Perhaps not the text book def of something something 'Realpolitik" or her "Mericanized cuz - Realism - yet, like the ancient sad, played corrupt amoral Cult of Stability worshippers - the aforehello'd quotable quote kinda semi sorta fits.
Talking about attacking Iran
2 advisory cats in the GsGf partysphere (both via RAND - Drs Elbridge and Long ) fire uppa
a histroylicious bit about why cause doing Persia might be uncool whilst a third advisor LOL's the meme of hoping for the best.
See, as best understood, doing Barbie phobic unfun Preacher Command actually - might maybe not get all enrichment interruptus on Iran’s new clear designs in the long run, cause the regime to work way more harder, faster, stronger, longer on attaining new clear weaponry stats, and make Iranians love n support the preachers, Secret Police and Control Freaks even more "thus making regime change hard to accomplish, if not impossible."
Uh, say what?
While it’s true that bombing North Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the like did not alone result in regime change or the loss of support for fascist/authoritarian regimes, there are two ways the Iran case is different.It's true! None of them cats experienced significant popular unrest before they got all combatty with Great Satan. As "End To Evil" points out - those WWII enemy regimes were popular with their ppl, til stuff like 1000 bomber air raids and napalm made them uncool
Iran, on the other hand, has been convulsed by street protests and uprisings. The legitimacy of the mullahs is far more tenuous than was that of Ho Chih Minh or Adolf Hitler. Thus, a bombing campaign might indeed give hope to anti-mullah forces and result in wider protests.
Plus, Great Satan bombed Vietnam et. al. when we had been at war with them for years, and thus the population was already either organized to support their governments or emotionally on a wartime patriotic footing. An Iranian policy that brings war to the country through bombing may rightly be viewed by Iranians as the cause of the problem, and not a reason to further support the regime.
The diss versus Strategic Bombing in the past did not cause enemy governments to give up their plans or sue for peace. That is true in the case of Saddam Hussein, the North Vietnamese, and the like. Yet, again, those bombing campaigns were not preemptive or preventive and instead were part of a total war policy in an extended time of combat.The real quiz is if:
Suffering preemptive strikes, and not committing to a prolonged wartime national-mobilization-type effort, might stop Iran’s program both operationally and politically - it likely wouldn’t, but the truth is, we simply don’t know.
Attacking the top 20% of Iran's leadership would prob pay off better than surgical strikes anyway. Wound the regime to death, and the let Iranians forsake foreign adventures and build a new fun, free choice functional society.
The cost prohibitive "Containment" chiz - more like a myth really - any serious person seriously think a NATO style hook up of pitiful Arab Leaguer militaries would deter a nuked up sectarian Preacher Command? Not to mention Containment makes sparking a new clear arms race or rendering the PACRIM Pivot about as illusionary as those you know what legerdemain devices
The problem is that, once Tehran has the bomb, it may be impossible. The types of demands they may make, the arms race their possession of the bomb may spark, and the willingness of Great Satan to risk a nuclear exchange by not altering its interests and commitments are all simply unknown.
Given our unwillingness to seriously challenge North Korea for its proliferation and aggression against the South once it had a nuclear device, that we will be willing to hold the line.
Pic - "Nuclear Weapons and Iran's Global Ambitions: Troubling Scenarios
