Playing at international politics
USAToday plays at international politics with an opinion piece entitled “US-Iran collision course calls for diplomatic brakes”
Two distinct sides have emerged in a de facto Cold War in the Middle East. On one side are the United States and an assortment of players, from firm friend Israel to ally-of-convenience Saudi Arabia. On the other are Iran and its growing band of supporters, including Syria, terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Shiite sympathizers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is fully capable of using its clients to initiate hostilities that, among other things, could send oil prices soaring to a level that makes $100-a-barrel look like a bargain.
There’s also the risk that the attacks would fail because Iran has strong air defenses and is thought to have buried and dispersed its nuclear facilities. Captured U.S. pilots would recall the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80.
Further, attacks would rally Iranians behind the ayatollahs just as opposition to hard-liners might be gaining strength.
All of this makes a strong case for diplomatic options, even if they appear for the moment to be fruitless.
So, because all of these insane, irrational entities are lined up against the civilized world, we should not confront them? That’s precisely why they are irrational – they know they can get with anything. And “for the moment to be fruitless”? That’s what the Islamic Republic wants – more time to become a nuclear power (or more like a nuclear loose cannon). There may be good reasons for not confronting the Islamic Republic at this time, but that’s the most idiotic reason I’ve ever read.
