biggiy05 wrote:
Nice analogy.
Actually, bad analogy. It seems nice because it agrees with your point. But the problem is you, like many people, are looking at the problem from the eyes of someone who either isn't aware of or willfully ignores the complexity of the situation.
In Star Wars, there was good and there was evil: the Rebel Alliance and the Empire. Everyone else was a bystander not interested in the fight. If the Empire had succeeded in destroying the Yavin base, we were led to believe that there was no one else that would threaten the Empire. The rebels were a small, underpowered group against a larger force with infinite money, infinite manpower, superior weaponry, and superior tactics due to magical future-seeing Sith. Darth Vader is the only counterpoint to the statement that there was no one in the Star Wars universe that acted on some motivation other than "Is this good?" or "Is this evil?" and would choose an action counter to their alignment. The novels don't count, they were intended to explore these issues and even the novels for the films don't go into the depth that the others do.
In the real world, good is on positive infinity and evil is on negative infinity, and every entity in the world is somewhere on the line between the two. An entity doesn't even have a concrete place on the line, as to one person a great man could be evil incarnate (consider how we felt about Great Britain during the American Revolution vs. how the average British citizen felt about them; who was right?) If Iran is the Galactic Empire and blows up Yavin 4 (America) with their Death Star (nukes), there are a large number of other, larger entities (Russia, China, all of Europe) that would suddenly feel threatened; it's not like Iran plays nice with many people.
It's not even like we're the idealist and underpowered rebellion against the powerful Empire of Iran; they've got one Death Star, a Corellian Cruiser, and a squadron of X-Wings. We've got 100 Death Stars, two fleets of Super Star Destroyers, and hundreds of squadrons of TIE fighters, TIE defenders, and TIE bombers. On top of that, in a nukes😃eath Star destructive power comparison we have the equivalent of four planets worth of land while they occupy a satellite base orbiting a barren moon; the entirety of their arsenal would only damage a percentage of our resources before they die off from attrition. If you asked the average citizen of the world how accurate this analogy is, they'd tell you that you have it backwards: the US is the Galactic Empire with limitless power, forcing its will upon the masses while Iran is the Rebel Alliance, a ragtag group of perky kids that are out to prevent the Empire from oppressing one more person.
On top of that, you have the rest of the world, which is like a Galactic Council that didn't exist in Star Wars. Russia's got 50 death stars and a few fleets of fighters. The U.K. can field a dozen death stars and a handful of capital ships. Spain's got death stars. China's got millions of clone troopers, several planets of their own, (possibly) death stars, capital ships and cruisers. India's similar to China. North Korea's got a death star. All of these people have interests and worries of their own; if either Iran or the US starts slinging nukes at each other, all of these countries are going to feel threatened and respond in unpredictable, possibly irrational ways.
Think about it, seriously. If Iran shoots first, the rest of the world feels like they're an unstable threat and there'd probably be a group of countries that would obliterate them in self-defense. If we shoot first, to the world we're the evil Empire who is saying, "You do not have a culture or lifestyle compatible with our goals, we have decided to destroy you and your culture and take your land for ours." This would destabilize the political climate even more and probably lead to someone like Russia or China declaring open hostility on us; after all, how do they know they aren't next? Why do you think Iran wants us to shoot first so bad? They want us to be destroyed, and don't care if they have to die in the process.
The Empire made the attack on Yavin not because they liked blowing up planets but because the Rebel Alliance was a threat and victory would have silenced rebellion for an entire era. The Rebels were a thorn in the Empire's side and the Empire was tired of jumping every time an X-Wing said "boo!" The Rebel Alliance fought back because they had no way to move in time to avoid destruction; they were backed into a corner and it was a suicide battle because they had no choice. Looking at it from this direction, do you think it would be wise for America, with near-infinite resources, to attack Iran, a small country with no allies and nowhere to run?
There's not a good answer to the question, "What do we do about Iran?" Any choice we make leads to bad circumstances. We can't pick the "best" choice because all of the circumstances depend on how the world interprets our actions. We want to be safe and we don't want anyone to die; the goals are mutually exclusive. If we leave them be, eventually they may attack us; we'll destroy them but we'll take damage. If we attack them without provocation, we'll destroy them but risk making enemies of more powerful people; what if Russia or China with all of their resources became the new Iran? I'm going to die either way, and I'd rather be remembered as the guy who shot back while bleeding than for starting a fight I couldn't finish.
Simplifying the problem to "it's them or us" is how we got here in the first place. Don't be so ignorant as to ignore complexity again and make it worse.