Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Maybe He Needs To Be A Tad More Skeptical

I hope the Skeptical CPA is having us on. I read your man everyday and respect his opinion on financial markets, legal and regulatory matters as far as I understand the issues. In a recent blog post, he wrote the following,

Bush should stop fiddling around and give Israel the green light to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with whatever help it needs. Then Israel can portray itself as the defender of Sunni Islam.

Okay, part of the post are sarcastic. For example, "Aren't you comforted by Bush's "confidence in the King"? Isn't Bush the guy who looked into Putin's soul and liked what he saw?"

Certainly, giving nuclear anything to anyone is not what our foreign policy should be about. The idea that encouraging the Israelis to bomb the Persians is going to solve anything for us is not one of SCPA's best.

If after the bombing the King can keep his bestiary together, he should do well enough. Only on the face of it will Israel get something and we shall have even more dependence on KSA.

Most ideas for war in the new millennium have not panned out. SCPA is a pretty sharp lad, His tongue has to be so far back in his cheek he's choking/joking.


Independent Accountant said...

I was not joking. If and when the Iranians have nuclear weapons and use them against Israel or Saudi Arabia, we will have real problems compared to what we have now.
My opposing our Iraq and Afghanistan invasions does not make me a pacifist. I opposed our sticking our nose into Russia's relations with Georgia, Poland and the Ukraine. At Iran, I draw the line. I think we should have cut a deal with Putin years ago and carved Iran up like a Thanksgiving ham.
At least two other Arab countries are screaming at us to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, lest they go nuclear: Egypt and Libya. Khadafy gave up his nuclear program in return for coming under the US nuclear umbrella. Now Khadafy feels we double-crossed him. Such is American foreign policy, feckless.

Joseph Moroco said...

" If and when the Iranians have nuclear weapons and use them against Israel or Saudi Arabia, we will have real problems compared to what we have now. "

Please see The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran, by the Israeli historian and military expert, Martin Van Kreveld (http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/) in the Forward, which I assure you is not published in Iran.

A criminal like Khadafy should know about double crossing. Both he and Mubarak run open air prisons. they may feel better with Iran bombed but if the Iranians can fight back (and if they do, they will be fighting back against us) Libya and Egypt might feel better but we won't.

If the strait of Hormuz is impeded, what will the gas price be? Hey, I want to see us move to other energy sources, but it ain't happenin' over the weekend.

I dealt with why I think the idea is horribly wrong here http://theneutralist.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-to-persia.html. If you believe the Persians are so stupid that they are just head in the sand, fine. I think they are listening to us saying we're going to do, yeah, this time we mean it, and planning a counterpunch.

I have one word of caution for you. Cakewalk.