The Associated Press

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing his part to keep the war of words going.

Featured Topic | Posted 44 weeks 1 day ago

America and Iran: At the precipice of war?

There's still a chance that the U.S. and Iran could go to war. President Bush -- unconvinced that Iran has abandoned its nuclear ambitions -- kept up his tough rhetoric during his trip to the Middle East, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been responding in kind. Iran's neighbors are watching nervously.

What would trigger a war with Iran? What could avert conflict?

Read More

Ben likes: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands

Norman Podhoretz/Commentary

Bush is right about the resemblance between 2008 and 1938. In 1938, as Winston Churchill later said, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation. Mutatis mutandis, it is the same in 2008, when Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved—but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see.

Read More

Joel likes: Norman Podhoretz's assumptions

Andrew Sullivan

I don't think that Iran's regime should be under-estimated. It is a highly religious, fundamentalist and dangerously fractured entity. But it seems much more likely that it would use nuclear weapons as leverage to extend its power in the region and world, to counter-balance Israel and the Sunni powers and to enhance its influence than that it would start an apocalyptic battle which it would lose.

Read More

Where do you stand on this issue?

Click on the graph to cast your vote.
average
vote
your vote
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Thoughts

Tough Questions on Iran

Submitted on January 18th, 2008 by GregRLawson

Norman Podhoretz's case is on the face, relatively persuasive and I am much more inclined to action than inaction.

However, the Administration is taking steps to balance the Iranians and for the moment, that may be enough. $20 billion in military equipment to Arab nations is an unmistakable signal that we do not intend to allow Iran to become the regional hegemon in the wake of Saddam Hussein's downfall.

Bombing Iran may, and I emphasize may, be something that must be done, but we still have yet to fully set the stage for what a coercive diplomacy short of full scale military engagement might yield. We will need to bring Russia more in line (and this may require some accomodations on their issues like Kosovo and our constant hectoring regarding their domestic situation). If we could do that, Iran may find itself isolated again (don't forget the Russians are building a nuclear power plant for them and selling air defense systems to them).

I think Podhoretz is more right than the reflexively antiforce advocates, but military action really must be the last alternative when all else is gone. Being cautious does not make one a "Neville Chamberlain" in Prague. Neither does every military action make one a Winston Churchill defying a Hitler. Inappropriate caution is appeasement, but, appropriate caution is the prudent hallmark of real statesmanship.

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google