Obama Wants to Avoid an Iranian Military Conflict; Good Luck with That
COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama said Sunday it would be risky to attack Iran. Ya think? He wasn't concerned about Iranian military capabilities, and really shouldn't be. They are no match for anything the U.S. Navy would throw at them or anything our allies already have positioned in the region. He's more concerned about the impact it would have on the price of oil.
The president wants to utilize all diplomatic means against Iran in order to force it to abandon its nuclear research program, Reuters reported. That's a nice ambition Mr. President, but the United States has had some form of sanctions against Iran for the last 30 years, and they have achieved absolutely nothing.
Granted, Iran is really starting to feel the pinch of this latest round of sanctions, and it might accomplish one thing: It could bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to the negotiating table once more. But nothing is ever achieved there. We've all been down that path before. Least we forget, Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran, so whatever he negotiates or even compromises will be unenforceable once the clerics overrule it -- and they will.
It is unlikely that Iran would initiate any military action. Right now, they are all bark and no bite. Armed conflict could begin if Israel gets a wild hair and decides to act unilaterally to put an end to the nuclear threat that it sees pointed at it. Obama publicly has said the United States is working in concert with the Israelis. That's probably true to an extent. But if Israel decides that it is time to act, they will act alone.
On Monday, Obama pressed the issue a little further by imposing a new string of sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank. This latest batch is unlikely to have much effect, as Iranian assets in the United States have been minimal since 1979. It remains yet another outward measure of U.S. determination.
The White House does not want armed conflict with Iran. I agree. But, it may become unavoidable very soon.
Published by Dan McGinnis - Featured Contributor in Politics and Arts & Entertainment
Dan is a freelance writer, author, small business consultant and Civil War historian. He holds an undergraduate degree in Political Science-Constitutional Law. He has studied the American Civil War for ove... View profile
- On the Rising Cost of OilA short piece on the lack of a comprehensive energy policy for the U.S. along with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal Reserve Board and how these have brought about the current high cost of oil.
- One Hundred Forty Seven Dollars for a Barrel of Oil? Will We See it Again?High oil prices mean a weak US dollar and higher trade deficits, so, we pay more for everything we need. The US was only 30% dependent on OPEC for our oil needs. We our now 70% and climbing. Wake up America and take a...
- The U.S. And Its Policy of Oil Dependency Upon the Middle EastThe United States finds itself in a difficult time concerning its dependency upon foreign oil. Much of the oil that the United States consumes annually is shipped in from Middle Eastern countries.
- Decrease Foreign Oil UseThe U.S. Energy Policy has contracted from one presidency to another over the last four decades. Now that a new administration has taken over, what is the future of the U.S. Energy Policy?
- An Analysis of the United States Oil Policy and OPECThe article gives analysis of United States policy towards OPEC and how this policy has hurt the country. It lists alternatives to the current policy along with the pro's and cons to the policy and arrives at the aut...
- Possible Results of Venezuelan Oil Embargo to the United States
- Should We Use the Crude from Our Strategic Oil Reserve?
- Saudi Arabia and the World Oil Market
- Oil and the Shah in U.S.-Iranian Relations
- Venezuelan Oil - U.S. Relations
- Unrest in Libya Disturbs Oil Production, Creates Crisis in America
- Who is OPEC and What is Their Role in the Oil Markets?