I said in the beginning I think this is part of a longer play vs China. Just do a search for China from me and you'll see it in this thread a few times. Any time you are combating a country with a 100 year plan that has been in effect, it's going to take time, and get uncomfortable. Cuba likely next in some sort of capacity.
But outside of that context, I think decimating Iran's military sends the right message to the world. But also, whether you think them getting nukes still doesn't give them the capacity to reach us now, why would you take that chance or let them develop it in the future? End it now. If they are enriching uranium to 60%, and showing us missiles they said they didn't have, I don't know how that couldn't be a concern. Allies are important as well - there would be major effects on the American "taxpayer" if EU nations or Israel got nuked.
Best result, Iran agrees on the nuclear parts, we continue to break them down, and there's a regime change. I know the regime part has little chance of happening, since those who were ready to take over were killed, but we are talking ideal scenarios here.
I appreciate the reply and I can appreciate our positioning against China. IMO they're clearly the main global rival. Their belt and road initiative, essentially a modern Silk Road stretching through Pakistan, Iran, and beyond, shows they're playing the long game in that region.
That said, I'm not convinced that unilateral military moves against Iran are the smartest way to counter Chinese influence there. It's telling that none of our European allies joined us in this conflict, even though Iranian nukes would threaten them long before they reach us. And who can really blame them? Our government lied to us and the entire world about weapons of mass destruction to justify destroying Iraq. That history lingers.
A better approach, in my view, is a lighter touch in the Middle East. We should be more hands off with watchful waiting as the default. Iran already faces strong natural rivals in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. If Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon, those countries, along with Europe, will be forced to act especially if they know the US won't automatically ride to the rescue. We don't have to do nothing, but allowing things to take their natural course while making smarter moves behind the scenes makes more sense. Our long track record in the Middle East is one of getting dragged into or starting disasters. It's political quicksand.
I generally disagree with unilateral international actions on principle. That said, they're more palatable to me in the western hemisphere. We have a long history here going back to the Monroe Doctrine. Overthrowing governments through the CIA, united fruit company operations, sending marines to Grenada, the Bay of Pigs, etc. It's our backyard, and it's been the CIA's playground for decades. We don't get stuck in endless wars here the way we do in the middle east, which makes it easier for me to stomach.
