If this article from the New Yorker is correct, then the world is about to become a much uglier, nastier place in very short order.
If we had a "cold war" from the 1950s through to the collapse of the Soviet Union, I can only imagine what the Middle East will look like politically after the United States drops nuclear weapons on Iran.
BTW - I personally think the probability of an Iran invasion is very high based on the repeating of the pattern used by BushCo prior to invading Iraq. 09/04/06 - ed. Oops - meant to say Iraq
[Update 09/04/06 - 19:36]
A commenter has put forward all of the reasons why invading Iran would be patently stupid. They're correct of course - invading a nation several times the size of Iraq that has been relatively prosperous for 20 odd years since the Iran-Iraq War would be nothing less than stupid.
In my view, this omits one key ingredient - I don't think that BushCo give a damn about whether they can "win" in Iran - and the issue isn't tactics or equipment - it's politics and faith.
1) Politics
Invading Iran is a "no lose" proposition for the Republicans. Done right, it keeps the American people thinking they are under threat, and preserves the "soft" vote that got them where they are.
If it backfires, it'll take things past 2008, and leave the next president, regardless of stripe with a hideous set of conditions, both at home and on the world stage - setting the stage for a Republican comeback in 2012.
2) Faith
No, I'm not talking about exporting Christianity. Like exporting democracy, that doesn't work. No, I'm talking about the "end-times" prophecies in the Book of Revelations. Within North American evangelical circles, there are a lot of people that believe that open war in the Middle East is one of the events prophesied as a precondition to the "Rapture". Remember, Bush and much of his advisors circle are followers of evangelical faith.
It's not a matter of "winnable" in their minds. In fact, I'd suggest that with two wars left incomplete in the region, BushCo has made it abundantly clear that they are about destabilizing the Middle East.
...but that's just my opinion.
[Update: 10/4/2006 07:15]
I apologize to readers - I don't normally keep appending to one post, but in this case, I keep finding more details
Mr. Hersh isn't the only person claiming that BushCo is planning a Nuclear Attack on Iran
I take no joy in this revelation, and I'll be quite relieved should it turn out to be utterly wrong. The United States is the only power in the world to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in war, and apparently, it's current government is the only one in history to utterly forget the consequences.
... And, just to add to the joy, The US Government is denying these plans - while asserting that the Pentagon is engaging in "contingency planning" Since past behaviour is often the best predictor of future behaviour, I'd say the odds are quite good that Washington is lying through its teeth when it talks about "diplomacy".
[Update: 10/4/2006 18:15] According to Bush, the talk of invasion is "just wild speculation". Uh-huh. Sure. There's enough pattern repetition from the Iraq lead up to make me think this is Rove-inspired spin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ... -
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
1 comment:
I disagree on the Iran invasion probability.
Comparing the Iraq invasion to a potential Iran invasion.
1. Population of Iraq about twenty six million, of which at least two major factions were happy to see the Saddam Hussain dictatorship dismantled. Population of Iran about sixty eight million, with no major pro-western faction identified. Almost nobody in Iran would welcome an invader as a liberator.
2. Iraq had been on the wrong end of over ten years of embargo and constant air attack. Their air force and antiaircraft capabilities were severely disabled by the time of Gulf War Two. Iran has been making a profit on their oil and buying all sorts of military toys, including the 3M80/Kh-41 MOSKIT [SS-N-22 'Sunburn'] antiship missile. (Google the specs on the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles for an eye-opener.)
3. With antiship missile launchers hidden in the mountains of the northern coast of the Persian Gulf, any ship in the Persion Gulf is a sitting target. This includes oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Iran can shut down all oil traffic from the Gulf and severely cripple the American Navy.
4. Although the Americans had little help from the rest of the world in invading Iraq, there was very little concrete aid to the Iraq side of the scuffle. China, on the other hand, imports a lot of oil from Iran. They may object to a disruption of their oil supply that would occur from an invasion.
5. A majority of American military personel and material was used in the Iraq invasion. Much of this is still in use in Iraq. The Americans do not have an equivalent supply of uncommitted personel and material to use against another foe at this time.
-The Bungle Lord
On the flip side, people and their governments have done stupider things in the past. So who knows?
Post a Comment