Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Not sure what you mean by hands are tied, but our presence in Iraq offers a few strategic things:
- Possible future deployment location for our anti-missile system. Kind of hard for Iran to assault Israel with long range missiles if we have a system to shoot down their birds.
- Iraq becomes a possible staging area for future mid-east conflicts, whether they involve the defense of Israel, or whatever.
- Geographically, it puts an American presence right smack between Syria and Iran.
- Increased leverage on Iran in negotiations for nuclear non-proliferation.
|
Just what I said, I think our hands are tied, or
better said, our options are limited regarding military action against Iran. For political reasons and as a matter of practical military resources, there is no way we'll strike yet a third Arab/Muslim nation in the span of 10 years without provocation. That just won't fly globally.
Think about it, Iran is one of the only nations in that region without nuclear weps. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear capabilities and can protect their sovereign borders. So why can't Iran? This is what Ahmadinejad is selling to the Iranian regime every day. And it's a pretty compelling argument.
This is an interesting debate on many levels and opinions vary, but I personally don't see it happening. I think Iran is more interested in appearing as a threat than actually becoming one. That's where they hold the most leverage against the United States and Israel. The minute the United States starts ramping up efforts to strike, we play right into Ahmadinejad's hands and lose credibility with the millions of Iranians who want change.