What to do about Iran?

[AztecWilliam]

Those who are displeased by criticism of Barack Obama must nevertheless concede that public policy should be discussed and debated. In this case the issue is Iran and what options are available to the West to deal with that regime. I think Peters has listed those options well.

www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/appease_does_apocalypse_for_weak_9HzomoUqSd9gZJINIwtJlL

AzWm

[aztecwin]

What to do is a sticky question indeed. I kind of lose perspective on what to do as I feel such outrage that this dishonest President would hide the facts from us.

[AztecWilliam]

I'm reminded of what Dick Morris opined several weeks ago; namely, that the Obama administration has basically given up hope of really forcing the Iranians to drop plans to develop nuclear weapons. If that's true, I guess their hope is that they will be able to convince the Mullahs that any use of nukes would mean the destruction of their country. But is that a realistic threat?

Seriously, would any U.S. President, of either major party, actually order our military to launch nuclear armed missiles against Tehran and other major Iranian cities? I'm not so sure.

I concede one point that Bob frequently brings up when I start going down this road. Yes, this situation is not exactly like the one in 1938 that lead to the Munich sell-out of Czechoslovakia. It's not exactly the same, but there are similarities. Wouldn't it have been much better had France (the country immediately in a position to do something about it) moved a couple of army divisions into the Rhineland when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936? (See Wikipedia excerpt on that episode below.)

Most likely Hitler's plans would have been completely upset had the French taken action. WWII in Europe occurred because Hitler was convinced he had been chosen by destiny to lead. Every move, that is up until Britain and France declared war following the German attack on Poland, worked out as Hitler had planned. In 1936, Hitler's power was not nearly as solidified as it was a couple of years later. Had the French upset the German move into the Rhineland, the army might very well have decided that staying with Hitler was too big a risk. We will never know, of course, we certainly do know what followed; the worst and most destructive war of all time.

I don't say that another world war will break out if the Mullahs get nukes, but a serious war in the Middle East might. The key variable in this scenario is Israel. They might not be able to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities, but they might come to believe that they have no choice but to try. That could lead to a very nasty situation, including maybe oil at $200 or $300 a barrel or more.

I hope Obama and his staff have considered the possibility that just shrugging our shoulders and allowing the Mullahs to get nukes might, in the long run, be a greater risk than taking decisive action. Either way it's a Hobson's Choice. But the President of the U.S. is expected to choice the best option.

Will he?

Wikipedia: Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to "turn back and not to resist" if they were stopped by the French Army. The French, however, did not try to stop them because they were currently holding elections and the president did not want to start a war with Germany.

AzWm