From The NY Times: ‘U.S. Adds Forces In Persian Gulf, A Signal To Iran’

Full piece here.

‘The United States has quietly moved significant military reinforcements into the Persian Gulf to deter the Iranian military from any possible attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz and to increase the number of fighter jets capable of striking deep into Iran if the standoff over its nuclear program escalates.’

The U.S. position is to not allow Iran to get a delivery system for its nuclear program.

Related On This Site:  From Reflections Of A Rational Republican: ‘Are Airstrikes Imminent In Iran?’From Reflections Of A Rational Republican: ‘Will Israel Attack Iran This Spring?’

Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest: ‘Iran: Keeping The World’s Oddest Couple Together’…Materialism and Leftism Paul Berman On Bloggingheads: The Left Can Criticize IranMichael Totten Interviews Rick Francona At World Affairs: ‘From Saigon to Baghdad’

Add to Technorati Favorites

8 thoughts on “From The NY Times: ‘U.S. Adds Forces In Persian Gulf, A Signal To Iran’

  1. When I first got todays Blog, I got out my “non-cynic” hat and put it on trying to believe that this Iran escalation was in fact an honest attempt to protect our interest in that area of the world and even to lend support to Israel, but within minutes it kept falling off and I am left with the observation it is nothing but a political maneuver to grasp at yet another straw to re-elect President Obama. Sorry – I really did try!! How many votes will the “tough guy” Obama garner?

  2. Bernie, well at least you gave it a shot. Politics is politics and I usually operate under the assumption that all politicians’ primary goal is to get re-elected.

    In this case, I think the underlying logic is compelling us toward not allowing Iran to get a functional nuclear weapon and a delivery system for it. Too much destabilization.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    • Chris: On this one I think he’s on the tight rope. He really does NOT want to drag us into another Middle East war because he will lose what remains of his ‘left’ base, but the ‘hawks-lite’ in the White House who see a need for saber rattling to appeal to the conservative Dems probably will win this battle at least in its primary ‘staging’ efforts.

  3. Well, he doesn’t want to drag us into a war unless it’s under his preferred principles either, which is under the liberal internationalist doctrine and where it leads (and it could yet lead to unintended consequences).

    Escalating tensions with Iran have direct consequences with the base (and deep down I’m mostly suspicious of people who want peace, at least in the political realm), but also, there are restraints upon any President, administration, and our military and strategic alliances in the region, and Iran getting the bomb is really not a good option

    • On that point I am in agreement because with Iran having the bomb, its use against Israel is only a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’ and we will certainly be in a war, reagrdless of U.S. administration.

  4. I’m not sure they would definitely use it against Israel, but they would definitely threaten it, and they would leverage the bomb to continue their aims: funding terrorists, promoting instability in the region to gain any advantage, more anti-American goals to shore up internal dissent and probably make more countries in the region want the bomb.

    I mean, they mingle with Chavez to gain any traction they can. It’s not exactly a friendly place for us.

    For Obama, global cop may not be our primary goal nor the peace that comes through strength either (which requires allies however politically unpopular in Europe). Such aims would be subsumed to the Western liberal internationalist doctrine and the large squishy raft of rights, aid, ideals and almost laughable U.N. sanctions that may do more harm than good through their toothlessness (see Syria). They have their place but that place isn’t leading the way without great risk of less peace and more instability and conflict.

    My primary concern is what to do to secure our interests and broader Western interests against the truly bad people: terrorists, arms dealers and nukes for hire, some people in the Iranian regime and other assorted thugs.

  5. Also, more broadly the Russians, maybe some in the Chinese military, and various other interests whose strength depends to some extent upon a weakened America, and whose aims are neither friendly, nor aligned with Western liberal ideals, whomever is in charge over here.

Leave a Reply to campypa Cancel reply