| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| George Friedman - War Plans: United States and Iran |
| 2007-10-31 |
| Posted by:Delphi |
| #5 E: If anything, the over-riding goal of this administration's policy has been to prevent anything that might trouble the pond of the Saud terror entity starting with the flight of bin Laden's relatives out of the United States on the day everything except military aircraft had been grounded. Umm, this was Richard Clarke freelancing. The fact is that not every decision in this country has to be personally approved by the president. This is why we can respond so quickly to unexpected events - decentralized decision-making by subordinates, rather than endless rounds of proposals circulated by courtiers to the president. But it is also why decisions are made and things happen that the president knows nothing about. It's the nature of American government. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-10-31 16:09 |
| #4 JQC, you give a very simple statement of why Saddam had to go. " It is likely this technology would be developed and farmed out to stateless terrorists." As has been said countless times, after 9/11 this could not be ignored. In this sense Iran is no different. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-10-31 14:58 |
| #3 Let's begin with goals. What would the United States hope to achieve by attacking Iran? On the broadest strategic level, the answer is actually quite simple. The problem with most people offering deep thought on strategy is to make everything unnecessarily complicated. The notion any US administration has the wit to "disrupt all Islamic centers of power" is absurd. If anything, the over-riding goal of this administration's policy has been to prevent anything that might trouble the pond of the Saud terror entity starting with the flight of bin Laden's relatives out of the United States on the day everything except military aircraft had been grounded. The point of an attack on Iran is not to move chess pieces around some nerd strategy simulator. It is to prevent Dark Ages maniacs from having nuclear weapons. That's it. If the Qom regime can be overthrown in the process that is bonus and extra. It is by no means necessary. It is not our job to clean house in the islamic world; their cesspit is of their own devising. It is in our interest to prevent barbarians from threatening to massacre us with the weapons our science and inventiveness has bequeathed to us. It seems we have loss the stomach to simply nuke these savages into oblivion and do the same for anyone else who so much as twitches the wrong way. More's the pity. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-10-31 14:36 |
| #2 So George Friedman, we are faced with a nuclear armed Iran, what do you propose we do? You have written a long article about what we can't and shouldn't do. What can and should we do? I know we should and cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran--particularly since Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S. and threatened to wipe out Israel (easier said than done). It is likely this technology would be developed and farmed out to stateless terrorists. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-31 14:08 |
| #1 He is still using the Iraq strategy for a very different country. And while the strategy is similar, it must be both far more comprehensive and less extended. That is, it must: 1) Destroy Iran's existing nuclear infrastructure. 2) Reduce Iran's military and IRGC. 3) Prevent Iran from reconstituting its nuclear infrastructure, and 4) Prevent Iran from menacing the world oil trade. And I've said several times what this would entail. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-31 13:55 |