Revoking the deal after the next election would be an utterly utterly stupid thing to do.
No one would trust the US to ever keep to its agreements again, and the only way to deal with Iran in the future would be via war as there would be no way that any political leader there could risk negotiating with the US again. And given that Iran is no Iraq, there would basically be no way to deal with them as the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war.
Question: Is this an agreement that the American people approve? The point is... John Kerry made a deal that an overwhelming majority of the United States does not agree with. I believe there will be a war within 2 years, and it's because of this deal. Congress does not approve, therefore it is not a sanctioned and legally binding contract. It's just another Obama executive order that dies when he leaves office. Israel will probably attack when they have a US President that will support them... because that is a deal that had the approval of Congress. Crossing the people here has vast consequences, and I find your declaration that the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war completely laughable. We could turn Iran into a wasteland without even setting foot in that despicable place. I have always known that we could just as easily drill through glass.
What do you think the military options are with Iran?
2) Mass bombing campaign? Maybe, but Iran actually has some decent Anti-Aircraft weaponry (unlike Iraq, Libya or Syria) so there would be losses.Civilian targets are off limits as usual, and miltiary targets will be fairly well defended. Mass bombing campaigns in Iraq were not all that successful, and IS seem well able to withstand it. Add in that the US fleets in the gulf of persia immediately become very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, as do all the freighters in the gulf, and you have a recipe for a very long, drawn out, and probably fruitless mission.
I wouldn't say massive, but I think somebody could orchestrate a targeted bombing campaign. Enough is known about their facilities to seriously set back their nuclear program. They build it again, then bomb it again. Iraq was kept from developing nuclear weapons after the Gulf War, despite W. Bush's assertions to the contrary. That proves that a country can be kept from producing these sorts of weapons.
Iran is a theocracy that values religious dogma over human life, whether Persian or global. Allowing them to develop nukes would be a disaster, because they would not hesitate to use them without regard to their own safety. An Iranian A-bomb WOULD be used in a first strike for religious ideology. That's what makes it dangerous. You cannot negotiate with a cult member that has a nuke. You shoot them in the head and hope their children survive to be put in a foster home.
That's probably the biggest thing that the liberal left does not get about ultra-conservative Muslims. Ultra-religious Abrahamists (Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) do NOT value life. They value their soul. That makes it easy to push them into violent and suicidal acts. Give them an illusion of threat to their soul, or a loved one's soul, and they will do whatever you tell them to do. A lot of the time, Abrahamists definitely don't value non-believers, and use various methods to de-personify anyone that does not match their belief system, which makes it easier to kill them. Conservatives in America get it because the vast majority either are or associate with extreme Abrahamists.
Liberals see everyone as a human being that values their own life, but don't realize that other cultures don't reciprocate that world view.
Don't let North Korea fool you. The Kims may not value Korean or other lives, but they value their own. That's why they have never launched a nuke, because it would be their end. Theocrats don't value their own life or the world, especially Abrahamists with an apocalyptic worldview. They would rather end history than be a part of a secular present.
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
