Juan Cole: GOPers Promise you War on Iran & Torture & Poverty

[pampango]

Saturday’s Republican debate, sponsored by CBS and the National Journal, revealed a Republican field that is promising war on Iran and a revival of the use of torture, as well as horrible relations with the new governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya (according to Herman Cain, they have gotten “out of hand,” and he and Gingrich want to deal with them by supporting a muscular Christianity).

Dear Herman Cain: In revolutions, things typically get “out of hand.”

The only adults in the room were John Huntsman and Ron Paul, who have no realistic chance of being the standard-bearer. They denounced water-boarding as torture and generally punctured the warmongering of the others. But it is shameful that potential US presidents are even talking about torturing people and launching wars of aggression.

Then Mitt Romney said he could have done a better job in deterring Iran’s nuclear enrichment program than has Obama. But you will note that the Bush administration could not do anything about it, and there is absolutely no reason to think that Romney could, either. General James Cartwright testified last year that only an invasion and occupation of Iran could stop the program. Romney thinks he could have forced Russia to cooperate with sanctions on Iran, but it is all just hot air. Russia has substantial economic relations with Iran that it is not going to sacrifice to make Mitt Romney happy.

Romney continued,
“Fin– finally, the president should have built credible– threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Look, one thing you can know– and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you’d like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/gopers-promise-you-war-on-iran-torture-and-poverty.html

[tech3149]

1. I have to ask, what difference would it make if Iran had nukes?

Fine, let them have nukes. They would be suicidal to ever use them. Who would they use them against? Israel? Give me a break! Iran us upwind from Israel and Israel has hundreds of nukes. Then consider the fact that the US stands behind Israel 100% and has thousands of nukes.

I might be a tired old drunk but I wouldn't take on those odds and I'm pretty sure the government of Iran is smart enough to avoid that sort of confrontation.

Just quit pissing in other peoples sandboxes and mabey we might not see so many threats around the world.

[gratuitous]

2. Only one difference I can see

When the Bushistas were scouting around for a place to invade, they considered Iraq and North Korea. They settled on Iraq, I think, because they knew Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. Iran may or may not be pursuing nuclear weapon capability, but if the example of Iraq/North Korea is any guide, they'd be serving their own best interest in at least putting on a show of having nukes.