Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147
I really hope Biden is just talking here.
Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.
But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.
The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.
Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.
It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.
|
So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?
Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.
However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?