Will Iran Be Next?

[RickSp]

Interesting commentary from the New Zealand Herald.

Is Iran a step too far for the Americans?

Just as before the Iraq war, the neo-conservatives loudly demand action against Iran now. In their view, the EU initiative will fail - just as they were convinced the UN inspection would fail in Iraq. At that point, however, the scenarios diverge. The diplomatic uproar over an attack on Iran would eclipse the Iraq controversy. If the US went into Iran, it would do so virtually alone, with not even the semblance of the "Coalition of the Willing" that unseated Saddam. Even Britain would be missing. Instead Israel - the one country that could never go to war with Iraq - might be America's only ally, inflicting yet more damage, were that possible, to the standing of the US in the Islamic world. The military attack itself would pose daunting problems. True, US forces are now based in Afghanistan and Iraq. But its military is overstretched and the 150,000 troops in Iraq are tied down by the insurgency. If attacked, Iran would pull every lever to cause trouble in Iraq, and redouble its terrorist support. There is a second option, of smaller strikes from the air or commando raids on suspected nuclear sites and/or key military installations. These might be carried out with the help of Israel, which has warned that it cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. The implication is that Tel Aviv is ready to go ahead on its own, with (or perhaps even without) Washington's blessing. But even this is riddled with difficulties. Iran's nuclear sites are scattered and well-protected. This would be no repeat of 1981, when Israeli jets destroyed Saddam's reactor at Ozirak, setting back his nuclear ambitions by a decade. The lessons of Iraq, including the debacle over non-existent WMD and the rush to embrace Chalabi, display the limits of US understanding of that country. Why should Iran be any different? If the post-war occupation and the absence of an "exit strategy" have been disasters in Iraq, they will surely be double-disasters in Iran.

[rmnunez]

The hope is that Iran will agree to acceptable terms the EU is negotiating and intervention will not become necessary. I wonder whether if enough of a ruckus is made over gringan unilateralism, the Iranians will feel the US would not dare attack them and therefore be more resistant to EU entreaties. I suspect the ayatollahs will misread US reluctance to attack absent universal approval (UN endorsement, another coalition or something like this).

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez The hope is that Iran will agree to acceptable terms the EU is negotiating and intervention will not become necessary. I wonder whether if enough of a ruckus is made over gringan unilateralism, the Iranians will feel the US would not dare attack them and therefore be more resistant to EU entreaties. I suspect the ayatollahs will misread US reluctance to attack absent universal approval (UN endorsement, another coalition or something like this).

You seem to suggest that the Iranians may underestimate US stupidity. I fear you may be right.

[rmnunez]

You seem to suggest acting militarily absent universal approval, UN endoesement, a coalition or somesuch is stupid, you are mistaken.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez You seem to suggest acting militarily absent universal approval, UN endoesement, a coalition or somesuch is stupid, you are mistaken.

You say this based on our huge success in Iraq, I take it. The cakewalk? Of course Iran would be much tougher than Iraq, but let's not let reality interfere with getting US soldiers killed.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rmnunez You seem to suggest acting militarily absent universal approval, UN endoesement, a coalition or somesuch is stupid, you are mistaken.

Pardon, you are suggesting that in the modern world nations should be law unto them selves? Then clearly you are unaware of the gross contradiction in your statement. Allow me to elaborate; if these factors are unwarranted then you can not argue that the policies of Saddam Hussein require international intervention. Yet you clearly do not support that view point, so which is it?

[bishop]

personally, i don't like being a rogue nation, but a majority of the american public does.

i'm having a little trouble discerning the administration's disinformation campaign. at times, you'll hear them and their puppetmasters (the israelis) talking forcefully and leaking out information such as tactical strikes against iran's nuke facilities. then at other times, they'll say that invading iran would be diplomatically crippling and would cause major problems.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop personally, i don't like being a rogue nation, but a majority of the american public does.

Heh heh. What gave you the clue, the cute slogans like "My country, right or wrong"or guys like our former colleague Bob who made it very clear that he wouldn't have a problem killing anyone in the world who WASN'T American?
How can we possibly be a "rogue nation"when we are incapable of being wrong about anything?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 How can we possibly be a "rogue nation"when we are incapable of being wrong about anything?

Isn't that the effective definition of "rogue nation?" Arrogance tempered only by self delusion.

[Scribbler1]

Not to a lot of us. We are right and unfortunately must live in a rogue WORLD! If only they could all see it our way.

[bishop]

i guess it's something along the lines of - if we are to defeat the enemy, which is a rogue, then we too must act like a rogue. there really isn't any real rationality to the "war is the answer" crowd. you see how their arguments for iraq have constantly changed, in a pitiful attempt to escape the obvious (no wmd, quagmire, etc..). to me it seems like a combination of ego (people who cannot admit that they were wrong in trusting bush and his logic) as well as some good ol' fascist bloodlust. regarding ego, i think that's the most important factor. even the best of us are undoubtedly guilty of being hesitant to admit they're wrong. i'd say, for all the guys here who are married or have girlfriends, that you should know it all too well - how often does your mate admit that she's wrong?

feh... i can't wait to see how bush implements the platform he laid out in his inauguration speech.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop i'd say, for all the guys here who are married or have girlfriends, that you should know it all too well - how often does your mate admit that she's wrong?

A damn sight more than *I* do, that's for sure.

feh... i can't wait to see how bush implements the platform he laid out in his inauguration speech.

