Washington would neither have to foot nearly as much of the bill nor commit as many soldiers as it did in Iraq, but there are other aspects of a military engagement that must be considered: What happens if the North falls but the war turns asymmetric?
If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, should they be stopped before or after they may or may not have one? This is the scary, geo-political issue of the day involving the Middle East and therefore the world.
In the recent Arizona Republican debate, the candidates, aside from Ron Paul, were seen advocating for stronger sanctions and military action against Iran.
Most of the Republican presidential candidates seem all too willing to surrender more American treasure and possibly more American soldiers for preemptive strikes again Iran.
Has former President George W. Bush's preemptive war doctrine been repealed or rescinded?
The New York Times editorialized earlier this week against ...
Some have argued that the Cold War-era mutual assured destruction doctrine would contain Iran. That is a big assumption -- specially in light of the Iranian regime's ideology.
Back then a typical Republican was to the left of the Clintons. Nixon was a transition. It took Reagan to really define the world in which we now live, in which merit is no longer of value.
Two of my wife's constituents had been holed up in their hotel room at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai. They had been there for over a day avoiding the terrorist gunmen that still stalked its corridors.