imported_Tango
Golden Member
1. I think you are being overly simplistic on these points. Trade relations never lead diplomatic relations in the past, nor would this time. I never said major US allies would "be on their side". I said they would not be on the US side.
That's the meaning of diplomatic isolation.
You might be aware that many European countries asked and obtained that no missions directed in Iraq would originate from bases located within their borders. Eventually in a few countries (interestingly, even countries that do participate in military operations in Iraq, such as Italy) they are now voting about the possibility of asking the US to remove those bases. It's not only a matter of official diplomatic relations. It's people marching in the streets by the millions. And people are, to their domestic politicians, voters.
When a foreign policy becomes unsustainable with electors, politicians do what people ask, in order to be re-elected. I t happened in Spain and Italy already.
The other thing is, I am not only talking about long-time major allies, but also countries whose diplomatic relations are extremely hard to maintain already, but are critical political actors alienating which could be extremely harmful for the US. I am talking about Russia, Pakistan, China, Egypt.
Invade Iran and dozens of joint anti-terrorism efforts would be wiped out from the map. Intelligence wouldn't be shared as is now, nor would countries easily tolerate US military presence in their area.
Again, you don't need countries to be "on their side". You just have them on nobody's side. Not to mention the image damage of having virtually everybody but Israel either condemning your policy or staying in a regime of embarrassing diplomatic silence.
2. An enormous majority of the Muslim world stand together with the US on 9/11. Most of that majority was long during the war in Iraq. But Saddam was feared and hated by most Muslims around the world. Nobody would accept a war with Iran with no reason at all. This would likely be seen as an act of religious war, and alienate the average Joe in every predominately Muslim country around the world Marocco to Indonesia.
You might expect terror attacks on US installation in those countries as well as domestic terrorism by Muslims residents here similar to what you are seeing in England.
The idea that people hate the US is one of the most childish ever presented on this topic. I traveled extensively in Africa, the Middle East and Asia and I can assure you nothing is more far from truth. You don't have to believe me, just take a look at the amount of visa applications coming from those countries. You don't emigrate to countries you hate.
Again, the US dilapidated some of this cachet with Iraq (particularly after the Abu Ghraib debacle), but attacking a country with no reason would really impact the idea people have of the US.
And just to open a brief parenthesis: the question is not if you like Iran having nuclear power, the question is what can you do about it.
1. Iran needs nuclear power badly. Download the International Energy Agency report on the country and you'll see it. What should they do about it?
2. It is a sovereign country's right to envision and implement its own energy policy. No other country has any right to interfere. Why is France allowed to produce some 75% of its energy from nuclear without anybody having a problem with this, while Iran cannot? Again, don't say "Iranians are crazy blah blah". You must come with some explanation rational enough to stand in an international law court.
3. If you want to extend the debate to nuclear weapons, remember there is no evidence whatsoever the Iranian nuclear program has military purposes. In fact, their officials have denied this possibility many times. Now, of course you don't believe them. Question again: what should they do about it?
And even if they would indeed go on and produce nuclear weapons. How come Pakistan and India can develop them while Iran cannot? It is a prerogative of sovereign states to manage their armed forces to defend their borders; on what basis should this right be denied to Iran and only Iran?
The only answers to these questions is: because Iran is close enough to Israel for them to worry. It is a problem of Israel to manage its own paranoia, not the international community's. The international community didn't act when India and Pakistan acquired the technology to create nuclear weapons. Nor the international community cared of what Syria and Jordan thought of Israel developing its nuclear program.
If you deny a country the right to develop energy for its own economic development needs based only on the fact that you "kinda don't like them" you enter a dangerous, very dangerous, path. The more you polarize the world and base policy on disequilibria in treatment, the bigger the bang when equilibrium eventually is restored.
