Andrew thinks the Israel question in last night’s debate was nonsensical:
If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons (the prevention of which is the scenario both candidates chose to address), the United States committing troops isn’t going to do anyone any good. On the other hand, if Iran attacks Israel with conventional forces, Israel won’t need our direct assistance. They have a military more than capable of defending the country against any state in the Middle East (or at least capable of making the attack a nearly suicidal proposition for the aggressor; that’s why Israel went to all the trouble of acquiring nuclear weapons as a deterrent). Everyone knows this; it’s why Iran would never attack Israel in the first place. On top of that, no one bothered to address the question of whether Israel would even want our military to get involved. For a number of reasons, they might not. Are we going to bother to ask the Israelis in this incredibly unlikely hypothetical scenario, or are they a part of the international community we need to ignore in order to protect our allies?
I actually cringed at the question for a related reason. If the US and Israel get into conflict with Iran, the real worry is not that Iran will attack Israel. As Andrew pointed out, Iran cannot survive a war against Israel and the United States and Israel and the United States can. The worry is that Iran will attack the MIDDLE EAST, destroying all of the regions pipelines, refineries and ports – crushing a large amount of the world’s oil supply. THAT is a conflict in which Iran cannot survive AND Western Civilization as we now know it cannot survive at the same time. What I want to know is how Senator McCain thinks not talking to Iran pushes us further from that scenario.
Posted by stevenmaloney
Posted by stevenmaloney 


