http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._flag?page=0,0


WTF. This needs to stop.

Beyond this current headline about sending a msg to Iran, the rest of this article has some interesting discussion of the history and politics of the upcoming military budget.

Military.com
January 22, 2012
Associated Press
|by Lolita C. Baldor

US to Keep 11 Aircraft Carriers to Show Sea Power

The US will probably deploy a carrier to the Gulf when ready to draw a clear red line. America did that during Clinton's reign when China needed to learn of America's support of Taiwan. The message probably caused the Communist Party to finally demand their military explain what they were doing. And put a stop to it. Those two carriers were a necessary political message. Since wars happen when politics and politicians fail to understand what is really happening.

Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.

hmm

Good news today as the EU began sanctions and will not import Iranian oil. Credit may go to Clinton's State Dept, I imagine. Soft power applied...

...backed up with hard power, the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf. (Without incident. And with Brit and French vessels tagging along.)

Russia is lining up stridently with Iran, and says they will veto future UNSC resolutions.

:)

Really? The Iranians didn't have the nerve to attak a US carrier group? Bah, pansies, especially when Allah is clearly on their side.

I guess this just means China can buy Iranian oil cheaper.

This is the second article I've read that gives a completely different perspective on Iran's regional intentions....and how they failed. Very interesting.

Basically, the perspective states Iran's goal is to become a regional power and in order to be a regional power, one must have influence in the surrounding countries (Arab countries in this situation). Iran felt there was two options at hand: side with the US and unpopular Arab dictators or side with the unhappy but powerless Arab population. Iran felt, in time, that other Arab countries would revolt and start their own 'Islamic Revolution' and naturally look to Iran for leadership. So that explains why, along with many other historical and political reasons, Iran would seem irrational in dealing with the west and US.

Now that their prediction somewhat came true, they are finding out that the Arab population in fact does not want to follow Iran but distrusting at their own hypocritical actions. This puts Iran in a very bad spot.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...evant?page=0,0

I've been thinking lately. Has anyone thought of telling the Iranians, "ok, no problem we believe you when you tell us that you are not developing nukes." Let them go on their merry way. Then if they develop nukes we can cut their balls off? I mean cut off their supply of everything else. And Israel can do what ever they feel they need to do.

If they get nukes then it would be extremely difficult to cut their balls off. The rule of thumb is that you don't attack a nuclear armed country.

I'm just making the point that in the open court of public and world opinion even China and Russia would be hard pressed to go against any sanctions and military intervention if Iran someday possessed a nuclear bomb after all of their honest and sincere foot stomping about developing nuclear technology only for their energy grid. They won't crank them out in a quick fashion I'm sure and a couple of JDAMs and cruise missile strikes would surely even the score, and be welcome by most at that point in time.

They know.

At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.

Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.

They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor.

What is this, the Warm War?

Gee, I'd just come to terms with the cold one.

I'm curious where that assumption comes from?

First, both Pakistan and NK are not going to give non-state actors nuclear technology so that quickly limits down the possibilities of where that nuke came from.

Second, which non-state actor would nuke Israel? Hamas? Hezbollah? The West Bank is around 20 miles away from Tel Aviv and Lebanon is maybe 50. If Israel goes, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza get radiation poisoning. Hamas wants to destroy the Israeli state, not the land. Hezbollah controls the southern Lebanon. Their problems would exponentially multiply if a nuke went off in Israel.


Honestly, I have great doubts that Iran as a whole will do anything that stupid. They want to become a regional power and are paranoid of being attacked, therefore a nuclear bomb is the perfect solution. What worries me is the chance that some rogue Revolutionary Guard soldier gets control of the bomb.