deterrent credibility

Submitted by myth (Germany), Sep 9, 2013 at 15:10

I am afraid, Obama's passionate outreaches to vaporize anti-American feelings vaporized its "deterrent credibility" instead.

The WMD-argument, applied to Iran or elsewhere, has lost credibility during the occupation of Iraq. I see a need to proclaim a goal more attractive than knocking out Iran's "nuclear infrastructure". This requires clear language. The vocabulary used today: "red line" (in the case of Syria), "infrastructure", "plan .. against ... American targets" understates the threat.

In plain English: Iran prepares for a nuclear war against the USA. Why does Obama hesitate to say "the military will fight now to completely defeat the regime of Iran". That should be the goal. America's deterrent credibility will follow victory. My advice: start with clear language to give deterrent credibility some head start. Even Obama would get what he desires so much: mutual understanding.

As for Syria, I agree, accept a balance of barbarism between Bashar and the Beardy Islamists. It is about time we value our very own lives while we can.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".