I completely agree with Joyce, but the difference between Iran, and Germany and Japan is that the jingoistic calls to confront Iran militarily are all pre-emptive. That was not the case with either Germany or Japan. Pre-emptively pounding ones enemies is what the aggressor does, in all but the most extreme of cases. Iraq didn’t fit that bill. Nor does Iran. The “poundings” given Germany and Japan were brutal, fall under the general definition of a just war, and were clearly in response to them presenting themselves as aggressors whom we had a general interest with most of the rest of the world in stopping. That criteria only partially applies to Iran. And while the rhetoric out of Iran is bellicose, they are not aggressors on the scale of either Germany or Japan.
Nasrallah after the summer war gained stature and notariety from across the Muslim world, from many Sunnis and Shiite alike. After an aggressive attack on Iran Muslim opinion isn’t likely to be galvanized against what might easily be viewed as a common enemy? It does depend on who you ask, but I believe it is just as likely as not.
My point about war profiteering is only this: in my opinion, no one would be made any safer or benefit from another middle east conflict except profiteers and investors in defense industries. No one. It would not prevent terrorism, and more likely would serve to foment more of it. Hopes of a moderate government in Iraq stabilizing the region are worthy but there is little evidence we will see that anytime soon.
I refrained from using “Neanderthal” to describe your doctrine yesterday.
I am, I believe, a realist. And I see no compelling reason to pre-emptively attack Iran. I do see a compelling need to sit down with them and talk, as do many others. Their express wish to talk in the past has been rebuffed in favor of finding some way of, it appears, executing the doctrine you propose. I think that is bad policy, dangerous policy, and likely to lead to more instability in the Middle East, in the long term, rather than less.
