Iran probably knows that.

It is the perception of a threat that yields rewards in international relations. That's what, I'm sure, Cheney had in mind as a primary purpose of a US "military option" vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. It's the leverage you want from the perceived and credible threat, not the actual attack.

 

If the Iranian people haven't thrown the rascals out by now, its doubtful they will. Perhaps the Nicaragua contra model with Iran's restive minorities might apply but I don't see that working.

 

Otherwise, I don't see how we can clean up Iran's domestic politics. Do we send Rahm Emanuel over to advise the opposition? Do we haul the mullahs before the court at the Hague?

 

Iraq's success would have more influence over Iran perhaps.

 

Does my grade depend on my demonstration of understanding the implications on Poles and Czechs?

 

They wanted US troops on the ground to help keep the Russians at bay.  They sucked up to the US, a lot, for years, to get it to happen.

 

I think they initially thought them the radar site would fly with the Russians, since they were useless against Russia, were obstensibly directed at Iran, yet still put US boots on their soil.

If Poland's government wanted a US military presence, then it would be for the purpose of essentially guaranteeing a US interest in their security. The US personnel would be hostages.

Considering Poland's history, that would be understandable. Poland has been under the heels of the Russians or the Germans or both. Russia on the other hand has not been successfully occupied since the Mongols.

I do not see how the Russians can expect their opposition to a US presence in Poland would earn any respect. After all, they stationed their troops 90 miles from our territory for a long time and we didn't throw tantrums over that.

 

We didn't do it because we knew we could kick them out of Cuba if they became a problem. They knew it too.

 

I don't see how Russia will find any new motivation to concede anything at this point. They probably believe that Obama is a weakling. And they are in no need to keep grooming their public image the way Obama seems to be.

Yes, you do.

 

 After years of caving into GWB demand, they still get screwed after an election.

 

Their lessons learned: don't suck on the US ever again.

 

You'll find that the US foreign policy (includes energy, trade, human rights, foreign aid, security, health etc) will encounter higher resistance or friction from Europe due to lack of support from "New Europe."

We'll see if Russians will change their minds on Iran soon, but Chinese certainly won't change their mind. They will not change their mind, because, in their eyes, energy security via alliance with Iran is more important than US dropping inflation bomb. What's the point of sacrificing your allies for a diplomacy that's not going to work?

 

Or, will Obama sell another vassal state of the US to bribe China out of the way? I wonder WHICH vassal would that be.

Russia is not gonna invade Poland or the Czech republic. Neither is Russia gonna fire missiles at Europe.

 

This ABM placement in Poland was fixing a problem that did not exist in my opinion. It was also creating problems where there were none before in my opinion.

 

As for using Putin as a scarecrow, that has more to do with local US politics IMHO.

 

 

 

This sounds a little wierd.

How credible is it that an Iran launched missile will be both in "boost phase" and in immediate range of anything in Poland or the Czech Rep?

 

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you don't sound believable.

 

Too, what I heard about about the purpose was that Poland and Czech sites would be there too intercept Western Europe bound missiles of Iranian origin.

 

Your use of "idiot" for Bush is a little off considering what we have in the White House now which is a guy who gives campaign speeches in Berlin.

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder is anybody on this site really interested in actually trying to understand the situation. The entire issue here is huge military and political disadvantage a US Military presence in Poland puts the Russians in. THIS WAS NEVER about Iranian ICBMs, Russian BMs of any kind or the DoD as a tripwire.

Iranian ICBMs:

A dream. Seriously, look at the Norks. Look at the response options. Look how we have successfully held several orders of magnitude more ICBMs at bay for 50 years.

Russian BMs:

Again, please spare me. We've stared down Russian BMs for half a century and we know how to counter that threat. Moreover, the Russians are not suicidal. They haven't been in a position to challenge NATO since the late 1980's and conventionally speaking their position has only deteriorated since then.

DoD Tripwire:

It's called the Polish Border. Get familiar with NATO's mission.

What this is about is the United States placing more and more pressure on the Russians and containing them. Domination of the Northern European plain makes any kind of defense of the Russian interior completely untenable. By having the US Military that close to Russian proper and in that particular geography, the Russians would be in the same kind of predicament they were in when the fought the Nazis. Go look at the invasion routes and how badly Russia suffered due to the Germans controlling this terrain. This BMD strategy was always intended to be used as leverage against Russia.

The comment about Russian troops 90 miles from the US not causing a crisis is almost completely devoid of logic. Russia does not and never has had the kind of expeditionary capability and particularly the Navy and sea lift the United States has. Russian soldiers in Cuba cannot invade and hold terrain in CONUS. But when Russian missiles and other nuclear weapons were there. We had the Cuban Missile Crisis which of course almost ended in nuclear war. This is because Russian missiles there completely undermine any defense we had at that time. Well Poland with a US Military Garrison does that to the Russians. The thing is that the United States isn't planning on invading Russia and we don't need Polish BMD bases. So we could afford to trade it for things we actually do want. Things like Russian cooperation against Iran. The Iranians cannot stay on their current course without RUSSIAN support. The idea here is not war with Iran but to compel them to give in to our demands via diplomacy. THAT MEANS RUSSIAN HELP.

Now, we always have the option of using war. But because of OIF/OEF and the obvious economic difficulties we are facing, a war is not the best choice right now. Defeating the Iranians is going to take A LOT MORE than a few PGMs over  couple of nights. The DoD really doesn't have the Bandwidth to support that RIGHT NOW without some serious strategic readjustments and compromises that we would rather not make. This is why GWB worked with the Iranians and Russians and it is why Obama is continuing that policy.

The Czechs, Poles, Russians , Iranians, Democrats and Republicans and just about everybody else who matters knows this. This is all very basic "Great Game Lite" stuff. Put aside the knee jerk desire to label Ob