I'm not sure he laid out ANY platform! What I recall of it was long on feelgood phrases and almost completely devoid of specifics.
Safer that way. You are left with the feeling he said something when he didn't say anything at all.

[bishop]

heh.. so you mean i should get this idea of bush trying to extend "freedom" throughout the world out of my head? hopefully as far as that one's concerned, he'll tuck his tail between his legs like he did with social security reform during his first term. but, i keep thinking that he wants to create a legacy for himself hoping that future presidents will name him as the best ever.

[rmnunez]

Bishop there are two different takes on the inaugural speech; people like you who see it as heralding the further expansion of US interventionism now to include tyrants, even if they neither have terrorist ties, nor possess or pursue WMDs; people like me who think it was pure rhetoric, but in the right direction as tyranny should be discouraged.

[bishop]

Quote by: rmnunez Bishop there are two different takes on the inaugural speech; people like you who see it as heralding the further expansion of US interventionism now to include tyrants, even if they neither have terrorist ties, nor possess or pursue WMDs; people like me who think it was pure rhetoric, but in the right direction as tyranny should be discouraged.

well, you bushistas have been using the "freedom" and "humanitarian" argument for quite some time now since the wmd story was pure b.s.. all bush is doing is echoing that argument. we'll see what kind of nonsense he busts out at the state of the union.. according to bush's people, they're making iran a top priority - higher, imo, than his agenda for social security. iran is a convenient target as it has both ties to terrorism and is developing wmd's.. saddam, if you recall, was also a convenient target - perhaps the most convenient out of all the available options.

nobody expects bush to invade every country where there are oppressed people, that is totally impossible. but, it is possible for him to find a new place to put his rhetoric into action. most of us expect him to invade another member of his "axis of evil".. he can't touch n. korea with china around, but he has iran surrounded on almost all sides.

i wouldn't put too much faith in bush, he doesn't deserve it after all the lies he put us through. they say, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know".. well, bush is still a devil and the devil can't be trusted.

[rmnunez]

I don't see the US leading a global effort to liberate the oppressed everywhere either, rather I expect the US seeks to broaden the basis for intervention. I have found the critical left now wonders why, having such an explicit target, the US is taking so long with Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and whoever else they think of first as gringo puppets, Russia and China are even suggested.

If Saddam was targetted merely because he made a convenient target it is suggested Bush just got the urge to attack someone and looked out there for a suitable target. I don't think this was the case, nor that he had crafted plans long ago to finish what daddy left undone, but not because Cheney and Rumsfeld are the true puppeteers as some think.

My impression is that Iraq was attacked partially because it is at a convenient location to attack. The location is convenient because in addition to sitting atop a third of the world's oil, it is equidistant from Ryahd and Teheran, both focal points of Islamic fundamentalism, the prevailing trait among the targetted group (international terrorists). Additionally, there are other well-established, and some poorly-premised but still good reasons to intervene there we don't need to go over.

[RickSp]

Given the broad criticism of the Bush's imperial dreams by the traditional right wing, your repeated references to the "critical left" is getting silly.

And another 35 Americans died in the last day in the unecessary and immoral war in Iraq.

[RickSp]

Commentary on Bush's real intentions from a long-time conservative.
Wake Up! Bush Is Serious

If Bush were in control or had a brain, he would have shut Cheney up and fired all the neocons who produced the Iraqi disaster. Instead, despite the Iraqi mess, the Bush administration is publicly threatening to attack Iran, a country that has committed no terrorist or aggressive act toward the U.S. The Pentagon has been ordered to prepare plans. Apparently, the U.S. has already inserted special forces into Iran to gather intelligence. The neoconservatives are Jacobins. The neocons are the greatest threat America has ever faced, and they have the reins of power. Americans need to wake up to this fact and stop indulging their macho "kick their Muslim butts" fantasies and their "end times" Rapture fantasies. The Bush administration is not establishing any democracies. It is starting a war that will last a generation. That is the neocon plan. They have put their intentions in writing just as Hitler did. It is no protection that their plan is detached from reality. Robespierre was detached from reality, and that did not stop him. So were Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. People with power in their hands who are detached from reality are the most dangerous people of all. The delusional quality of their rantings disarms people from taking them seriously: "Oh, they couldn't mean that." But they do.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I agree that WMD are definitely something I'd not want to see flourishing around the globe, but just WHO "allowed" US to have them? The U.N., or ourselves by the virtue of not having anyone else strong enough to tell us not to?

Those who are in power do not ask for others' approval.
That is un-written rule, and has been lasting as long as Mankind exists.

The "Powers" - China, England, France, Russia, U.S. - have neglected the control over WMD development around the globe. As the result, we have problems with WMD, today.

[Scribbler1]

The more I think about it the less likely I see an invasion of Iran. Iran would undoubetdly be a much tougher force to reckon with than Iraq (which I believe is why Bush targeted it).
But the BIGGEST outcome of this moronic debacle fearless leader has us involved in is that, instead of the general perception around the world that the U.S. has the mightiest military, the world is seeing it is MUCH less fearsome than they thought.
Stretching tours of duty, recalling reservists who are almost senior citizens, sending Guard units who have NO business being deployed overseas and other signs of weakness, all to fight a nonexistent military in a broken country the size of California. A fight we have yet to win, BTW.
I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have thought a country like Iraq could have the mighty U.S. running in circles, but now they have PROOF!
This WILL come back to haunt us in the coming years.