History (and logic) clearly demonstrate that M.A.D. is the most effective and viable nuclear deterrent.

I think #3 is the least risky of the three options. Convince me otherwise.

[Omaha 680]

Let's pursue this a little further by looking at some options:

1) Surgical airstrikes. I have serious doubts that Iran built their research and development infrastructure such that we could knock it out with airstrikes. So does attacking in this fashion make us less safe or more safe? I think it would solidify anti-US sentiment in Iran, strengthen the regime, and make it more likely that we would one day be a target of a terrorist-based nuclear strike.

2) Massive invasion. This is the only way to wipe out their nuclear program completely. But there is no way the US has the will to spend the blood and treasure it would take to accomplish this. And do you invade North Korea too? Horrible idea.

3) Current approach. Diplomacy, sanctions, etc. History (and logic) clearly demonstrate that M.A.D. is the most effective and viable nuclear deterrent.

I think #3 is the least risky of the three options. Convince me otherwise.

I agree that the current approach is best for now. But the only reason I think it is best is because of the Stuxnet attack that has slowed their progress considerably. Invasion is not a realistic option.

I disagree that M.A.D is viable longterm with Iran. M.A.D. requires that each side have leaders that are sane and value preservation of their people. There is no guarantee that the leadership of Iran will always fit that category (or does currently).

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree that the current approach is best for now. But the only reason I think it is best is because of the Stuxnet attack that has slowed their progress considerably. Invasion is not a realistic option.

I disagree that M.A.D is viable longterm with Iran. M.A.D. requires that each side have leaders that are sane and value preservation of their people. There is no guarantee that the leadership of Iran will always fit that category (or does currently).

It includes self-preservation. Iran as a country, a culture, and a people would cease to exist. Including all of the leaders. They aren't that crazy.

[myboynoah]

It includes self-preservation. Iran as a country, a culture, and a people would cease to exist. Including all of the leaders. They aren't that crazy.

One would hope, but I'm not convinced the religious zealots in charge are all that rational. They deny the holocaust.

[RobinFinderson]

They deny the holocaust.

Better the holocaust than the holyghost, as my grandpappy Otto used to say.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It includes self-preservation. Iran as a country, a culture, and a people would cease to exist. Including all of the leaders. They aren't that crazy.

I agree that it's extremely unlikely the Iranian leadership would launch a nuclear attack because of MAD and other reasons. But I could see an Iranian device "accidentally" falling into the hands of Hezbollah or a splinter terrorist group who would detonate it in Israel. I also agree that a preemptive strike against Iran would be ineffective, and extremely costly.

[FMCoug]

Let's pursue this a little further by looking at some options:

1) Surgical airstrikes. I have serious doubts that Iran built their research and development infrastructure such that we could knock it out with airstrikes. So does attacking in this fashion make us less safe or more safe? I think it would solidify anti-US sentiment in Iran, strengthen the regime, and make it more likely that we would one day be a target of a terrorist-based nuclear strike.

2) Massive invasion. This is the only way to wipe out their nuclear program completely. But there is no way the US has the will to spend the blood and treasure it would take to accomplish this. And do you invade North Korea too? Horrible idea.

3) Current approach. Diplomacy, sanctions, etc. History (and logic) clearly demonstrate that M.A.D. is the most effective and viable nuclear deterrent.

I think #3 is the least risky of the three options. Convince me otherwise.

MAD works if they are convinced it really exists. But say it is a smallish nuke or dirty bomb and it is "terrorists" who did it, not the nation-state of Iran. Would we obliterate them with nukes? Do they believe we would?

MAD worked with the Soviets because we were talking about military strikes from obvious sources. Terrorism is something completely different.

[FMCoug]

Let's pursue this a little further by looking at some options:

1) Surgical airstrikes. I have serious doubts that Iran built their research and development infrastructure such that we could knock it out with airstrikes. So does attacking in this fashion make us less safe or more safe? I think it would solidify anti-US sentiment in Iran, strengthen the regime, and make it more likely that we would one day be a target of a terrorist-based nuclear strike.

2) Massive invasion. This is the only way to wipe out their nuclear program completely. But there is no way the US has the will to spend the blood and treasure it would take to accomplish this. And do you invade North Korea too? Horrible idea.

3) Current approach. Diplomacy, sanctions, etc. History (and logic) clearly demonstrate that M.A.D. is the most effective and viable nuclear deterrent.

I think #3 is the least risky of the three options. Convince me otherwise.

One other thing.

Option #4 exists as well. Non-surgical air strikes. Collateral damage be damned. Not saying that is what we should do or that we have the will for it ... but it would work.

[Pelado]

One other thing.

Option #4 exists as well. Non-surgical air strikes. Collateral damage be damned. Not saying that is what we should do or that we have the will for it ... but it would work.

Another option - 007.

[il Padrino Ute]

One would hope, but I'm not convinced the religious zealots in charge are all that rational. They deny the holocaust.

Which is yet another reason the US needs to be 100% supportive of Israel. The leaders in Iran would be happy to see both Israel and the US eliminated. Not even Reagan's "trust but verify" policy should be considered when dealing with a nuclear Iran.

[Jeff Lebowski]

MAD works if they are convinced it really exists. But say it is a smallish nuke or dirty bomb and it is "terrorists" who did it, not the nation-state of Iran. Would we obliterate them with nukes? Do they believe we would?

MAD worked with the Soviets because we were talking about military strikes from obvious sources. Terrorism is something completely different.

Can we stipulate that none of the options are perfect?

Please tell me which of the three courses you think has the lowest risk.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One other thing.

Option #4 exists as well. Non-surgical air strikes. Collateral damage be damned. Not saying that is what we should do or that we have the will for it ... but it would work.

That's crazy talk. Not even remotely possible. Unless you carpet the country with nukes. And if that is what you are suggesting, then you have no business calling terrorists crazy.

[Viking]

Can we stipulate that none of the options are perfect?

Please tell me which of the three courses you think has the lowest risk.

Destroy Tehran.

[byu71]

I wasn't addessing you. I was admonishing 71.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One would hope, but I'm not convinced the religious zealots in charge are all that rational. They deny the holocaust.

Yes, and we have presidential candidates that deny evolution.

I am not equating the two, mind you, but holding a crazy belief like that is a far cry from being willing to self-destruct to make a point.