Monday, March 5, 2012

revisiting iran

as i argued in my last post, attacking iran to wipe out its nuclear program may be done without committing troops to the ground or beginning a new war in the middle east, and that action may be in the best interest for the middle east as well as international geopolitical stability, however there may be more to be considered.  obama is holding out, maintaining that it is not necessary yet for the u. s. to attack iranian facilities, that while he believes it necessary to prevent iran from possessing a nuclear bomb, this goal can be achieved diplomatically.

perhaps in my review of the situation i did not take into consideration domestic concerns.  at a time when gas prices in the states are high, almost $4 per gallon nationally, and the public suffers and complains, an attack on iran and especially if iran subsequently closed the strait of hormuz, gas prices could go higher.  i believe the american public does need to make sacrifices.  americans need to be more aware of their driving habits, to drive less in general, and sacrifice personal ease to share commutes with others and use public transportation.  however, consumer prices in general, particularly the price of food in supermarkets would probably rise considerably.  this would be terrible for lower and middle income families, especially as it seems america is already seeing some inflation in supermarket prices already.

and though i do not consider the impending presidential election to be sufficient cause on which to base foreign policy, the election nevertheless will.  how does the election factor into this decision?  republicans call for a strong military stance on this issue, supporting the israelis, courting the jewish vote.  and in the past this sort of stance may have seen great support from middle america.  however, after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan,  the american public is wary of another conflict, especially as i think most americans believe that any operation in iran would be intensive, need to commit troops to the ground in that area, and would necessarily incur great cost in the midst of  a recession when the government deficit has ballooned monstrously.

No comments: