sdemetri,
And while the rhetoric out of Iran is bellicose, they are not aggressors on the scale of either Germany or Japan.
No, but their goal of Middle Eastern dominance virtually guarantees they will end up so. Besides, the logic of preemption is required by the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which wasn’t even on the table at the start of WWII, since the weapons were still theoretical at that point.
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.
About a year back, the columnist Spengler made a convincing case that US strategic interests are advanced by chaos in the Middle East. If true, that means that as a society we all would benefit. Perhaps war profiteers would benefit most, but how would a small slice of society taking most of the benefit differ from everyday life as humanity has known it since the dawn of history? If all US citizens’ interests are advanced by Middle East chaos, there is no reason to fear it.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC14Ak02.html
Looked at from the view of Belmont Club’s Three Conjectures, my policy of pre-emptive military action to enact regime change is actually the humanitarian thing to do. The alternative, once Iran gets nuclear weapons, destroys Israel then turns its remaining nukes on the West (assuming Israel doesn’t destroy Iran with its nukes, and potentially Europe, via the Samson Option, in which an on-the-verge-of-destruction Israel unleashes a nuclear attack against Europe in retaliation for Europe’s pussyfooting support of terror disguised as sympathy for the Palestinians et al.) is the complete annihilation of Iran. At least with my option, we may end up with another Iraq, which from a historical perspective really isn’t that bad (when I say ‘historical perspective’, keep in mind I mean all of human history since the invention of agriculture, not the last 40 years, which seems to be the sum and substance of the typical American’s view of historical time), or, if we can decapitate the regime to the extent that the pro-Western youth you’ve put your faith in can actually take the reins of state, it could be better than Iraq.
So, the potential downside of your suggested course of action, which would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, as I see it, is the destruction of Israel, the destruction of Europe and the destruction of Iran. Unless you are 100% certain that if Iran is allowed to continue its course it won’t develop nuclear weapons, the potential losses involved in your scenario should spur you to pursue alternative strategies to the one you advocate.
Thinking ahead like this, by the way, is what is meant by ‘strategic thinking’, to come back around to the first post in which you tried to insult me.
