Some version of the regime that was in place remains in place.
The terrorism arm of that regime, the IRGC, not unlike Hitler's SS, remains in place.
The muslim terrorist minority remains in charge.
In time, they believe (rightly) that Trump will both be gone (ASAP if you're one of the leftists infesting this page) either by the completion of his term, natural causes or, the preferred method of the left, assassination.
At some point, a fringe-left moron ala Biden/Obama could be elected. When that happens, the terrorists now running Iran will go back to business as usual. As a result, they will either buy or build a nuclear weapon while WE write "strongly worded letters."
Americans have frequently proven we're possessed of the attention span of a gnat.
These people are taking the long view, as so many of our opponents do, having learned from the outcomes of Afghanistan where we wasted troops and billions, only to simply walk away and hand it back to those we, allegedly, set out to destroy. All they have to do is stall and make enough promises to placate America to remain in control, knowing sooner or later we'll cave.
Both politics and wars are outcome-based business. The outcome here, as the outcome in Afghanistan, accomplishes nothing without total regime change, (And yes, I know we HAD "regime change" in Afghanistan. But we also had Iran (and others) providing massive aid to the insurgents.) Had we done what we should have from the start, mainly stopped Iran (or anyone else) from providing aid to those insurgents, we may have had a different outcome.
This agreement appears to merely kick the can down the road while those in Iran who have wreaked so much murder and destruction, are not held accountable for their actions in any measurable way, beyond replacing those leaders killed in the bombings... replaced in large part by those just as militant in their hatred and sworn duty to provide "Death to America(tm)" as those they're replacing.
The still relatively-intact IRGC (because we allow them to exist) would not allow any others.
to take power.
To illustrate these concerns, try super-imposing this exact, same, template over either nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in 1945.
To defeat our enemies in World War Two, we knew what we had to do. (The Potsdam Declaration comes to mind.)
Imagine for example, if we had stopped attacking the nazis in Germany in late 1944, say around the Battle of the Bulge days (mid December 1944), and left the nazis controlling Germany and their conquered lands in charge and just walked away... like we appear to be doing now. (And people should remember that the Germans were also busy trying to build atomic weapons.)
This is what Germany would have been allowed to keep:
And yes, I totally get that WW2 was "different."
That these countries actively engaged in invasion and occupation of foreign countries as opposed to using surrogates to extend their political/religious control over other geographies in their region is the primary difference, but their aim is the same: complete control over that real estate in the region while combined with the destruction of countries Iran sees as obstructions to that dominance.
The MODE is the same. The only thing different is the means.
As a country, along with our allies, we refused to settle for anything less than total victory, and as a result, for the past 81 years or so, neither country has been able to engage in a war of conquest.
To suggest that believing the current agreement, as I understand it, will in any way deter Iran from either pursuing nuclear weapons OR engaging in terroristic hegemony is the height of foley.
There is only one way to achieve that goal: the complete eradication of the current political/military leadership of Iran and the elimination of the IRGC as any kind of effective force to carry out Iran's aims for regional dominance... Exactly like Germany and much of Japan.
Nothing short of that will do.
And this seems to be light years away from achieving that goal.
If one sees victory as merely a military exercise to inflict maximum damage on military targets to TEMPORARILY negatively impact those capabilities through the IRGC's destruction, then yes... it amounts to a victory by TEMPORARILY reducing those capabilities, ala Germany's war-fighting capability post Treaty of Versailles... because, for the most part, Germany remained unoccupied/unsupervised after World War One.
Had Germany been occupied post-World War One, there likely would not have BEEN a World War Two.
And World War Two was the result of that short-sighted insanity.
Failing to achieve absolute regime change... failing to hold those involved with terrorism, war crimes and reparations for the destruction Iran caused in the region guarantees a resurgence of similar efforts in the future... much like it would have been had we allowed World War Two to end without total occupation of the Axis Powers by effectively rewarding them with continuing dominance in Germany and Japan... Allowing those with similar views to continue both military and political dominance in Iran guarantees a resurgence of the same attitudes, visions and efforts to achieve the same impacts the pre-attack regime utilized.
In the long term, this effort appears to have solved/accomplished nothing.
As I've stated, if we know Iran will violate this "agreement," (and they will) then WTH is the point?
I supported Trump's efforts here. But I also see this as a miserable outcome compared to what we should have to show for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment