Iran Rattles Scimitar Back at U.S.
Thursday, February 8th, 2007 - 11:18am
TEHRAN, Iran - If the United States were to attack Iran, the country would respond by striking U.S. interests all over the world, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday.
Makes sense from a warfighting perspective, since you're going to want to attack your enemy's week points, and commerce is ours. Anyone want to place any odds on war breaking out over the next 6-12 months?
I'm maybe at 35% using my own, totally unscientific, utterly speculative method of assuming that Bush is just boneheaded enough to push it no matter what anyone else thinks.
If the violence in Iraq miraculously simmers down, you can bet your ass our operations will move the crosshairs next door. We can't *not* be fighting a war! What ever would we do with all the spare time and weapons?
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Is it January 2009 yet, so we can start fixing the country?
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
I am being more paranoid about this than I probably should be but there are a couple of indicators that make me think this may happen in less than 6 months. And I don't think Bush Co. really cares what anyone thinks. My opinion ...
And I don't hold out too much hope for a new Prez and/or Congress to push for the kind of changes needed in this country. We'll see ...
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
There is a really good oped piece in the WP this morning regarding engagement with Iran and the probable consequences. I've always been of the opinion that Iran (even with its recent history) is a far better natural ally to our interests than the Saudis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702136.html
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Why is it that whenever I hear people talking about "fixing" things in a political context, the first thought I have is about "fixing" as it is used in relation to neutering pets?
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Sadly, I'm expecting war by late summer.
I would hope that the newly elected Congress would have the balls to provide the necessary adult supervision in that event. Even if it requires a full-on plug pulling and the political consequences (eg: being called "unsupportive of the troops"), I can think of nothing more appropriate than stopping (by all means necessary) an executive clearly out of control.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
That is a nice article that I totally agree with but it runs contrary to what our government is doing. It is one of the reasons why I think the clock is ticking for Bush to do something now as opposed to waiting for when his bad guy isn't seen as such a threat. From my limited perspective, I think alot of America is still buying the Axis of Evil crap and the looming threat of a nuclear Iran.
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
Possibly the most ironic part of our policy is that the policy of constructive engagement is all about letting the power of free markets create the demographic (and democratic) changes without the need for direct intervention. Republicans used to be big believers in this and the results were pretty spectacular. South Korea and Taiwan are loudly touted as examples of "success stories" in US engagement. The fact of the matter is that we were very tolerant of repressive dictators while encouraging markets to develop and bring about the demographic changes necessary to liberalize.
It is sadly ironic that the self-same Republicans seem most resistant to employing the same mechanism in an area that matters far more.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I suspect that they are worried about the fickleness of the American public, most of whom don't seem to have any conception of what a war entails. To them, bombing is a terrific tool so long as everything is going great. Congress is worried that they'll be accused of cowardice by the White House, and Congress knows that whether the public will back it over the presidency is a huge open question.
What kind of event do you think it will take to get a reluctant public and therefore Congress on board for any action against Iran? I'm just asking in general as it is something I have been pondering ... a large scale attack on our troops? Slam Dunk evidence of Iran supplying the insurgents? Where does a somewhat skeptic America draw the line?
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
If the Iraq insurgency does not calm down, it could be set up as "Iran is supplying the insurgents, therefore if we take out Iran both countries will stabilize." Yeah, I know, LOL, but it would be presented in such simplistic terms. So, an Iran invasion could happen in the scenario I posted about above or in this one.
*edit*
The country may be skeptical due to the Iraq situation, but pushing an Iran invasion as the solution would satisfy most of the population if you ask me. Throw in a couple "terrorism" references for good measure, since the recent Boston Threat Down is proof that people are still scared to death.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
But I don't see that being enough to sell it though. My thoughts are that it would have to rekindle the fires of outrage just enough to get grudging support. It's tough enough for them now (majority against it) to keep troops on the ground in Iraq.
And I agree that war in general is probably the motivater of the Decider. The deeper we sink in the longer his buddies get paid.
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
The dialog in my head goes something like this:
People: We don't want to be in Iraq any longer, it's a mess and we should bring our troops home!
Bush: But, look! It's only a mess because *Iran* is making it bad for us!
People: Iran? Really? Are you sure?
Bush: Oh yeah, it would be all tidy, wrapped up in a pretty little bow if it weren't for Iran! They hate our freedom! This is why the Iraq invasion hasn't gone according to our awesome plan!
People: Oh, so this is all Iran's fault! Attack Iran!
Bush: Excellent....
That is, people will view this as a way *out* of Iraq.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Hehehe ... you funny. And here I thought I was pretty cynical. I don't really understand or agree with the American public most of the time but if your scenario were to play out then I'm moving to Canada. If they'll have me ...
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
I think you will be right. It will be billed as, "We can't just walk away from a fight with these guys. It only encourages them to attack us."
Realistically, the only people whose word would have any weight at this point are the generals, and they read their duty as being to just shut up and take whatever orders he hands down. Once Bush has made up his mind, the only thing that could maybe stop him is the political fallout of top ranking generals resigning in protest. Even then, there are probably enough ambitious generals that Bush could just appoint their replacements who would then push for the attack.
