Iran: Just like September 11th, only this time with nukes.
Apropos to Steve’s latest post, there is an increasingly breathless quality to Ambassador Bolton’s statements on Iran. At a time when unity of the Security Council is crucial, Bolton seems to be doing the best he can to alienate the other P-5 members by making statements that are far more belligerent than the situation calls for. To wit, yesterday on Nightline, ambassador Bolton invoked September 11th to describe the supposed Iranian nuclear threat.
As Reuters' Irwin Arieff and Evelyn Leopold report:
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran ‘s nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.“Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that‘s the threat. I think that is the threat," Bolton told ABC News‘ Nightline program.
"I think it‘s just facing reality. It‘s not a happy reality, but it‘s reality and if you don‘t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant."
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Bolton is determined to throw the Security Council into a crisis. Instead of engaging in quiet diplomacy among the P-5, his public statements betray an intention to craft a resolution on Iran that would be unacceptable to the Chinese and Russians. Their veto would cripple global efforts to forestall Iran’s lurch towards acquiring nuclear weapons, and possibly provide the US with the excuse it needs to walk away from diplomacy. Right now, the Security Council’s only hope lies with the British and French, who may be able to provide a moderating influence on Bolton, and convince him that a unified Security Council is a goal in and of itself.
To that end, I suspect that Secretary Rice is meeting with our allies behind Bolton’s back. Rice, after all, has a history of circumventing Bolton on Iran and other touchy issues in the Middle East.
****UPDATE****
In the original version of this post, Iconfused the names "Edith Lederer", AP's UN Bureau Cheif, with "Evelyn Leopold" Reuters' UN Bureau Cheif. Reuters' Irwin Arieff and Evelyn Leopold wrote the article I cite in the post. All three are top-notch reporters.
Bolton lost the plot some time ago, but he does reflect rather well the current US Administration.
Regs, Shaggy
March 16, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said repeatedly, Bolton's ONLY function at the UN is to drum up the war on Iran, and failing that, to justify Bush's claims that the UN is "irrelevant", allowing Bush to "go it alone."
Everything else is just window dressing.
Anybody who thinks Rice is "circumventing Bolton" is out of their minds. Rice is obviously on with the Bush/neocon/Israeli game plan. How the hell do you think she's out of the loop on this? She's NOT Colin Powell, who may have had misgivings about the Iraqi game plan but went along with it anyway. Bolton may be a loose cannon in terms of his speech, but he's doing EXACTLY what he's been told to do by Bush and the neocons. Otherwise he would have been reined in LONG ago.
Stop trying to find excuses for why the coming war on Iran is "impossible."
Read my lips. IT'S ON.
And only the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the firing of Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton and the rest of the corrupt neocons in the government can even delay it - since most of the Democrats want the war, too.
Here's the bottom line: Iran WILL have a nuclear energy program including full industrial-scale uranium enrichment. Both the US and Israel have explicitly stated that this CANNOT be allowed. The ONLY way to stop it is to invade the country. Period.
Where does anybody see a compromise possible in this situation?
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 16, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is fantasy. There will be no war against Iran. There might be proxy strikes by Israel, but even that is unlikely. Which US army is going to invade Iran and which Congress is going to either authrorizw it or impeach Bush? Not any in the world we live in. Sorry, I'm sure John Bolton would like to have the ability to follow up and punish Iran, but there are not the military assets to pull this off. Iran is an even larger country than the one the US is currently unable to pacify. The Bush admin is painted into a corner on this one and a diplomatic solution is really the only option. Get real.
March 16, 2006 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not fantasy. Anybody who doesn't understand that the neocons DO NOT CARE how many US troops get killed, or how much it costs the taxpayer, let alone that Israel doesn't care since it will be relatively unscathed by a US war with Iran aside from a few missile hits, is living in a fantasy world.
At least half the population of the US has been convinced that Iran is some sort of nebulous "threat" to the US. Most of the Democratic and ALL of the Republican members of Congress are on board for sanctions and any furtther action necessary. Do you think any of these punks are going to refuse a war on Iran? Get serious.
Bush is not painted into any corner - he doesn't even understand the concept. He's on his mission for the neocons and nothing is going to stop him - certainly not lames who can't even remember what the runup to the Iraq war looked like. Exactly what risk is he taking by starting another war? He's got his Amen Corner lined up just like he did in Iraq. It will take five minutes for the braindead US population to jack his rating up past 50% again once the bombs start falling on those "nasty Ay-rabs".
You Dems just don't get it. While you're punking out over whether to even recommend impeachment, he's going to get his "war President" image back and the Republicans are going to call you all "unpatriotic terrorists" if you even say "boo" over an attack on Iran. And then they're going to take the Congress AGAIN with a combination of vote fraud and the spinelessness and equal preference for war of the Dems.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 17, 2006 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and other might find this interesting:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
Regs, Shaggy
March 17, 2006 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, who's army is going to invade. Ours is a little busy (and very tired) at the moment.
I doubt very seriously that the British will sign on again.
We can mount air raids and special operations. Those can destroy facilities and delay the Iranian effort. On the other hand, they will also make the Iranians more determined.
I suppose we could launch a preemptive air strike with nuclear weapons, but I think the political fallout (sorry) would be unacceptable.
March 17, 2006 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Zbigniew Brzezinski Interview, Charlie Rose Show
Common sense, realistic analysis must see TV
Zbig on Iran - magnificent
March 17, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who ask "who's army is going to invade" may think they're clever, but they just aren't understanding the issues here.
The Pentagon has a requirement to be able to conduct two OR MORE wars at once. And it doesn't matter if there are a bunch of generals in the Pentagon who don't believe the US can invade Iran. The President makes that decision, not the generals. The generals are obligated to do it regardless of the consequences to the military or to the country.
The neocons invaded Iraq without adequate support for the troops, without a plan for pacifying the country, and with no concern for the consequences of an insurgency which many experts in the country and history warned about.
Exactly what part of that is any different in the case of Iran?
If the neocons want a war in Iran, they will simply tell the Pentagon to do it - and the Pentagon will do it. Unless these critics are suggesting some "Seven Days in May" Pentagon rebellion, a war in Iran is absolutely no problem for the neocons to initiate.
People need to separate the inevitable disastrous consequences of a given war from the fact of the initiation of that war. There is absolutely NO evidence that the neocons have given up their notions of destabilizing and ruling the Middle East.
And even if they did, the Israelis can start that war all by themselves, and very definitely count on the US to join in on their side. Bush has already said so, and there isn't a single US Congressmen who will vote no when he does. (Well, there might be some who vote no - but the overall tally will be in favor - none of these punks want to be accused of being an "anti-Semite".)
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 17, 2006 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two parts of -- who's going to invade. First the easy one... For an invasion of Iran, the "coaltion of the willing" is likely to be even more comical -- no Britain, Japan, Spain, Germany. I would be surprised if there were even 1,000 total non-US troops. Second, it's hard to obey an order if you simply don't have the resource. I thought we had committed the bulk of our combat troops to Iraq. We could potentially strip all our troops from Afghanistan and reduce troop strength in Iraq. That would give us an insufficient number of experienced but exhausted troops. We could strip troops from places like Japan and South Korea. That would add some more inexperienced troops, but the numbers would still be insufficient.
Orders or no orders, I don't think there are enough troops to do anything but get ourselves killed. That won't accomplish the neocons goal. It probably won't please Israel for that matter. Just pissing off Iran is not good for them.
March 18, 2006 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
March 18, 2006 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You write, "There is absolutely NO evidence that the neocons have given up their notions of destabilizing and ruling the Middle East." I suggest you peruse the following link:
http://agonist.org/candy/20060308/neocon_allies_desert_bush_over_iraqThese are some of the most influential of the neo-cons and they are back-peddling pretty darn fast.
March 18, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they're not back-peddling at all in any real sense. They're simply distancing themselves from their own history in order not to be tagged with it when they tout a war on Iran. And that will work since most of the US population don't even know what a neocon is.
Why anybody thinks the neocons - who are professional liars following the advice of their philosophical leader Leo Strauss - have abandoned their plans for an American empire is beyond me.
Don't listen to the words - watch the actions. And the actions vis-a-vis Iran are clear: there is no compromise between the position that the US (and Israel) will NEVER tolerate a nuclear armed Iran and the fact that Iran intends to have and must have a nuclear energy program including industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
If Iran already HAD nuclear weapons - like North Korea - I would be much more doubtful about the neocons intent to attack Iran. But they don't. They also have the oil that Northj Korea doesn't have.
There can be no doubt that regime change is the goal of the neocons. And there will be no regime change in Iran by peaceful means.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
March 19, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why anybody thinks the neocons - who are professional liars following the advice of their philosophical leader Leo Strauss - have abandoned their plans for an American empire is beyond me."
Perhaps because their basic premises have been completely discredited by their own admission. I even heard a senior editor from TNR (the stealth neocons) admit on NPR earlier this evening admit that if he knew then what he knows now about Iraq, he would never had supported the invasion.
As to your two wars at the same time argument - we're already there: Afghanistan + Iraq = 2. Maxed out. There are no military resources left to wage a war on Iran, a much more formidible adversary than Iraq. If there was a draft to raise a larger army, maybe, but the neocons can't make that happen, especially when they are retracting their views.
March 19, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink