Rob, for someone with a BA in International Relations and a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies, your not making any sense whatsoever. Saddam was strongly aligned with France, Germany and Russia through oil deals and loans. Did that "marginalize" our power? Did that influence us in any way, shape or form from invading and removing him for power?
Uh, yes it marginalized our power. We were powerless to do anything at the UN, why do you think we had to go in basically on our own? No UN, no NATO backing. It was because these nations opposed the war.
Our ability to invade and remove Saddam from power around the UN does not mean that our power was not marginalized by the actions these nations took at the UN. Added to that, since we went in on our own and are now stuck, aid from these nations is not pouring forth, and it marginalizes our position in regards to Iran even further.
So yes, we removed Saddam, but yes, that action has had negative consequences on our power and influence. You keep pointing back to the author of the piece, and there is no doubt that Charles Krauthammer is a smart man, but his piece is an opinion piece, keep that in mind when looking back to it. Many people disagree with his views on the world.
There is so many things wrong with this logic it's hard for me to decide where to begin. . .
First, Iran calls Jews "filthy bacteria" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." They engage in proxy wars constantly through Hezbollah and Hamas. With that said, 60 short years after the holocaust, do honestly think Israel would let something as trivial as "airspace" compromise their national security by allowing Iran to gain the ability to do in one afternoon what took Hitler 5 years to do --- kill 6 million Jews?
Well yes, when doing so could cost them the support of the US. If Israel decides to go ahead and bomb Iran anyway using Iraqi airspace it will get blamed on the US. I am sure the US will love when Iran retaliates in Iraq and sends the whole country back into a tail spin, and clearly Israel would be to blame for that, or if Iran retaliates on Saudi Arabia (which is a likely option) and sends the world economy into a tailspin, or better yet blocks off the straight of Hormuz and forces a war between the US and Iran that we never wanted. If the US wants Iran bombed, they will have to do it themselves.
Secondly, you put way too much stock in Iran's military capabilities and not enough in Israels. The last time Iran was at war, they sent their youth against the enemy armed with Korans! Israel recently acquired bunker buster bombs and stealth F-35 raptors from us.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The last major war Iran was in was the Iran/Iraq war, which they arguably won. As for your claim that Israel acquired F-35 stealth fighters from us "recently." I don't know where you get this, maybe fantasyland. It was in May of this year that Israel
requested permission to buy these planes. They will not be delivered until 2013 at the earliest.
Furthermore, F-35 stealth fighter jets don't exist in a vacuum. First, you need a vibrant free market economy to pay for it. Then a literate middle class is needed to produce mechanics who can service and modify it. Freedom of scholarship is required if Israeli designers are going to update it. And most importantly, an open society is necessary if the plane's sophisticated controls are going to be operated by competent, motivated, and individualistic pilots. And because of all this, Israeli pilots proved deadly against Syrian jets in Lebanon -- and Iraqis in advanced Russian jets would rather fly into Iran than fight American planes during the Gulf War.
No one is denying that Israel is an advanced nation with capable pilots. The mission in Syria is no comparison to what the mission for Iran would take. In Syria, one target was bombed. In Iran multiple targets all over the country have to be bombed in a country that is on edge waiting for an attack any day.
Not only does Iran possess are large battery of SAM's they also possess a large air force consisting of both American and Russian planes, including SU-25T's and SU-25UBK's. Both of which are quality aircraft. If you expect to waltz in and shoot a few rockets and get out without a huge fight, then you are naive. And what is worse, odds are you do not even destroy all of the targets.
Logic??? Where power is concerned, do you honestly think that nations concern themselves more with short term rather then long term?
I think every nation is more concerned with short term power than anything else. What is the point of power 20 years from now when you have to have it today?
We can discuss motives and the methods of American behavior in the world, but IMO, any discussion of it has to begin with a discussion of the structure of the international system. The sole reason we can talk about preemption, realism, unilateralism and neoconservatism today is that we live in a totally new world. Like Krauthammer suggest, we do live in a "unipolar world" of sorts that has surely not existed in at least 1500 years. Sadly, I think many tend not to see it, nor understand the historical uniqueness of this situation.
I agree that we are the sole superpower, hyperpower in fact, but the world tied together like never before. A disruption in Saudi oil could send the world economy into a tailspin, China could call in the trillions in debt that they own, Middle Eastern nations can increasingly move to trading oil in the Euro, furthering the demise of the dollar. It is not like we are immune from a costly response, even from a nation that possesses nowhere near the same capability that we do.