That’s a lot of risk and political capital to spend just to end up not destroying them. Can you imagine the headlines? “United States air power could not even destroy the facilities.” That would be great propaganda for the other side.
There’s no risk. As I said, we don’t have to destroy them, just bury them.
Spend some time reading up on the USAF and our KE weapons.
Remember, a small meteor the size of a bus striking the earth causes more damage than any nuke ever exploded.
NASA and the USAF have been developing these weapons for decades. The MOAB is far from the most devastating non nuclear weapon we have.
Remember, we have a supersonic bomber capable of carrying a heavier/larger bombload than even the B-52.
Mass x Velocity Squared= Massive Kinetic Energy on impact.
I really do not think that it would be difficult for the US to totally destroy Iran’s (little) navy and air force.
And I certainly am not calling for a ground invasion of Iran.
So how, precisely, might Iran “fight back”?
Nothing sarcastic about it. (Oddly, you evidently did not find the first part of the equation to be filled with “sarcasm”–in fact, you responded to it–yet this part, you do. Strange…)
Your reliance upon “the Trump administration’s credibility gap” is simply a talking point of the left–and not an established fact, accepted by most Americans.
As for our allies, Germany now says that there is “strong evidence” that Iran is behind these attacks: Germany: 'Strong evidence' Iran behind attacks – DW – 06/18/2019
And this is coming from Angela Merkel, who leans center-left.
As for Japan, it was attempting to broker a peace deal at the time of the most recent attack upon an oil tanker–this time, in the Gulf of Oman (near the Strait of Hormuz). (This is probably not at all remarkable, as Japan has only a national self-defense force–this requirement was written into its Constitution, following WWII–so it no doubt is hoping, fervently, to avoid war.)
But the UK–predictably, perhaps–is entirely behind us here.
Since even Germany is now onboard with the US here, that leaves only Japan still claiming to be uncertain.
But I didn’t say it would be difficult, I said Iran would fight back. Whether that was for a week or a month.
But the real point that’s constantly ignored with this is that Iran is an ally of Russia and China and I think that first of all, the two would veto any resolution for the use of force on Iran just as they both did with Syria.
1 Like
The “relation” has to do with Iran’s consistently bad behavior.
One might add the fact that it is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism.
But perhaps these are unimportant matters to you…
Iran engages in terrorism to advance its interests just as Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US do. So it’s not about Iran being good.
In this particular instance however, Iran has nothing to gain by attacking a Japanese ship, and along with many others I’m not buying it. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the historic neocons pushing Trump however all have much to gain if Iran could be blamed for it and then attacked by the US in the fashion that you and others here are wanting.
1 Like
How in the world may the UN act against a country’s national sovereignty?
The US is emphatically not merely a part of some globalist union; rather, it is a 100 percent sovereign nation–which does not need to ask permission to act, in 2019, anymore than it did in 1919–or even in 1819.
And I really do not know just how Iran might “fight back”–even for “a week” or “a month”–if it had no navy or air force whatsoever, and if we had no boots on the ground in Iran.
It’s that the US regularly focuses on Iran’s bad behavior while ignoring the same with other countries. As a matter of fact, Trump just defended SA again over their killing of the journalist at their Turkish mission.
1 Like
Well, I guess you’ll find that out if and when you get your coveted attack on them…
The US was instrumental in the creation of the UN and the rules by which nations are to abide. Pompeo has been traveling about trying to hussle up a coalition. Bush and Obama both did the same thing. Bush sought and secured a resolution for Iraq, Obama however wasn’t successful in getting a resolution for Syria, Russia and China pointing to the abuse of UNSCR 1973 in Libya.
We look after our own interests.
Is that so hard to understand?
“Fairness” is a goal of apologists.
1 Like
Repeating it doesn’t make it any more impactful.
Their citizen, their embassy, their issue.
It’s an internal problem and they are dealing with it internally just as the US or any other country would.
No they won’t because neither can afford a conflict with the US.
1 Like
Which went on to become allies, yes. Followed us into the Iraq folly and appear to have learned a lesson. 
Repeating that talking point won’t make it true.
It is naive not to believe it.
1 Like
The facts make it true.
1 Like