Where There Isn't A Will...
"Key players in the Bush administration think a military confrontation with Iran is unavoidable," reports Marc Perelman (via Laura Rozen). And, of course, military confrontation is unavoidable if key players in the Bush administration don't want to avoid it.
Advertisement
Military confrontation with Iran is necessary to prevent the Republicans from getting destroyed in the midterm elections. Since the latter looks unavoidable, so does the former.
April 6, 2006 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
Post Iranian invasion, how would Bush the Lesser and Ronnie Raygun compare?
April 6, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think this is a bluff, more aimed at Russia and China than at Iran. These threats always seem to be prefaced "If the Security Council does not agree to sanctions ..."
But anyway, if the United States insists that Iran be held to this new standard that it cannot be "nuclear capable" then there is no place for the conflict to stop escalating until somebody loses the war.
I had never heard of "nuclear capable" until it was applied to Iran, I can't imagine Iran going for it. There is no hint of anything like it in the NPT or the additional protocols or anywhere in any international law.
The United States is basically saying it has enough guns to apply its own law on Iran and if Iran disagrees, which it seems to, then the US has no choice but to show its hand.
April 6, 2006 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the crux of the matter and clearly shows why the entire crisis is manufactured for ulterior motives of regime change: you simply can't declare that it is "illegal" for a country to have a nuclear energy program because you think they MIGHT someday try to make a nuclear weapon and thereby justify a military attack on that country. There is NOTHING in the NPT or international law that even hints at such a policy being legal. Which by definition makes the United States a "rogue state".
And once you assume that in fact "regime change" - or simply neocon chaos and Empire - is the real purpose of the exercise, then you have to conclude that the ultimate result is going to be a war. Does anybody really believe that the neocons are now so broken by the debacle in Iraq that they are going to settle for spending $85 million in propaganda money in Iran? In exactly what way are the neocons particularly harmed by the results of the Iraq war? Who has lost their job? Who has been convicted of treason? Who isn't still pontificating in the media?
There simply is no other possible conclusion. Because spending $85 million on Iranian propaganda isn't going to bring down the mullahs, and neither are economic sanctions, or anything else being proposed by various people who are unable to follow the simple progression of logic.
So what's left? Well, an air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities under the guise of taking out "Iran's nuclear weapons program" (never mind it doesn't exist) results in an escalation by Iran in SOME manner - whether it is Iran shutting down the Gulf to oil tankers, or attacking the US in Iraq, or just spending more money on Hizballah terrorists in Lebanon. The end result? More justification for still more pressure and military responses by the US and Israel which will inevitably result in more retaliation by Iran.
How do you avoid ending up in a full-scale war at some point? Somebody explain to me at what point will the Iranian mullahs simply throw up their arms and say, "Okay, we're beat! We give up! No nuclear program! No terrorism! You win, George!" And George and the Repugs go on to win the elections for the next ten years...
Somehow I don't see that happening. What I see is one of two scenarios: we or our surrogates (although who is the surrogate is not clear) the Israelis conduct an airstrike on Iran; Iran either launches a full-scale retaliation on all fronts or it starts a tit-for-tat.
Either way, the end result is all-out war, an eventual invasion of Iran (possibly preceded by a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by Iran), and scores of thousands of dead US soldiers, and Iraqi and Iranian civilians.
I just don't see how you avoid this when you start with a completely opposed non-negotiable set of demands on both sides. Sure, we've avoided it in North Korea - because, as I've said repeatedly, North Korea HAS nukes, has no oil, and has a military that can and will fight us to the death. Iran has none of this. To the neocons, Iran ia another "cakewalk".
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 7, 2006 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perlman said: <i>...increasingly shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran using a variety of newspapers to plant stories of rising threats, time running out, and the urgency of the need to use force to stop Iran. </i>
The disinformation campaign is actually aimed at the US citizens. Build up the threat, dismiss the alternatives as not viable, openly threaten and hint at war plans. Then, when diplomacy and other approaches have failed - because BushCo wants it to fail - BushCo will make it clear that we can't back down now or the terrorists will have won. Or just attack without warning 'under pre-existing authorization from the Iraq congressional resolution' and consistent with the pre-emptive attack doctrine they have put in place.
Has anyone seen any indication that a containment and threat of MAD-like retaliation (that worked against the Soviet Union when the Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads) is being considered or should be considered?
Does anyone believe now that BushCo has thought through the post-attack actions that Iran or other Islamic states might take?
This is the Iraq debacle all over again, except this time the US will be limited to air and naval attacks with our land forces completely worn down.
How does the Hormuz straight filled with 10-15 tankers and US warships sunk blocking egress sound? No Iraqi oil, no Iranian oil, Not much, if any, of the Saudi or UAE oil? Land terrorist attacks against US forces in Iraq by Shia militias and Iranian paramilitaries? The Green Zone overrun?
There are madmen loose in the White House and DoD. Who will bring the white coats to keep their hands off the buttons?
April 7, 2006 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink