October Surprise: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb Iran
The Bush administration no longer makes any pretense of opposing an Israeli attack on Iran. Yesterday Martha Raddatz of ABC asked President Bush if he would "strongly discourage" Israel from attacking. Bush wouldn't. He responded that he has repeatedly stated that he favors diplomacy "first."
This is a whole new role for the United States. We no longer even bother to tell our allies not to start wars. We simply smile.
In yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami and the Iranian-American scholar Trita Parsi join in rebutting the ridiculous notion that there is no alternative to war,
They conclude:
"Israeli-Iranian enmity is not entirely dissociated from the Arab-Israeli dispute. The latter definitely facilitates and enhances Iran's strategy of regional destabilization. A regional system of security and cooperation in the Middle East cannot be established without an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And it is equally important to address the question of nuclear disarmament.
"For regional security to be possible it is not only necessary for Iran, Israel, and the US to grant one another minimum levels of recognition, it would also be necessary that Israel discard the notion that the regional order should be based on its nuclear monopoly.
The real choice in the long run is not between suspension of enrichment or war - it is between a verifiably nuclear-free Middle East or uncontrolled proliferation."
Is anyone listening? Ask your Democratic Senator or House member if they support a strike against Iran by the US or Israel. Watch him or her dodge the question.
Glenn Greenwald over on Salon.com has a good article (7/2/08) on "dual loyalty/anti-semitism" which touches on this subject.
July 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Here is the link to Greenwald.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/02/israel_iran/index.html
July 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for me, Boxer and Feinstein love AIPAC, and anything Israel does is hunky dory by them, Feinstein even more so than Boxer.
PS MJ: It’s been some time since I’ve seen an analysis on Israeli politics and why right-wingers control the government. Could you delve into this sometime?
July 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
An attack on Iran will drive up oil prices. (Counting on it, some investors are buying futures in oil at $l50/barrel figuring that if there is an attack prices will go to at least $200/barrel.)
Because of the economic sanctions Washington has imposed on Iran, key US allies have been forced to abandon plans for developing new oil fields - thus Iran with the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia is producing only about half the oil it could.
Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is, but it looks like Bush's Iran policies have been and are finally to drive up the price of oil - the nuclear 'issue' merely a convenient ruse besides a 'reason' for Israel to be involved (which I really can't fathom).
July 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were a conspiracy theorist I might think that since this is the last year of reign by the two oil derricks in the White House, the price of oil is their going away present to their beloved industry.
Any attack on Iran by the U.S., or Israel, will simply compound the f**king mess we're paying for in Iraq, making life much more difficult for the American public.
July 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm in the "short oil" minority on this one...
If Bernanke tightens interest rates before the end of the year (ie, if he defends the dollar as he signaled he will do) AND there is no attack on Iran, then oil could fall 50% in a very short amount of time.
I actually don't see an attack on Iran as imminent. We can't pull it off because we're overextended and Israel can't do it because it cant count on us to back them up substantively because... we're overextended.
If we had a bigger military, all bets would be off. Fortunately, we don't.
July 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find most remarkable about this entirely stupid idea of bombing Iran is how little both Israel and the Bush regime have learned from their failed attack on Lebanon which blew up in their face big time. Are they so blind and/or stupid or both that they don't see that this will make the incursion into Lebanon look like nothing? The whole notion is so breathtakingly irresponsible and counterproductive it is difficult to understand how anyone would think this a good idea or that it would in any way advance the cause of stability or peace in the middle east. It's simply shocking.
July 3, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the comment about your Democratic Senator or Congressman. My senator is Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a very smart and far seeing guy. He could see Iraq would be a trainwreck and opposed the war, probably to the displeasure of AIPAC. But he doesn't seem to have the same radar on Iran. Or maybe he's just got better radar than AIPAC. The only way I can put together his position on Iraq and Iran is that he sees Iran as the "real enemy" of Israel and foresaw that attacking Saddam would only strengthen Iran's hand. I like Levin and it makes me sad that he's not using his unparalelled leverage to help bring the drumbeat to a halt. Even Mike Mullen can see and say attacking Iran is going to be a disaster, but Carl doesn't want to go there. It's sad and it's scary.
July 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Bush Administration Encouraging Israel to Attack Iran?
While the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran has either stopped or slowed down development of a nuclear weapon, Bush Administration is adamant that Iran is developing one. Apparently no lessons have been learnt from the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fiasco, when Bush Administration hurriedly started the war preempting UN inspectors report which would have contradicted such a claim.
The recent and very visible exercises by Israeli air force have been described by some eager Pentagon officials as preparation for an attack on Iran. To many Middle East watchers this is probably just saber rattling and may in fact be to pressurize European allies to get on with it in Iran or else!
Has the White House or the Pentagon seriously considered consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran? Iran is neither Iraq or Syria and the fanatical Ahmedinajad regime will respond with everything he has got. Iran will retaliate by launching missiles on Tel Aviv (probably devastating the city) and close the Straits Of Hormuz sending crude oil price to $250 a barrel or higher causing massive problems for many economies of the world. An instant casualty will probably be the Iraqi Government as Moqtada Al-Sadr (supported by Iran) will bring the pro US Government down and cause chaos in Iraq.
The Israelis are not that stupid to launch another war. Their attack on Lebanese cities was watched in horror by the world. Instead of recovering two kidnapped soldiers it lost another 169 soldiers plus several hundred civilians killed. The most damage to Israel was to its invincibility built so impeccably in the six day war. Their super efficient army suddenly did not look so super any more. Israel seems to have learned its lessons and is now negotiating with its adversaries.
The larger question for the U.S. is, where is the US media in all this? Are they going to sit idly by while another war is launched and not challenge Bush Administration as they did before Iraq war? Why is media not analyzing and presenting to US public the consequences of such a misadventure?
A far fetched idea though, but is Bush Administration so worried by an Obama win and Democratic majorities in Senate and House this fall that it rather not have judicial probes opening up into the missing billions in Iraq, and massive no bid contracts to favorite companies etc. that it may cause another war and a security situation leveling the way for McCain to win - I hope not.
July 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always great posts.
To take it a step further. If Israel attacks then Iran will close down its oil transportation -- 40% of the world's oil passes here. That means they not only achieve regional destabilization, but they score a great global destabilization.
Is the Bush Administration that crazy/retarded? This go round they simply bank on chaos without any hope for greater order? At least the first go round they pretended to want a higher level order. I want to know what Democratic Congressmen and women think a non-nuclear middle east matters if we cannot afford food.
July 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The latest round of news includes opinions/analysis from experts who think an attack against Iran is unlikely. Earlier, other experts were giving opinions that an attack was nearly certain, probably imminent. It all depends upon who we want to believe. The one side says that Israel must attack, because a nuclear armed Iran is totally unacceptable. That the very survival of Israel is at stake. Israel has no choice. The other side says: What? Attacking Iran would be a colossal catastrophe. Oil will cost $1000 a barrel, the world will shut down, then we will have WW3. My opinion is that Iran is going to getting bombed. The weight of the evidence just seems to lead to that conclusion. After all, why does oil cost $134 a barrel? It is not a supply/demand problem. The marginal cost of oil is $70. Economics 101 says it should cost $70. There are no gas lines, and all can get all the oil they want. The price is $134 because speculators are trading paper oil and have driven the price there. The speculators believe the market will be desrupted. I think they are right.
July 4, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of "there are no gas lines" in 1973 when there were gas lines, the price of gas was, adjusted for inflation, about 80 cents/gallon. And, if I remember correctly in 1973 speculating in oil futures was not allowed.
July 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. You have my vote. The cost of oil is a fraud perpetrated by a group of extremely wealthy individuals who are manipulating the market. They are trading paper oil back and forth to rake off profits, exactly as the "speculators" in real estate did a number of years ago in Texas and elsewhere causing the Savings and Loan crisis. A few years ago, what they were doing was considered a crime. Remember Bunky Hunt? When the Feds threatened him with jail, the price of his silver fell from $48 an ounce to $8. What is going on now is still probably a crime. I doubt if the present administration will consider it that way, but the next one may.
July 5, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink