Two words: missile shield
Russia stays out in return for no US missiles in eastern Europe. That Bu$hCo rationale for them was to protect against Iranian missiles. Putin can keep those US missiles out and avoid a costly renewed arms race with us.
China? Not exactly in their DNA to join in and fight battles so far away from home. Plus, the US in another expensive war does more damage to us without much damage to China. Yeah, there is that oil thing, but as the oil companies keep reminding us, oil is fungible.
Posted by Marie at September 9, 2007 01:50 PMIt's certainly possible that the "West" is running some sort of "Bush is crazy" bluff to get Khamanei to back down from Iran's program. It makes sense to run such a thing given the lunacy of the Cheney Admin, but I don't think Iran's supreme leader is gonna decide to "resolve" this one in a way our lil' buddy Israel can accept.
Attacking Iran has been in Cheney's insane playbook since he convened the Energy Task Force in 2001. Cheney's run every play in the book so far, these are his last months on the world/historical stage, and Bush has said he won't leave office without the issue "resolved".
Bush imagines that he's a "straight-shooter" who keeps his "word". He also has some very serious mental problems about believing he has been chosen by God for "important" things that apparently no one else would be stupid enough to do. These things don't bode well.
So if the plane takes off en route to the Crawford pig ranch for the last time in Jan 2009 without a nuclear attack on Iran, I'll be quite surprised.
Posted by euzoius at September 9, 2007 02:30 PMThe Iran invasion date reminds me of all the bogus dates for the "Rapture" thru history.
Now all those ascension robes are merely collecting dust and providing homes for mice in attics.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 9, 2007 03:01 PMSo if the plane takes off en route to the Crawford pig ranch for the last time in Jan 2009 without a nuclear attack on Iran, I'll be quite surprised.
I agree with euzoius. From WaPo to the R.O.M. to Cheney's Chief of Staff: invading Iran is now the top priority of the Bush administration. So serious is the concern over the U.S. attacking Iran that the Tehran Times reports Iranians with means are leaving Iran until Bush is out of office.
Posted by Christopher at September 9, 2007 03:05 PM"Bush imagines that he's a "straight-shooter" who keeps his "word". He also has some very serious mental problems about believing he has been chosen by God for "important" things that apparently no one else would be stupid enough to do."
You might want to "brush-up" on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's continued public statement regarding Israel and the West in general.
Here is a hint, euzoius. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran: now, run off and Google.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine at September 9, 2007 03:11 PMI think President Bush is well aware of the need to consolidate his legacy in history. He can not leave the job of stabilizing the Middle East and orienting it in a pro-American direction halfway finished. He will not allow the nerve center of Islamofascism in Teheran alive and ticking waiting for their opportunity to complete Hitler's holocaust of the Jewish people. He also needs to insure that the current malaise of confidence in American public opinion not persist into the 2008 elections. I fully expect him to face these problems head-on and lead an invincible surge on all fronts, military, economic and political and pass on a bright future to his Republican successor in 2009.
Posted by nabalzbbfr at September 9, 2007 03:14 PMI'd certainly like to agree with Erin. In fact, I dearly hope she(?) is right. The only reason I can even believe Cheney's insanity, and Bush's delusions of grandeur won't be enacted is that it would require the wholesale abrogation of responsibility and duty by virtually the entire Congress and vast tracts of the lower echelons in the (unitary) Executive branch. Oh wait!
Unfortuantely, for the past 6+ years, literally thousands of aparatchiks have slithered into positions of upper and mid level authority in the Justice Department, Interior, the Orwellianly named White elephant Fatherland Security and basically, all the other departments.
The Christian Dominionist movement has infiltrated deeply and thoroughly into the War Department, which controls 85% of the "Intelligence" budgets and operations. Dozens of senior generals and staff officers have been shown the door, to be replaced by sycophants, White House PR folks and "Brainy" Generals who have an awful hunger for more stars.
NOTHING but right-wing hate radio and extremist religious broadcasts grace the ears of stunned and exhausted soldiers who've witnessed years of mindless and purposeless destruction, death and brutality, or participated in it.
An uncontested and unaccountable incestuous, multi-generational gang of think tank parasites have nearly a death grip on the infotainment "News" that is served to a too slowly awakening public and we have a perennial, incurious failure propped up in a bubble of illusion and lies who can push the shiny red button any time he hears the word from God.
