Ha, wonderfully written BTW. You make quite the point w/ your impressive use of language.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but one thing very different between Israel & the US is that (almost) all Israelis serve in the military. As a result, (most) of their people are less starry-eyed about war than most Americans. In the All-Volunteer…
Ha, wonderfully written BTW. You make quite the point w/ your impressive use of language.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but one thing very different between Israel & the US is that (almost) all Israelis serve in the military. As a result, (most) of their people are less starry-eyed about war than most Americans. In the All-Volunteer Force era, most Americans seem to lean towards absolutist views on war & peace--i.e., "kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" (at no cost to us) or that any conflict is a likely bloodsucking quagmire at best, a world war at worst.
Reasonable people can disagree on what the US and/or Israel should do next. That said, "going crazy" by design is also, by definition, *not reasonable.* Ironically, the failure of Iran's weekend attack may drive them to restart a nuclear weapon project, even as some more hawkish Americans & Israelis start talking as if they currently have the bomb or are its doorstep. Iran doesn't and isn't--but could get to a theoretically working (but untested) bomb soon.
Just when you thought we'd learned everything from Iraq, it would be epic tragedy to get in a shooting war w/ Iran over a hypothetical. An Israeli response "in a way and at a time that suits us" sounds like a sober-minded approach to inflicting a punishment to (hopefully) ensure Iran realizes there will *always* be consequences for its aggression. It's true that Israel's once supposedly awesome deterrent effect has been degraded. Putting aside any moral questions about Gaza, Israel's response there can be seen as part of an effort to rejuvenate the deterrent. Now something must be done to get Iran to respect said rejuvenated deterrent.
I'd normally say its a straw man argument to say the only alternative is a "neocon" all-out war against Iran; that is, the choices are *not* black & white--a muscular, but smart, approach to Iran is possible. I hope I'm not proved wrong.
But never mind that in this case the Iranian "aggression" was against the Israeli aggression of attacking their embassy in Syria. This ever-escalating back and forth is at the root of what make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable.
Ha, wonderfully written BTW. You make quite the point w/ your impressive use of language.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but one thing very different between Israel & the US is that (almost) all Israelis serve in the military. As a result, (most) of their people are less starry-eyed about war than most Americans. In the All-Volunteer Force era, most Americans seem to lean towards absolutist views on war & peace--i.e., "kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" (at no cost to us) or that any conflict is a likely bloodsucking quagmire at best, a world war at worst.
Reasonable people can disagree on what the US and/or Israel should do next. That said, "going crazy" by design is also, by definition, *not reasonable.* Ironically, the failure of Iran's weekend attack may drive them to restart a nuclear weapon project, even as some more hawkish Americans & Israelis start talking as if they currently have the bomb or are its doorstep. Iran doesn't and isn't--but could get to a theoretically working (but untested) bomb soon.
Just when you thought we'd learned everything from Iraq, it would be epic tragedy to get in a shooting war w/ Iran over a hypothetical. An Israeli response "in a way and at a time that suits us" sounds like a sober-minded approach to inflicting a punishment to (hopefully) ensure Iran realizes there will *always* be consequences for its aggression. It's true that Israel's once supposedly awesome deterrent effect has been degraded. Putting aside any moral questions about Gaza, Israel's response there can be seen as part of an effort to rejuvenate the deterrent. Now something must be done to get Iran to respect said rejuvenated deterrent.
I'd normally say its a straw man argument to say the only alternative is a "neocon" all-out war against Iran; that is, the choices are *not* black & white--a muscular, but smart, approach to Iran is possible. I hope I'm not proved wrong.
But never mind that in this case the Iranian "aggression" was against the Israeli aggression of attacking their embassy in Syria. This ever-escalating back and forth is at the root of what make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable.