RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Now that I think about it, I remember reading about how oppressive Islamic leaders do facilitate tensions in order to draw attention away from their failed governance. I think Bernard Lewis wrote about that - not sure if he theorized this or not.Don't go thinking I've transformed into a peacenik. I still think those who stand in the way of this path toward connectivity and globalization (and the end of war and poverty) must be stopped with no apology. That's why I still think we did the right thing in Iraq and need to toughen up in Afghanistan. I'm for hunting down incorrigible jihadists wherever they are and killing them. And if Iran and China don't step up and shoulder their roles as regional security pillars, they may need a kick in the butt. But they can both be strategic allies. Bush played it too hawk and Obama is playing it too dove. Who's next?
PS - No, they don't want "war" because they know they would swiftly lose. But they do want confrontation and they do want the kind of half-assed military responses presidents have given them in recent years. A failed attempt to knock out a nuke site that killed a couple thousand civilians would be golden to them.
And I can definitely see how such a strategy would be useful, but as you point out, they want a moderate level of tension, not obliteration. To extrapolate this notion to the point where we are losing focus on the reason for the civil unrest in Iran is a stretch of logic.
IDK if an intense bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities will cause a revolution or the opposite, but I do know it is largely irrelevant at this point. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - everything else is mere commentary.