Wednesday, April 12, 2006

The Coming War With Iran

Spengler has some interesting thoughts:

“Americans are a misunderstood people. … President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little. …

The Revolutionary Guards of 1979 now are middle-aged men who now at last have a chance to lead. … But Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear power are not only economic but strategic. Like [Adolf] Hitler and [Josef] Stalin, Ahmadinejad looks to imperial expansion as a solution for economic crisis at home … envisages a regional Shi'ite empire backed by nuclear weaponry. …

If conflict with Iran is indeed unavoidable, the Bush administration can re-emerge as a war government rather than as Wilsonian nation-builders, with every expectation of popular support.”


For other recent comments on the coming war with Iran see my summary for quotes and links.

5 comments:

The Thinker said...

I would like to join your alliance If I may. Please list me in your links. My blog is http://islam-watch.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Keep up the good work.

Pastorius said...

Jason,
I read this earlier today. I thought it was a lucid analysis, and I hope he is right about what he says. But, I have to say, I don't agree that Americans don't care about helping the Iraqis rebuild.

We wouldn't have sat around while our Congress approved more than 100 billion in expeditures, after the war was already won.

Americans actually NEED a humanitarian reason for their wars.

In the case of the Iraqis, I think it is likely that Americans have begun to feel it is futile to help them, because there are just too many bad guys.

Epaminondas said...

Spengler is always an interesting pain in the ass. However, he never gets past his cynical world in decline persona (the real Spengler). He won't even admit to altruistic byproducts of actions in enlightened self interest.

I never miss him, and I sometimes agree with his functional conclusions, but I am always aggravated by his "why".

Jason Pappas said...

Yes, I sense some cynicism in Spengler’s writing as I do in Steyn. Perhaps that’s why I used the more cautions “interesting” instead of a clearer affirmative modifier.

Nevertheless, as polls show, there is a segment of the population that supports the annihilation of the enemy but shies away from the nations-building effort. That middle-group tips the scale in favor of the initial attack but tends to favor a short and fierce war instead of a low-grade prolonged transformational endeavor.

With Iran, a short fierce attack may be all that is needed. And it may buy time to fund the growing internal opposition. If, however, Iran gets a nuclear umbrella, the regime can secure its power and extend her sphere of influence through out the region.

I don’t see any other option than to act soon. And I think it may come well before November.

Jason Pappas said...

By the way, on my blog I link to a Claremont Review symposium (see update 6) that include an extensive debate on Iran and various strategies ... if you have time to read it all.