I just don't see it. Sounds like I might be the only one in this thread too.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Once I was attacked by a group of wild dogs. They fanned out in front of me barking. The way to escape is to keep quiet and slooowly back away.
*runs away quickly*
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Knock it off, you're emboldening the enemy.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Hey, I put the probability at 40%. It's not like it's a slam dunk. There was some talk of the Iranians being willing to talk, but the way I see the White House working is them just saying, "If they're willing to talk it means they're scared by our saber rattling, so let's ramp up the saber rattling a little more to make them even MORE cooperative." The trouble with that approach is that it can lead both sides into doing things they come to regret later.
Oh, I don't think it's a certainty, but it seems more probable to me than not with the way things are going.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think even George W. Bush is that stupid.
I won't say the odds we'll goto war with Iran are zero, because that would be dogmatic - but I will say they are infinitesimally small. What would we have to gain? What would THEY have to gain? Wars don't just "happen"
We're involved in a series of political sabre rattling - if you're in war, you can't do that anymore. So why ruin the fun (and bonus with your base?)
CNN said yesterday that another aircraft carrier was on the way to the Persian Gulf but that could obviously be for other reasons. I only mention this as it was in the same report as this.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
After some deliberation, I think Robear may be onto something. There is a better than average chance that Bush is just dumb enough to expand the conflict from Iraq (which is clearly a catastrophe) to Iran (which is not yet a stunning catastrophe). That is certainly the policy that the neoconpoops seem to be driving.
If he is that stupid, however, I think it is a tremendous miscalculation of the willingness of the Congress to pull his plug. The result will be that Iran inherits the Middle East and the neocons will lie to themselves and the rest of the world that it wasn't their fault.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
As easy as it is to paint him as categorically dumb, I have a hard time conceiving of a situation in which the administration becomes convinced that a full scale war with Iran would be good policy. I can see the mindset leading to Iraq, even while disagreeing with the reasoning behind it, but the fact is, not even the most fanciful proposal would make even a bit of sense for a war solution.
They pay people to give them a feel of both public opinion as well as congressional sway - the GOP would revolt full scale to protect their '08 Congressional reelection and the '08 presidential candidates would speak him down for the same reason. No matter how misguided, the administration is not stupid, and won't push a suicidal agenda.
A thought I had just now:
Administration attacks Iran;
Iran counters with multiple terror attacks;
Bushies put country into total lockdown;
Elections in 2008 either not held, or are no longer meaningful.
It's amazing what you can think of with a fresh batch of tinfoil.
"Ya know, it's sounds crazy...but it just might work!"
/Bush idly scanning the internet one day.
Love thyself (just not in public)
Love thy neighbour (remember to ask first)
Certis wrote:
I think the secret to "peace" in the Middle East - or, at least, control of the region and its vast oil stores and money flow - is Iran. It's always been that way, or, at least since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Iran has a huge populace, lots of land, tons of natural resources and, most importantly, the only country in the world (I think?) where the people had a revolution and chose to institute an Islamic government. It wasn't forced on them by a dictator or a king or whatever; they chose the government they have today. So that makes them kind of like the U.S. of the Muslim World: a government founded on philosophy and principles. As such, the Arab world looks to Iran for many of the same reasons the Western World looks to the U.S., and if you can control Iran, the rest of the region would supposedly have no choice but to fall in line. That's what we have to gain from a war with them: control, once and for all, of the Middle East: access to the rich stores of oil, control of the money flow and safety for our allies and ourselves.
As for what Iran would have to gain: survival. If a country wants to disband your government and kill your citizens, then obviously you have to fight for your autonomy and right to exist. That being said, this argument makes more sense if Iran were attacked first and thus were fighting in self-defense. I don't know what would be in it for them to actually start the war.
If the goal of all this strife and misery is to once and for all secure 'peace in the Middle East', then I think that war with Iran is probably inevitable. But I agree, the chances that Bush will start a war with Iran are infintestmally small. In fact, the next president and the president after him/her probably won't do it, either. But if we ever want to control the region for ourselves, we have to go after the main boss, instead of wasting our time with the minibosses.
The real question is: do we really want to control the region for ourselves, and are we willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so?
"Today's Tom Sawyer, he gets high on you, Kat. You." - Haakon7
My Website v. 3.0
The administrations of both the US and Iran find a convientent foe in each other, and both for the same reason: motivation of their base. Anti-US sentiment is strong in many Middle Eastern countries, and that gets played upon by local governments. In the same vein, here in the US the public is played with vilification of Iran and others in the region. I would argue that this tool is a far greater advantage for both nations then any potential war gains.
On top of that, Iran has made clear that they primarily want engagement, in the same way North Korea does. It's been US policy to deny it, and so they get louder and louder. In the same way Iran is key to regional disputes and Middle Eastern trade, US engagement is key to better Iranian access to Western markets. A war would not help either country acheive its goals (in fact, it would greatly hinder them), and so I can't possibly image a war happening. This is, of course, opinion, but I think it's based in both present information and historical trends.