Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:33 PM Mar 2015

Probably the dumbest opinion piece WaPo has ever published (Iran)

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:41 AM - Edit history (1)

War with Iran is probably our best option
by Joshua Muravchik, March 13
(fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies)

{snip}

___Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably. We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.

Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes...




18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Archae

(46,335 posts)
2. If this guy doesn't own stock in "defense" companies, I'll eat my hat.
Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:39 PM
Mar 2015

It's the only explanation short of simply being a total asshole I can think of.

starroute

(12,977 posts)
13. A lot more than a decade
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:26 AM
Mar 2015

He's been a member of every Neocon organization you can imagine.

In 1995, he was a co-founder of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. And when Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran in 2001, he supported that too.

He was associated with PNAC.

In 1998, he was among the many Neocons who signed an open letter to President Clinton claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and demanding military action.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/neocons-to-clinton-launch-war-on-iraq.html

In 2006, he wrote in Foreign Policy, "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," and added that his fellow Neocons "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."
http://washingtonnote.com/a_reminder_to_a/

So this is just more of the same.

TheFarseer

(9,323 posts)
4. once heard on fox news
Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:44 PM
Mar 2015

This was when oil was sky high because they were worried we were going to war with Iran. A Fox news guy said we need to invade Iran to take that uncertainty off the table!

delrem

(9,688 posts)
8. Just another warmongering psychopath.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:16 AM
Mar 2015

The most disgusting phrase of absolution that such psychopaths employ is "but, no boots on the ground!", showing that they care nothing for 100's of 1000's of Arab, Muslim, lives, and only care about promoting maximum death and destruction.

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
15. right, as if Iran has threatened to attack us in any way or form
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:31 PM
Mar 2015

...as if that was even a remote possibility, given the limited effectiveness of airstrikes and the sophistry of 'targeted' strikes avoiding casualties of innocents.

The worst for me is his acceptance that 'we might absorb some strikes.' Retaliation likely won't come in the form of mainland US attacks, but open our allies, like Israel, to violence and retribution which would spread like wildfire throughout a region we need to unite, not divide into intensified conflict..

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
10. Let me know when Useless there signs up to fight on the front lines.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:44 AM
Mar 2015

He can even write opinion pieces right in the middle of the warzone. I'm that nice.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
16. Carter is the last US president that I've been at all comfortable with. A good man.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:47 PM
Mar 2015

A good man who continues to do good throughout his life.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
14. "Bomb Iran"
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:52 AM
Mar 2015

From his wikipedia bibliography:
• "Bomb Iran," The Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2006

Yeah... I'm going to ignore this guy.

edhopper

(33,587 posts)
17. I really doubted your title
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:51 PM
Mar 2015

Cause the WSJ has published so many dumb shit editorials.
But you might be right.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Probably the dumbest opin...