Yes, USG opposition to Iran is based on other things, not just opposition to their nuclear program.
But other things won't necessarily serve as a casus belli. If US leaders were to go on TV and say, "We've decided to attack Iran because Iraq is our client state, not theirs," that would not play in Peoria. Well, you could say, they could just make up whatever they want about Iran's nuclear program, and use that as a casus belli. But it is not so simple. Repeating the propaganda feat of Iraq 2002-3 is not a trivial task. There are a lot of people with means and motivation who are on guard against this. Thus, it is likely to matter if someone like Romney is President or not. On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > Our buddy Barkley likes to point out the mullahs have expressed opposition > to nukes. On some level, whether they REALLY want nukes in their heart of > hearts is irrelevant. In some degree the US demand that Iran have no nukes > is just a pretext for endlessly dialing up pressure on the regime for other > reasons (everyone here can think of a list). So I think the desire for > aggression is strong and does not depend on Iran's actual policies, except > for some kind of abject surrender to US interests a la Qadaffi. (And look > what good that did him.) > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
