Subject: Re: Iran - The Difference in Assessment
This war comes down to one thing, and you're going to push back megahard on it: Clearing the board. Venezuela was a board-clearing exercise. Iran was. Cuba is next (and they're talking to us right now).

Yep, I'll push back. Venezuela hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a socialist authoritarian dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Iran hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Cuba might be next - we'll see what happens - but unless the regime is willing to fundamentally change what it is, it's not clear what the benefits will be to us.

It should be beyond obvious to anyone not on Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat to the region and US National Security across the board.

It was beyond obvious to both Obama's and Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat. No one disputes that - either then or now. The difference isn't the threat assessment. The difference is in assessing whether fighting an aerial war against Iran will make enough of a material difference in that threat to be worth the sizable costs.

Because the regime controls one of the larger countries and economies of the world, you cannot physically prevent them from being able to have ballistic missiles just by using air power. Israel and the U.S. bombed the bejeebus out of their ballistic missile sites and manufacturing program in the 12 Day War last year, and it didn't take them even a year to get back to being a full on threat. Similarly, you can't bomb them out of trying to get a nuclear weapon - again, that's what happened in the 12 Day War, and they were right back at it again.

It's early days, but right now it looks like Obama and Biden were right. There wasn't an available "Plan B" that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear or ballistic missile threat simply by attacking them. Their assessment that attacking the country wouldn't yield the desired effect appears to be spot on. Again, who knows - the regime might end up falling despite having survived the biggest hits, or Trump might decide to authorize a full ground invasion, or some other event might happen. But right now, the more likely outcome is that we come out of this war with the same regime still in charge, with them having been proven right that the only way to safeguard Iran's security is to have a nuclear weapon because the rules-based international order won't stop the U.S. or Israel.