One by one, the safeguards of checks, balances and reality have been stripped from the path of insanity. Every rule of law these extraordinary, (in their minds) World Striding figures have encountered have been ignored, broken or merely trampled. I too have hope that they will feel constrained from engaging in the ultimate folly. I wish I felt more hopeful.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 9, 2007 03:20 PMBeelzebubfr gives a clear picture of the sort of dead-end Cheneyite cultist that the Iran "product roll out" is tuned to.
Or else he's a satirist ("invincible surge"), the two are hard to distinguish in these waning days of the BushAmerica Gotterdammerung, with pistol waving suicidal deadenders foaming at the mouth everywhere, just like Berlin, circa May, '45.
And the woefully uninformed Bagley needs to "brush up" on exactly who is the supreme leader of Iran. And I'm not givin' an authoritarian Rightist boob like Bags any hints!
Posted by euzoius at September 9, 2007 03:48 PMeuzoius - I gave Bags the answer in "Slouching Towards Tehran" - all he has to do is click on one of those tiny links and doesn't even have to read, merely listen and the answer will be his. But he really doesn't want to know anything about Iran, or much of anything else for that matter, because he'd rather live in a fake tidy world of black and white instead of a real messy world in living color.
Posted by Marie at September 9, 2007 04:01 PMand this is what it's come to. Sitting around speculating on whether the United States will attack, maybe with nuclear weapons, a country that has not attacked us. That's the leadership the Supreme Court gave us in 2000. That we are even discussing these scenario's is really amazing. I sit an wonder sometimes....who is really behind all of this. The most clear beneficiary? Israel and Big Oil. Follow the money.
Posted by T2 at September 9, 2007 04:14 PMT2 - when madness sets in there is no clear beneficiary. Perhaps this is how it felt on the eve of WWI. A war in the air, nobody knows why and just waiting for the inevitable striking of the match that sets it off.
Posted by Marie at September 9, 2007 04:31 PMMarie,
/Begin
.....
/End
" That's the leadership the Supreme Court gave us in 2000."
Get over it: that is the leadership the voters determined...and re-determine in 2004.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine at September 9, 2007 04:46 PMThe Iran invasion date reminds me of all the bogus dates for the "Rapture" thru history.
Exactly, TIKI. Except it's been every six months, almost, since 2003!
As for Israel, it looks like they begged Bush in 2002 to attack Iran, and it was a no go.
Sitting around speculating on whether the United States will attack,
Yep. It's all speculation; what China would do, what Russia would do, etc. And just because some silly ass trolls say they want it (and only because thinking people don't, let's not pretend otherwise), just because some bloodthirsty pundits want it, doesn't mean it's going to happen. In the end, I think Bush and Cheney will want to take the money and run, and if the world's on fire, I think they know that won't be possible.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 9, 2007 05:08 PMFirst off, Iran is being pre-blamed for the inevitable judgment of the "failed" illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. This baloney about victory being defined as a peaceful, secure, sovereign democratic Iraq is a crock of shit. It isn't now nor ever has been the intention by war pornographers, who simply want to be in the region militarily and sucking back the oil (Bigtime!) to free our Iraqi sistren and brethren from baaad maaans like Saddam and Osama when chaos suits the robber barons better.
This saber rattling with the US and Israel tag teaming the war drums is perma-war making nuclear chicken. I wish the cowardly media and politicians of all stripes would draw back the curtains and let the sunshine in, so we can have a long overdue disinfection of hinky backroom bargains and seriously foster peace in the region.
Posted by Ellie at September 9, 2007 05:13 PMAnd Bagley...........you are wrong. The country voted for Al Gore. Just look it up, fool.
Posted by T2 at September 9, 2007 06:03 PMEllie: that will happen when Hell freezes over. Or Bush grows a brain.
Posted by tempus at September 9, 2007 06:11 PMBritish Petroleum (BP) has said in its latest annual statistical review that Iran has the world second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.
thats all you need to know
Posted by soccerdad at September 9, 2007 06:40 PMI have to say that just like Bush had decided to take out Saddam well before 2003, and then played cat and mouse with the world ("of course, I've not made up my mind", "I'm praying to God for the answer", etc) for months, the drumbeats for war sound very much the same. As you remember, he blamed Saddam for the war because Saddam didn't expose his non-existent weapons. And I don't think Bush has gotten any wiser so I would not be surprised to see him "double-down" his chance at being seen as the "savior" of the world. (Won't posterity smile on him then?)
Here was my writeup of why I'm not as optimistic as Erin. I do think Bush and Cheney are nuts enough to do it no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
Posted by Mary at September 9, 2007 07:00 PMOne never truly understands the mind of the insane.
Posted by Judith at September 9, 2007 07:48 PMhow true judith....good to see you post thought you disappeared..
Posted by dennis at September 10, 2007 02:22 AMAnd Bagley: Here is a hint, euzoius. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran: now, run off and Google.
guess pants pissing And Bagley doesn't know that Ahmadinejad does NOT control Iran's military
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 10, 2007 06:43 AMBagley: The leadership the Supreme Court gave us in 2000 "is the leadership the voters determined...get over it"
The mind of an authoritarian rightist: a 5-4 supreme court decision by 5 radical "conservative" extremists to force upon the nation its first anti-democratic electoral college president in 113 years is seen as "the leadership the voters determined". Um, okay...
"Get over it", the slogan every Rightist uses vis-a-vis Bush v. Gore, also betrays an authoritarian mindset---ordering others how to "feel" or view a seminal political event.
Can one imagine the level of craven, poisoned brain, indoctrinated "thought" that goes on in such a "mind"? And he represents a good 45% of the population.
Posted by euzoius at September 10, 2007 07:23 AMErin, I hope you're right.
By the way, you're wrong about the carriers.
The Nimitz is either en route or very close to the Persian Gulf after the exercise with India. The Enterprise is in the Gulf. And Debka just this morning is reporting that the USS Truman has been ordered to the Gulf.
I take Debka with a big grain of salt, but to my knowledge they've never been wrong about carrier movements, something that usually can be confirmed in other public sources. For instance, the general location of the Nimitz and the Enterprise are known and can be confirmed outside of Debka. Just Google it. So, how long before Nimitz being sent to the Gulf is confirmed? On top of all that, there was the whole mess with the nukes being flown across the country, and just Friday an incident involving an Israeli jet or two over Syria.
Like I said, Erin, I hope you're right. It's certainly better than the alternative.
Posted by Brian Bell at September 10, 2007 09:20 AMWHOOPS! I meant:
So, how long before the Truman being sent to the Gulf is confirmed?
Thank you for the link to your great post, Mary! I'm not sure if I'm too optimistic that Bush/Cheney won't pull the trigger or too pessimistic of the continued "boy who cried nuke" pattern over the years. I suppose we will see who guesses right, because at this point, I believe it's just guesswork.
Brian, we'll see about the Nimitz, I'll check the google; India's usually watching the area.
Maybe it is just hopeful thinking on my part; I don't pretend to be right, I just haven't been convinced by all the hearsay and "signs" and bluster. And I don't think we should ignore the bluster, per se - we should be telling our representatives that we're concerned and they should be, too. I guess the fatalistic "it's going to happen, no matter what" attitude, to me, creates a tacit atmosphere of acceptence that I don't believe is helpful. It makes the discussion go from "should Bush bomb Iran" to "when Bush bombs Iran..." and I don't think he should be given that edge because a few people online have given up on civilization.
Posted by Erin Alecto at September 10, 2007 09:38 AMHere's second source for the Nimitz heading back:
http://springboarder.blogspot.com/2007/09/big-kaboom-poof-uss-nimitz-leaves.html
Nothing confirms Debka on the Truman, though it is supposed to deploy with an outsized escort before Oct. 1st. (Can't find the source now, as I saw it about 4 weeks back.)
Posted by JohnShreffler at September 10, 2007 12:28 PMHere's the link for the post I saw on the Truman:
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/08/2nd-fleet-focus-observations-of.html
Note that it could easily deploy with the Eisenhower, if the boys mean business, as the 2 ships did a JTFEX together in Aug. and the last time the Navy did a 2 carrier drill both carriers were back out in 2 months. But it would still take 3-4 weeks to get to battle stations. That gives Iran too much warning I expect, so the thing might go with just the 2 carriers there, Enterprise and Nimitz. I've seen 2 sources telling of the planned strike being a STRATCOM Global Strike, doable on 10 hours' notice. That implies going with carriers on hand.
Posted by JohnShreffler at September 10, 2007 12:38 PM