These points 1-4 are all acts of war. If we engage in any of them then it is probable that the Iranians will respond. No one can predict what their response to any of these will be. (Michael Indyk's WINEP has predicted that the Iranians are so weakened that they will do nothing, be that as it may).

I think reasonable people should consider the possibility that they will do something. If they do anything in response then I think it is only reasonable to assume that the US will then escalate our reaction. It is not paranoid to suggest that if we do some small attack then they will do something in response that will make it imperative on us to do something larger. This can then go back and forth. One cannot dissmiss the possibility that we would then have a real war with Iran.

If that all happens we should think about the consequences. Here are a few that have been considered. In no particular order:

1) The shiite forces in Iraq will unify and attack US forces (i.e. SCIRI and Sadr militias will cease fire and shoot at US forces in Iraq (folks this includes the Maliki army currently fighting the Sadr militias).

2) Our logistical supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad run along a line parallel to the Iranian border. This could be cut.

3) The Iranians are armed with Russian made anti-ship cruise missiles that are likely invulverable to any defence that the Navy currently has. These weapons have not been tested in combat but we should consider the possibility that the Iranians have the capacity to sink any US warship in the Persian Gulf. The lives of 30,000 US sailors would be put at risk.

4) The Iraqis have anti aircraft missiles that have ranges that extend from Iran to Baghdad that can easily take down commercial aircraft (again Russian and Ukraine developed weapons). If these prove effective, then an air logistical supply to our forces in the Baghdad region would be cut.

Perhaps Michael Indyk' WINEP analysts are correct and the Iranians will fold immediately. But if not then we should all be willing to accept losses that will exceed those we have already experienced in Iraq.

I tend to agree with MJ that this is a very worrisome situation.

Posted at June 27, 2008 1:04 AM in response to Richard Perle is Back (IRAN!!!) and Joe Klein Skewers Neo-Idiots. The Iraq War Gang is Back!

In the recent past one could be called an antisemite under these circumstances. I know, it happened to me. I was wondering if things have now changed -- Is it now possible to question a neocons loyalty to the US when they advocate war on Israel's behalf? If so, we have just experienced a major shift in attitudes.

Posted at June 21, 2008 11:55 PM in response to Doug Feith's Feelings Hurt: Disses House Hearing

Sounds like another Kyl/Lieberman. Doesn't mean anything unless Bush decides to attack Iran in which case he can say he has the backing of Congress. Just another Aipac backed effort to cover Bush if he decides to do what they want him to do. MJ is right this is very very dangerous.

Posted at June 21, 2008 11:47 PM in response to 169 House Members (77 Dems) Push For WAR NOW with Iran Plus AIPAC's Response

Something interesting just slipped by without undo comment. That is the accusation that Feith's allegiance is to Israel and not the United States. I hadn't seen that before. Just a few years ago that would be grounds for being denounced as an antisemite. It would be fodder for a major scandal.

Have things changed this much so quickly? Can we now talk about dual loyalty in polite company?

Posted at June 20, 2008 5:09 PM in response to Doug Feith's Feelings Hurt: Disses House Hearing

with a country like China decimating the environment and its workers to produce very cheap food of questionable quality

Nonsense. I lived in China for 6 months and found the food of excellent quality. Their chicken is clearly superior to American chicken (they never abandoned 'free range' rearing practices). They did not have the variety that we have, but what they had was quite good.

Posted at June 16, 2008 4:11 PM in response to Malthus Redux?

Humm. By that criteria, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would be judged very highly.

Posted at June 16, 2008 3:48 PM in response to High-Level McCain Volunteer Worked To Keep Blacks Out Of Jefferson Group

The actual author was Kevin Phillips, who in recent years has turned into a decent human being. Pat Buchanan does have an unfortunate xenophobic streak but he speaks a good line on war, empire and preserving our republic.

Posted at June 16, 2008 1:08 PM in response to High-Level McCain Volunteer Worked To Keep Blacks Out Of Jefferson Group

Astute analysis. You are right on the mark about the Nader phenomenon. I attended one of his rallies in Portland Ore with about 25,000 other people and cheered with the rest. Then I voted for Gore. I have always resented the hate Nader crowd inside the Democratic Party. My response has always been the same -- betray what should be your most loyal supporters and you will start losing them. This year I do not worry about Nader, Obama has made him irrelevant this time.

Posted at June 10, 2008 2:35 PM in response to Obama Is Riding The Wave But, Remember, We Are The Big Progressive TIde

Let's hope that McCain takes his advice and runs on this. Preliminary indications seems to be that he will. The delusions here are astounding, not more so than the delusions that led to the war in the first place, but more so because they can't seem to learn.

Stumbled into a revealing quote on Rosner's domain at Haaretz:

Polls show that Obama's support for holding unconditional talks with Iran, though it may be wrong, is much more popular among U.S. voters. But Obama is much smarter than the electorate, and it is doubtful he will carry out all of his fanciful promises.

Working for peacefull resolution of the Iran stand-off is by definition wrong; Obama knows it but is just pandering to the popular vote. Don't worry though, Obama will follow the advice of the realists. Oh the arrogance of the Israelis and their neocon brethren.

Posted at June 9, 2008 4:53 PM in response to Kristol On The Neocons' Last Chance

Where does this Tzipi Livni is a woman of peace come from? I have seen some statements from her that seem to put her well on the right. Can't say that I really know her politics, but it seems from her background that she came up through Likud.

Am I mistaken here? Israel has already had one women PM. Have we forgotten Golda "there is no such thing as a Palestinian" Meir? Along with Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher, I don't buy that women are any less warlike than men when they achieve political power.

Posted at June 7, 2008 8:17 PM in response to Put a Woman in Charge?