[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it?

Probably not, hence my multiple comments above.

And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence