In a country that refuses to consider a modest "censure" proposal for fear of giving the "appearance" of aid and comfort to the "enemey", I find it terrifying that we should be contemplating a strike on Iran. I am particularly afraid of Israeli involvement which is certain to inlfame the relations with Arab nations even more and widen the activities of terrorists, insurgents and resisters. The only thing that turn Bush around (IMHO) would be for our western allies (especially Britain) to act as a European Union,stand up to us and say "no more". Not only would that slap us awake as a nation, but it would elevate the EU to the status it seeks as a world counter-balance. I am not a NeoCon (obviously), and I do not fear the European nations in much the same way as Rev Falwell once put it: "I go to sleep every night certain that nuclear weapons are safely in the hands of a foreign power---" meaning Britain and France. And after the EU develops the fiber to face-off with Bush, NATO should follow suit. This is now what it would take to stop these NeoCon escapades if we haven't the sense to stop them ourselves.
Posted by suds at April 2, 2006 06:09 AMGo to war and watch China call in those Treasury notes. Not going to happen. Beijing paid for the oil already.
Posted by Daryl at April 2, 2006 06:25 AMIf Bush attacks Iran, then we all have blood on our hands.
I love Timmy's statement that "Bush's dream is to bring Democracy" to the middle east. Really? It thought his dream was about power, money, greed, and being Dictator of the United States. Timmy, Timmy, after five years aren't you tired of kissing ass?
Posted by Judith at April 2, 2006 06:55 AMBush's dream is to entrench the international economic elite and to create a massive pool of easily exploited cheap labor.
My dream is to fucking destroy that plan and to make those responsible for it suffer greatly.
Posted by God Of War at April 2, 2006 07:19 AMPss, th rnn crprt trgt ws pntd jst ftr th frst Glf Wr Pllg. ls, Syr’s rgm wll b ht, nd hrd, smltnsly wth sld rnn strk. sspct tht th rpn gts wll vrtly spprt r l rsrv cntnmnt plcy f nly bcs thy r th thr rm f r crprt ppndg. Rss ws bght nd sld wth th fll f t’s Svt systm; Chn my rr n th sd f vr-ctn t ths pnt, whch s why r crp bys nd t tk th l mmdtly. nd, pls nt, ws gn pcfd wth th nk nd tch trty. Thy wr bght.
t’s nt bt tdy’s mny; fr w hv nn. Th crp gys knw fll wll tht fnds cm wth pwr nd pwr cms wth l. l wll ncrs n pwr, gmtrclly, vr th nxt fw yrs. s thr pstrs hv pntd t, th crp gys wll mst crtnly prvl n nthr pllg ctn; lk t rq nd fghnstn. Cntrry t slly rhd kks, w tk ll f thr stff wth vry lttl lss, nd wtht ny rl wrld trg. Why d y thnk ths cld hppn? Crp, th crp gys hv systmtclly dsmntld r scl nstttns tht nc mbrcd r smwht lgt rlgs nstttn f tr Chrstnty. Lk, w kll mllns f nbrn bbs. Hw cn ths b cnnctd t th crp lst fr pwr? n mny wys, bt mst mprtntly n th wy f dsnstzng vrg rhds t th ntn f th hlnss f lf. Lk t r mss md f ‘ntrtnmnt.’ Vlnc nd dltrs/mnnglss sx, ttl dprvty s rflctd by th scl ccptnc f hmsxl/pdphl prvrsn, ll jst fw prcls f scl flth, cmpltly sl th pckg tht cllctvly prsnts th vw f ‘nythng gs.’ Crp, w mk ncnt Sdm lk lk Bbl thmprs.
f y dn’t lk th bv scnr, thn skp th nxt prgrph nd cntn t th nxt cmmnttr. Nt nly wll ths Gdlss kks prvl n thr mrdrs ntrntnl glttny, bt thy wll rmn n th WH wtht chngng th pltcl prty vl. W wll prbbly hv sm srl gnt, lk th Wrld Bnk pnk, Wlfwtz, r th dt Chrtff, ‘lctd’ Prsdnt f th S, (rd, ‘wrld Prsdnt’) nd sm rhd lk Hllry wll b hs VP! (Crp, th crp gys wll fnlly tr ff th pltcl ppr prtndng t prmt dffrnc btwn thr tw prts). Nw, prhps nn f th bv wll cm tr, bt my pnt s tht t tks s vry lttl n r rwlln cltr f dcptn t cnvnc rhd-mjrty-tyrnncl-dcvd vtrs t ln p nd fllw th flg, r whtvr.
We don't havre the army to attack. If we bomb then our troops in Iraq are ssitting duck and the casulty count will increase rapidly.
Posted by goose1 at April 2, 2006 09:20 AMThere would seem to be only negatives for the oil barons/corporatists of the Republican party so one can only assume the "end of times" rapture crowd is in charge of the show.
Posted by Ron In Portland at April 2, 2006 09:30 AMI think the elites, those who now see that Cheney, Bush and company are bad for business, are already starting the process to bring them down just like they started the process to bring Nixon down by allowing Watergate to get into the mainstream. Now it will be the myths about 9/11.
Posted by at April 2, 2006 09:48 AMAs to our boys and girls in Iraq should we, either as proxy or in 'coalition' with Israel, embark on this course, see Custer, General George Armstrong; at Little Big Horn.
Might be good to come of it though, for the sacrifice of a hundred thirty thousand of our children - wiping us out in Iraq would just be the momentum gathering to drive Israel into the sea. Israel, afterall, is The Enemy.
By Deception, Shalt Thou Practice the Art of War.
Posted by Thomas Ware at April 2, 2006 10:18 AMI think the scheduled nukular blast in Nevada is some kind of twisted, chest-thumping message intended for Iran. The fact that cheney and rumsfeld have their collective finger on the button scares the shit out of me. My only hope is that babs and poppy can somehow continue to reel jr back to reality.
Posted by Jim Faith at April 2, 2006 10:22 AMPat Buchanan in the latest American Conservative magazine, suggests that the Bush team will begin bombing Iran in October. Just enough time to whip up patriotism in time for the fall elections, but not enough time for the consequences to tip the elections against the GOP. Buchanan thinks this plan will lead to catastrophe for the nation, but he said that about the Iraq invasion too...
Posted by stickler at April 2, 2006 10:35 AMThe WaPo ran an article yesterday citing unnamed intelligence people suggesting Iran would respond to an attack with terrorist attacks across the US and Europe. Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy trip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100981.html
Posted by biggerbox at April 2, 2006 10:57 AMStickler is right. Everything Rove is behind is geared to winning the next election. This also goes for the immigration debate for dispite the real economic, environmental andd humanatarian problems that we're having on our border, the true goal is to whip up the base without really doing anything that would lose the global sweatshop owners their cheap labor thaat cannot by law vote.
Put another way, the 2004 and 2006 elections, with the help of a pliant media, were and are to be about a foreign security and an internal cultural threat. In 2004 it was 911 and gay marriage and 2006 is to be about Iran and immigration.
Posted by herbal tee at April 2, 2006 11:15 AMBiggerbox, Iran doesn't need to conduct terror attacks all across the US and Europe. All they need to conduct are terror attacks all around the Gulf (Persian or Arabian, your choice). Once they start taking out the oil facilities of their Sunni Arab opponents and the tankers transporting oil through the Straits of Hormuz, they will effectively cripple the Western economies. And, they don't need high tech to do this. Look at the damage a relatively small boat did to the USS Cole. They could swarm a coupla tankers, cripple them and/or sink them. Maritime insurance rates would skyrocket and traffic to that part of the world would stop in a heartbeat. That's the most likely scenario if Dubya proceeds with his attacks on Iran. If he involves Israel, well kiss off those 140,000 troops we've got in Iraq. They get no supplies from Kuwait, they got no way to move out of Iraq. It will look like the US retreat from the Yalu during the Korean War, except then we had the luxury of knowing who the enemy was.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at April 2, 2006 01:03 PMHad we refrained from the Iraq folley, we could have bribed Sadaam to start another 8 year war with Iran. Rumsfeld could have done another photo-op shaking hands with him, and supply him with some more weapons of mass destruction.
Hell, throw in a few extra bucks, and Sadaam would have sent Bin Laden's head to Laura's new chef.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 2, 2006 01:46 PMPat Buchanan in the latest American Conservative magazine, suggests that the Bush team will begin bombing Iran in October. Just enough time to whip up patriotism in time for the fall elections, but not enough time for the consequences to tip the elections against the GOP.
Ah, an October Surprise, heh? I can't see how attacking Iran would "whip up patriotism in time for the fall elections." Most Americans seem to be tired of the Iraq War, and are in no mood for this pResident to now tell them we are attacking Iran. Furthermore, they are not likely to believe that Iran is an imminent threat, especially from a pResident who's approval ratings are in the trash. If the GOP want to help the Democrats to win in '06, then bombing Iran is a start.
Posted by Judith at April 2, 2006 02:58 PMJudith:
Ah, an October Surprise, heh?
Yes, indeed. That's actually what Pat titled his article. By the way, that issue of the American Conservative has a cover picturing Bush wearing an "Attack Iran" button, and the giant screaming headline reads "DON'T DO IT!"
But who listens to rational paleocons in this Administration anymore?
All the potential problems of bombing Iran are well-laid-out on this thread and on Steve Gilliard's site, and hell, anywhere that anybody has opened a history book and paged through. Of course, the chumps in charge haven't done that (cf. Iraq, 2003-06), so expect the most mendacious and incompetent.
If they wait long enough (late October, say), the rally 'round the flag effect might -- just -- be enough to whip up the GOP base enough to eke out another 51.1% victory. Anything to keep the House of Representatives, you know.
Posted by stickler at April 2, 2006 06:53 PMStickler, I know this is a ridiculous question, but would Congress give Bush the approval for attacking Iran, or will Bush claim this is just part of the ongoing War on Terror?
Posted by Judith at April 2, 2006 08:00 PMFool Me Twice
By Joseph Cirincione
Posted March 27, 2006
I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.
Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.”
The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again.
Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.
I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.
My friends reminded me that I had said the same about Iraq—that I was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution. But this time, it is the administration’s own statements that have convinced me. What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran.
The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim.
If diplomacy fails, the administration might be able to convince leading Democrats to back a resolution for the use of force against Iran. Many Democrats have been trying to burnish a hawkish image and place themselves to the right of the president on this issue. They may find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric, particularly those with presidential ambitions.
The factual debate during the next six months will revolve around the threat assessment. How close is Iran to developing the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs? Is there a secret weapons program? Are there secret underground facilities? What would it mean if small-scale enrichment experiments succeed?
Fortunately, we know more about Iran’s nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information. The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate.
The administration should now declassify the information it used to estimate how long it will be until Iran has the capability to make a bomb. The Washington Post reported last August that this national intelligence estimate says Iran is a decade away. We need to see the basis for this judgment and all, if any, dissenting opinions. The congressional intelligence committees should be conducting their own reviews of the assessments, including open hearings with independent experts and IAEA officials. Influential groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, should conduct their own sessions and studies.
An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran’s nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again.
Joseph Cirincione is director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Posted by at April 2, 2006 11:30 PMYeah, I read the WaPo article. Takes the prize for "most unsurprising news of the day." I figure the Iranians will respond with a combination of guerrilla-style attacks all over the Mideast, Europe and maybe even the US and will probably deal with the land assault from Iraq with the same strategy Russia used against Napoleon. They'll pull back until our supply lines break and then surge forwards.
Posted by Rich at April 3, 2006 03:47 AMD'oh! Just read PrahaPartizan's post. Excellent points!
Posted by Rich at April 3, 2006 03:51 AM