Ok, this might be a stupid question, but....
So I was thinking the other day about all the assinine rumors that're flying out here that Bush's going to invade Iran, and the argument that he'll do it to "guarantee stability" in the middle-east because otherwise Iran will have nukes. This got me to thinking, I don't know what the Iranians would do with nuclear weapons if they had them, but I doubt they'd use them offensively (no-one wants to be seen as the first "nuclear aggressor" since the diplomatic position would be so weak). Without the nuke issue, people still seem rather nervous about Iran thanks to their funding of nasty groups, but what I was wondering was, if stability is really the goal, why not let Iran get stronger? From what I've read, apparently the Saudi's and the Iranians see each other as mortal enemies; do we have anything to lose by letting them have at each-other?
My first thought was "yeah, Israel". But since neither side could ever admit to propping up Israel, that means that there's no way for a proxy war there, so....
My second thought was "yeah, oil", but the last thing either regime can afford to do is to destabize the oil market, because their cash-cows are then toast....
My last thought was, "yeah, but what about all the work in Iraq". My assumption has been that once a sufficiently strong party in Iraq emerges, the other Iraqis will say "oh well, what're ya gonna do". Maybe Iraq could end up being a proxy-war location, or maybe such support would simply lead to a faster federalization there.
I've had this largely half-formed thought in my head for a week, but my only conclusion is that I really don't know jack about how to weigh these kinds of situations out.
Opinions anyone?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)