No. of Recommendations: 4
But maybe it's not. It probably isn't. "Tipping the balance" through direct military intervention is an incredibly risky proposition, and one that can have enormous destabilizing impacts throughout the Middle East. I can't imagine that the Administration has given Britain much confidence in thinking that they've got a plan for the aftermath of "tipping the balance," much less given Britain any role in shaping a plan for the region. That's not their style.
Right, because the Mullahs in Iran have been a beacon of hope, freedom and light for the entire world since 1979.
Dude. Seriously?
The U.S. has no justification for taking military action against Iran. Other than the Thucydidean rationale, that is. There's no legal basis for attacking Iran under the existing international rules-based order, and there's been no effort to obtain such a justification.
The US has thousands of reasons to eliminate the Ayatollah and his entire regime. To say otherwise is to ignore our shared history since 1979.
U.S. policy is now to disdain international rules-based systems,
Yeah. No. This is another refrain that gets posted, but isn't right. For one thing, what "rules" are those? Even Mark Carney had to admit that the "rules" were kinda loose
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false — that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
(From his famous Seinfeldian speech where he said he wanted to team up with China, but knows damn well that's the end of his economy if he does. But it sounds good to people who don't actually know the "rules").
But Britain is a small country, not a big one. They're far worse off in a world where the big do as they will and the small suffer as they must, rather than an international community where all the small gather together and try to enforce a legal structure against the big. The "middle powers" team, as Canada might put it.
Not sure where to begin with this. First, see what Carney said. I suppose if one takes the view that the US is an irrational actor this makes sense. But we're not, so it doesn't.
The Bad Orange Man that is leading the rest of the world to support Iran and ignore, oh, pretty much everything else is now basing its decisions on "popularity".
Cool. What are you willing to do to restore "popularity"? How far are you willing to bend over to be "popular"?
