Question

[yaksha2]

Would protesting againt the administration for their current positioning strategy toward Iran encourage the idea that war or conflict with them is inevitable? Is it too soon to publicly demonstrate against the propoganda currently being distributed?

Oh bother.

Happy Birthday, John Reck.

Comments

[ktl]

Very tricky question. If it were 2 years ago, I would say yes, because it would only feed into the public's fear and help the administration sell a war as inevitable. But now that Congress might potentially stand up to the adminstration if pressured -- now I don't think it's too early... provided that we don't fall into the trap of agreeing with the underlying supposition "something must be done, we just don't want war.". Because once the public hears certainty that something must be done it will typically prefer the "strongest" option.

[lobdinger]

Don't fall into that camp of people who think conflict with Iran is even an option and use it to naysay policy gestures. Look at it for what it is: there needs to be posture against Iran especially at this time when they are internaly weak with the inevitable expiration of the ayatollah and Ahmadinijad's party being kicked to the curb in elections. We have to keep the option for military action open because it is an imperative. Just like with every country we have dealings with: the threat of violence is always open. We threatened violence against Russia a short while back with their incursions into Ukrainian politics and attempts to ratchet up their sphere of inlfuence. But dont worry, nothing violent will come to pass unless an irrational variable gets thrown into a historicaly hyper-rational mix. Not because we couldnt smoke Iran like a black and mild, but because it would ruin the entire policy paradigm in the ME and almost as importantly give Russia, currently the largest exporter of oil, a lion's share of the energy market