To end Iran standoff, plan for war
Ahmadinejad will remain militantly defiant until he believes war to be imminent.
Talk is cheap, and so are sanctions.
“Six world powers are preparing to draft U.N. sanctions against Iran given the failure of high level talks so far to yield an Iranian promise to halt sensitive atomic work,” Reuters reports.
Actions speak louder than words, especially when backed up by threat of force.
To end Iran standoff, plan for war – Middle East Forum:
If a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear problem is to be found, it is time for Washington to plan for war. Diplomats cannot break the current impasse simply by trying more aggressive diplomacy. Tehran will only change course if it believes it faces a credible threat for defying the will of the world.
Think about it. In recent months, as international diplomatic deadlines have come and gone – and the threat of sanctions has remained a possibility – Iran has only been emboldened. At the UN last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Secretary General Kofi Annan that “Britain and America won the last world war, but they wouldn’t win the next one, Iran would.” …
… The truth is, war preparation is itself a form of diplomacy.
… The Iranian leadership’s misreading of Washington could prove just as disastrous. With the U.S. Army tied down in Iraq, Iranian officials believe the U.S. military is hamstrung. But the U.S. Navy and Air Force are not hamstrung.
Perhaps it is time to stage war games and exercises in the Persian Gulf and on Iran’s borders. The Iranian government should know what it is up against. Only the threat of force, and not the threat of UN finger-wagging, can persuade Tehran to stop spinning its centrifuges.
Posted on October 5, 2006, in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
LDS Patriot 
uh, who is going to pay for this war? Are you going to put it on a credit card again for our children to pay, or are you willing to make a sacrifice and pay for your own war? Moreover, do you even have a way to project the kind of “threat of war” that would even be effective? Simply lobbing missiles at them won’t be effective. Air power, as proven in Israel’s actions in Lebanon, are ineffective. Where do you have the ground force needed to act as a credible threat of war? Remember, Iran has over 100 million people, and a pretty large, and effective, army. Iran is no Iraq.
Any threat of attack will only push Iran further away from us, and closer to the nuclear bomb.
It’s okay, we’re changing America starting this November. Talk of war with the whole world will now be kicked back to the extreme right, where it should forever remain. Sensible people are realizing the folly of such adventurism.
I did not say go to war, I said plan for war.
Ahmadinejad ambitions to obtain nukes parallel his ambitions to destroy Israel and assert his militant form of Islam in the Middle East.
Neville Chamberlain thought like you with his “sensible” appeasement of Adolf Hitler.
If you cannot see Ahmadinejad, #1 sponsor of terrorism, as an equal or greater threat to war peace on the scale equal to or larger than Adolf Hitler, you are just as big a fool as Neville Chamberlain.
Do you think it “sensible” to allow him the ability to manufacture nukes? If, in the end, after all that is said and done, the only way to prevent him from getting nukes is war, would you a) allow him to make nukes, or b) prevent him by use of force?
uh, if you plan for war, and you don’t have the means to make it a credible threat, you’re merely bluffing, and making matters worse. So again, who’s gonna pay for this war? Where are the foot soldiers who will make the threat credible?
oh and using reductio ad hitlerum doesn’t work. it is a logical fallacy.