- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Huntsman Won’t Rule Out Ground Invasion of Iran

Eli Clifton caught [1] Jon Huntsman taking an even more irresponsible and reckless position on Iran than he has in the past:

BURNETT: So, if push comes to shove and this is important, I’m not saying this is something you do tomorrow, but if push comes to shove, if what was between them and a nuclear weapon or there was an uncertainty, required troops invasion, you’d do it?

HUNTSMAN: I can’t live with the implications of not doing it. I can’t live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region. I can’t live — I can’t live with the world with a nuclear Iran.

So, then, you say, what do you do? And realistically, you have got to have all options on the table. You’ve got to be prepared to use all elements of national power.

Can we stop pretending that Huntsman is one of the reasonable ones now?

10 Comments (Open | Close)

10 Comments To "Huntsman Won’t Rule Out Ground Invasion of Iran"

#1 Comment By forestwalker On December 14, 2011 @ 11:24 am

He at least acknowledged that our stabbing Gaddafi in the back makes Iran’s wanting the bomb a perfectly rational decision.

#2 Comment By Daniel Larison On December 14, 2011 @ 11:29 am

That’s not much consolation when he is proposing to make a blunder many times more ruinous than invading Iraq.

#3 Comment By forestwalker On December 14, 2011 @ 11:33 am

No doubt. Just found it humorous.

#4 Comment By tbraton On December 14, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

“HUNTSMAN: I can’t live with the implications of not doing it. I can’t live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region.”

Exactly what “alliance” does the U.S. have with Israel? Even V-P Biden stated the other day that for a country to be considered an “ally” there had to be a formal treaty, as in the case of NATO. That was why he labelled Iraq a “partner” and not an ally. I thought Huntsman was supposed to be smart. Isn’t that why he was hired to run a Fortune 500 chemical company? The same one where his younger brother now serves as the CEO.

#5 Comment By americanfirst On December 14, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

I hope Dan will agree with me that if Maliki attempts to do anything worth even calling serious “partnering,” with the still partial -or former occupier, al Sadr and other forces, including Sunni, will quickly make him wish he hadn’t. Realizing this, will he even be tempted?

#6 Comment By American but not Conservative On December 14, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

This GOP primary has been such a horror show. Almost all of the candidates have been exposed as ignorant and/or dangerous. And, ironically, the primary has seen Huntsman gradually destroy what was supposed to set him apart — i.e., that he was a more sober, realistic (if low-polling) right-winger, with foreign policy bona fides, not a radical. Now he’s low-polling *and* without a raison d’etre.

#7 Comment By Fast Jimmy On December 14, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

He’ll occupy the same scrap heap that Pawlenty sits on alone (I’m not willing to count Cain since he never formulated any coherent policies relating to Iran or Isreal, bad or good), having abandoned reason willy-nilly towards the end. He’s starting to make Santorum seem seasoned and restrained. How ridiculous.

#8 Comment By Bilejones On December 14, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

“what they said about Israel” presumably is the familiar old lie about
“wiped off the map”

Any reality based lifeforms might like to see the definitive refutation of the warmongers here: [2]

#9 Comment By cfountain72 On December 14, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

I was listening to an interview on the topic of Iran and diplomacy last week. I can’t verify this, but the interviewee said that we have had a total of 45 minutes of high-level diplomatic meetings with Iran during the Obama administration. Forty-five minutes. And so (allegedly) we are considering going to war with a nation without so much as an hour of trying to hash out our differences? We would rather sacrifice our sons and daughters and tax money (not to mention innocent Iranians) instead of sacrificing some mythical ‘prestige’ that supposedly comes with talking with the United States.

It’s easy to see why folks get worked up about a nuclear-armed Iran, since no one in a mainstream media outlet ever asks, “But how do we know they actually have a nuclear weapons program? Are you truly willing to go to war based on unverified allegations of nuclear weapons?”

Mr. Huntsman, we’ve been down that road before. I am not. Peace be with you.

[3]

#10 Comment By trvalentine On December 14, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

This GOP primary has been such a horror show.

Sad, but true.

This page from (cough, cough) The Guardian: [4] thinks Fox News is to blame. Perhaps the best part:

The self-described conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan says that the dominant public figures on the right are no longer serving politicians, but “provocative, polarising media stars” who serve up enough controversy and conflict to keep the ratings high. “In that atmosphere, you need talk-show hosts as president, not governors or legislators.”

The article claims this environment has ‘pushed a series of Republican heavyweights to sit out 2012’ — but I wonder if there really are any ‘Republican heavyweights’ out there. I can’t think of any.