Support NeoGAF

[simpatico]

When my youngest employees are telling me about their lives, it's not access to home ownership or the cost of secondary education that they cite as reasons they're not advancing up the professional ladder. It's the un-rubblized status of Tehran. Single mothers can be heard complaining loudly about it in any grocery store or shopping center. Cabbies and construction workers grouse about it all day long. Finally, we've got an administration in power truly listening to the material needs of the next generation Americans. As a bonus we can even lobby for a few million of their displaced citizens to migrant here and become permanent residents. I know when China and Russia witness how easily and quickly our Total Victory comes, geopolitical tensions are going to cool off quite a bit. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 and Syria do not count as we weren't really trying. This time will be completely different. In those conflicts we had to overcome having such a well-stocked and competently staffed force. It'll lull you to sleep! This time with the physical inventory precarity and constant shuffling of bodies to piece-together physically fit and English-literate units, our decision makers area going to be operating with greatly heightened senses on the razor's edge. The world ought to be reminded of our exceptionalism.

I see Iran as a threat to our allies in the region, but hardly worth trading our readiness to deter Russia or China to mobilize against. Not that Iran is inhabited by altruistic, Hollywood movie loving Carebears or any other such hallucinations. We're just up to our ears in the cans and checks our grandfathers kicked down the road and wrote with the utmost confidence. We ought to be paving that road to kick things down and stuffing our banks to make sure those checks clear with every ounce of effort we have. Lest we become Greece without the magnanimous demographics and social bonds.

 

[Madonis]

Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.

 

[jason10mm]

Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.

Getting involved in a land war in Asia is the height of stupidity.

 

[Madonis]

Getting involved in a land war in Asia is the height of stupidity.

The U.S. does not need to fight a land war in Asia to win this (although, purely hypothetically speaking, it could arguably be more justified than the whole Iraq War fiasco).

I don't think the U.S. needs to land regular forces in Iran, but they could distribute weapons, hack computer systems, knock out key regime infrastructure and military bases, bribe or kill military leaders...lots of other things.

 

[ADiTAR]

The U.S. does not need to fight a land war in Asia to win this (although, purely hypothetically speaking, it could arguably be more justified than the whole Iraq War fiasco).

I don't think the U.S. needs to land regular forces in Iran, but they could distribute weapons, hack computer systems, knock out key regime infrastructure and military bases, bribe or kill military leaders...lots of other things.

It's a lot more complicated than that. This needs some major thinking, one does not simply walk into Iran.

 

[Lord Panda]

The only "idiocy" is the EU spending more buying Russian LNG than they have spent on Ukraine aid. Spare me the pontificating about what the US is or isn't doing while the EU continues to fund both sides of the war due to their energy reliance on Russia. Something President Trump warned EU leaders about during his first term and was laughed at for his troubles.

The EU has been catastrophically retarded on this (and still is), but pretending the US response has been a masterclass is something. Appeasing Putin whose word isn't worth shit, economic lifelines, back-channel territorial bargaining, and sanctions relief for not only an enemy, but an enemy that's struggling, is next-level idiocy. That's on top of that period where Washington denied Ukraine weapons and intelligence in their fight against one of the West's top geopolitical enemies.

While Putin obviously bears the full responsibility of this war, the US and the West response never helped with relations "resets" that followed each time Russia fucked someone over. I actually place most of the blame on Obama for incentivising Russian aggression due to his his weak-ass appeasement policies. I remember thinking WTF are you doing when he announced he wouldn't be proceeding with Bush's plans for a missile defence shield over Eastern Europe. And Obama did everything he could to stop sending arms and equipment into Ukraine, and this was after Russia's annexation of Georgia, Crimea and the MH17 shoot-down, and all the other shit I've lost track of. It would have been the perfect and valid excuse to fortify Ukraine and try to get them into NATO, but instead Obama's weak-ass responses showed Putin that the sky was the limit.

And sure, the EU buying Russian LNG is ludicrous (and something we've already blasted them for in the locked Ukraine War thread), but that is only one slice of the picture. If the EU is guilty of funding Russia's war machine, the US shares some of the blame for enabling the strategic conditions for the war in the first place by signalling that Ukrainian sovereignty was negotiable and that NATO security guarantees had limits or wouldn't be enforced.

The one thing I will always credit Trump for is that from his first term onward he forced NATO members to take defense spending seriously. Underinvestment was directly encouraging Russian bullshit, and Trump's pressure actually moved the needle. Whether his current rhetoric is part of an intentional 5D chess pressure campaign to get NATO/EU faster into gear, or just Trump being Trump, but the effect was real and overdue. No argument from me there.

But the real strategic question and something I will always "pontificate" whenever the US kicks Zelenskyy / Ukraine in the balls: how does a Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the United States and allies. It fucking doesn't. It weakens NATO, rewards nuclear coercion, expands Russian strategic depth, undermines US interests and security guarantees globally... so why the fuck is the US bending over backwards for Russia instead of just bitchslapping at every opportunity while they still can?

 

[Madonis]

It's a lot more complicated than that. This needs some major thinking, one does not simply walk into Iran.

Of course it's complicated. We've only scratched the surface of the issues here.

At the same time, not doing anything is also a choice with its own complications.

Leaving a theocratic regime in place that, sooner or later, will continue developing nuclear weapons is also a choice with consequences. Letting the brave Iranian people on the streets die alone after Trump, directly or indirectly, raised their spirits and hopes is also a choice. Iran is arguably at one of its weakest points in modern history. Russia, one of its main sponsors, is also weaker now than ever before. It's not a perfect scenario, I know, but it's certainly better now than even thinking of doing this five or ten years ago. If there is one area where Trump's "new" muscular foreign policy, so to speak, could represent a radical change for good, this is it (not, say, the Greenland nonsense).

If you're never going to intervene in Iran, then stuff like the nuclear deal, with all of its limitations, made sense. Now that Trump has already attacked Iran before and has indicated that won't be the last time, then things should be different. The absolute worst thing that Trump could do right now would be to enter into nuclear talks with Iran, even if they are willing to offer ostensibly better terms, and let the repressive regime defeat the opposition with a bloodbath.

 

[Varteras]

Vance, no!

I'm usually all for diplomacy, nine or eight times out of ten, but this is one of those times in world history where I think that would be stupid.

I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.

 

[jason10mm]

I know Vance is in the unenviable position of being a voice of measured action as Trump's right hand, but this is one of those times I think he should adopt a more aggressive stance alongside Trump. Just NOT a ground war.

One would hope its a posture designed to force democrats to voice approval of Vance that could then later be flipped on them when he runs for POTUS in 2028. If he says "negotiate" and Trump says "we fight", then dems gotta support one of those 2 positions, right?