From Reflections Of A Rational Republican: ‘Are Airstrikes Imminent In Iran?’

Full piece here.

Perhaps not imminent, but:

‘While the probability of an imminent attack on Iran is likely low, one might view all of these signals as a prelude to a precision airstrike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program over the next several months.’

It bears watching.  What happens when the limits of the “agressive humanitarian” and A New World Order approach are reached?  Is normal combat a next step? I’ve heard it argued that Obama will have many reasons to initiate some response to the Iranian regime’s posturing in the Strait Of Hormuz.  I’ve also heard it arued that we’re already engaged in war with Iran in all sorts of ways, to prevent engagement.  I remember being unimpressed with McCain’s talk on Iran, and Lieberman’s rhetoric seemed dated at best.

Related On This SiteSunday Quotation: Jeane Kirkpatrick – J.S. MillFrom Foreign Affairs: ‘The Problem With Obama’s Decision To Leave Iraq’Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest: ‘Iran: Keeping The World’s Oddest Couple Together’…Materialsim and Leftism Paul Berman On Bloggingheads: The Left Can Criticize Iran

Add to Technorati Favorites

4 thoughts on “From Reflections Of A Rational Republican: ‘Are Airstrikes Imminent In Iran?’

  1. Airstrikes against Iran? The US Congress is in to much disarray to act unified on Iran so there will be no ‘declared action.’ Pres. Obama has reportedly privately urged Israel to not take unilateral action. Both the US and Israel got busted on the embarassing drone downing and the 007-style car bombs, respectively, so that leaves only Obama’s re-election demands driving his motivation. His military has told him we don’t have the muscle to get deep enough to clear the bunkers where the nuclear fuel is being purified. As the campaign unfolds and the debt, deficit and unemployment problems mount, Obama will need a late Summer national defense gesture to save his Presidency…but it won’t work because he will not take this country to war.

  2. Often times a leader is following his ideas to their logical conclusions, and I suspect Obama believes that he can side with the people of the Middle East, toward some general idea of freedom.

    So, drone strikes, diplomacy, coalitions, agressive humanitarianism etc. are all first options for this administration

    But what happens when the logic of the situation leads toward escalating conflict…when it is in the interest of the potentially failing, agressive and downright dishonest Iranian leadership to start a war? Of course, this is why we don’t want another unstable, theocratic, semi-tribal, Islamic regime getting the bomb (see Pakistan).

    So, yes, I agree, Congress is a mess, we’ve got serious problems at home, and Obama’s reelection hopes will help guide his actions, but I also think there is a set of ideas and people (arc of justice, somewhat anti-colonial, Anne Marie Slaughter, Hilary Clinton, humanitarian, WIlsonian foreign policy) woven into the current approach

  3. President Obama is hard to understand…on one hand he promotes the behind-the-scenes coalition building to battle adversaries and then partakes in his very public and world stage “apologist” stance where he demeans the U.S. for being a heavy-handed agressor who is an unbending, arrogant, self-centered, democracy flaunting, opinionated and uncaring. So when he proposes financial embargos which many feel have no chance of working and serve only to punish the populace, he feeds right back into having s become the very same nation for which he apologizes for.
    Obama, in his heart, does not carry any admiration for the United States. His public speeches may utter
    a half-hearted reference to ‘our greatness’ but he doesn’t have the ‘fire in the belly’ commitment for what is needed to stand up to the “unstable, theocratic, semi-tribal Islamic regimes” who want the bomb.

    stand up to these “unstable, theocrtic, semi-tribal, Islamic re
    gimes who want to bury this country.

Leave a Reply to campypa Cancel reply