I’ve asked this question of the conservative posters before, but I never get an answer. Why should the U.S. take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities in order to protect Israel when Israel is perfectly capable of taking out those capabilities itself?

Moreover, has anyone considered that a nuclear weapon in Iran may actually result in a reduction of aggression in the region? Iran would probably have way more to lose from an offensive use of its nuclear bomb than it could ever gain. That is not true of its promotion of terrorism. An Iranian bomb would cause everyone to be much less tolerant of any form of Iranian aggression. And, in return, the U.S. and Israel would probably be much less aggressive in the region as well.

I’m not advocating the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but I am questioning whether a regional “right to bear arms” approach wouldn’t have the same cautionary effect it is presumed to have within the U.S.

So the way to fight terrorist threats like al-Qaeda is to follow the same playbook used during the Cold War? Brillant. Just brillant.

We were never attacked on our home soil during the Cold War.

If Russian bombers had bombed New York City during the Cold War, you and I would not be here posting today. Because most of the Northern Hemisphere would be in ruins.

As I said before, liberals wave collective security, the NPT, and “international law” around like mantras.

But “international law,” like any other law, is useless without effective mechanisms for law enforcement.
That part, they ignore.

So the way to fight terrorist threats like al-Qaeda is to follow the same playbook used during the Cold War? Brillant. Just brillant.

It is especially hilarious to be told by neocons like William Kristol that Iran is such a clear and present danger that must be dealt with immediately. The track record of these jokers is not all that reliable.

So Iran was behind 9/11? I thought it was our friends from Saudi Arabia and Egypt (mainly) who orchestrated that one.

The idea that Iran would take “potshots” at oil tankers makes no sense to me. So then they get bombed, and then what? They destroy Israel with their nukes? And then we destroy them with our nukes? Sinz, you are talking as if Iran is run by a bunch of trigger-happy madmen. This is not the case. The leaders of Iran are quite pragmatic (Ahmadenijad excluded, but he is insignificant.)

Do you care to estimate what the price of oil will be if the US strikes Iran?

2. The U.S. is committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel–and Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel.

You forget the if there … that being if Israel were to strike Iran …

3. The possession of nukes by Iran would be the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would demand their own Sunni nuclear deterrents.

Yep. Dangerous game, indeed. We unleashed it in part when we allowed Israel to develop a nuke, since we now are in the rhetorical corner of telling the Muslim world that only one Middle Eastern country is allowed to own a nuke – the one run by Jews. If you don’t understand how that is a patent insult to the Muslim world, you’re not really good at the empathy thing.

Nonetheless, I still fail to see why Russia should have less concern with Saudis and Egyptians and many of the other countries that can strike Russia with intermediate range missles developing nuclear capability. We’re playing the fools ourselves if we allow Putin to make this a “Bad US” versus “Good Russia” situation for those countries, while actually spending our resources and chits to take measures that will enhance Russia’s security.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a fan of lefties all over the world.
But the possession of nukes by Iran would blow a fatal hole in the NPT. The fact that a nation led by a certifiable maniac who denies the Holocaust could develop nukes and get away with it, would mean that the NPT or any other international treaty to restrict the possession of nuclear weapons would be so much toilet paper.

And there are a lot more fruitcakes in this world besides Ahmedinejad. It would be impossible to deny nukes to any of them after Iran.

Go down to Lower Manhattan and take a good look at Ground Zero.

Since a nuclear Iran would be a far more significant threat to Russia, than it would be to the US … why are we acting like this is OUR problem?

1. 2/3 of the world’s oil transits through the Persian Gulf. (It’s called “Persian” for a reason.) Once Iran develops nukes, they or their Hezbollah proteges can take pot-shots at supertankers without fear of military retaliation. Iran’s own economists have estimated that such a confrontation in the Persian Gulf would send world oil prices past $300 a barrel. Care to estimate what that would do to the U.S. economy?

2. The U.S. is committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel–and Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel.

3. The possession of nukes by Iran would be the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would demand their own Sunni nuclear deterrents.

The U.S. is NOT “internalizing every threat in the world between two states”. But anyone who thinks the U.S. can ignore the Middle East is a fool.

The Middle East and the Pacific Rim, are America’s vital strategic interests.