According to The Guardian, the intra-WH balance of power between Rice (who favors dealing with Iran via diplomatic pressure) and Cheney (who favors a military attack) has been tipping in Cheney’s favor.
“Not until next year” . . . we may hope. Jeez, have Bush and Cheney gone completely delusional?! What makes them think attacking Iran is still even an option, given the current political climate in DC?
Maybe you would get a better response if you started a thread about something that actually happened, and not these left-wing fantasies based on unnamed sources that don’t actually exist.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll say it again: Let Israel fight its own damned wars.
I am getting tired of that particular tail wagging the dog.
Shodan: In all fairness, it has been at least a month since we revisited the notion that, OMG, Bush is going to attack Iran! That might be a new record since the first time it was brought up in this forum.
Still, I don’t know what people mean when they say “attack”. We’re not going to invade, and dropping a few bombs on them, especially if done just as Bush is existing the WH, would be completely ineffective and extremely counterproductive to what Bush wants to do in Iraq. It really wouldn’t make any sense, even in the bizaro world of Bush-think.
Come, come now. While I personally believe the notion of attacking Iran has to be fantasy, there have certainly been rumblings about it for years already. More concretely, perhaps you consider Seymour Hersch’s opinions nutty. And the views of Representative DeFazio. But the possibility is bolstered by the administration’s evasiveness concerning obtaining Congressional approval for just such an act.
Again, in my mind, attacking Iran is inconceivable. But to call it a “left-wing fantasy” is being overly dismissive, I think.
Perhaps the OP does need some re-wording. Some questions, then:
[ol]
[li]Is attacking Iran a legitimate concern? (That is, is it within the realm of possibility?)[/li][li]Under what conditions would/could it happen?[/li][li]Under what conditions would/could it be justified? Are there any at all (assuming the US is acting pre-emptively)?[/li][/ol]
On preview, I see that John Mace indicates prior threads on this topic. Since I only recently re-upped, I’ve not seen nor read them; I’ll post this anyway, even though the other threads most likely covered exactly those questions.
Five years ago, the notion that we would want to invade and occupy Iraq seemed equally absurd. This time, I’d rather look like an idiot for being overly alarmed at the prospect of attacking another nation that we don’t wind up attacking, than looking like an idiot for being relatively unconcerned and doing too little to raise the alarm in case we wind up bombing the crap out of them.
Depends on what you mean by ‘invade.’ We’re not going to go in with an occupying force. But rumor has it we’ve already had Special Forces troops in Iran lately. Cheney would certainly send troops in to do anything he felt was both feasible and useful, if we were bombing them too.
If we drop bombs on them, I’m guessing more like a few thousand.
He’s still got the lease on what Mr. Moto now calls the Black Box for another 18 months yet. So plenty of time to avoid that.
I’m not sure anyone knows what makes sense to these loons anymore. I do know that a whole bunch of neocons have had it in for Iran for quite some time, and they and Cheney seem to be on the same wavelength. The main thing I believe I know about Bush is that he’s not going to do anything that smacks of accepting defeat in any of his wars. Blaming the problems in Iraq on Iran, and using that as a pretext to attack Iran, would easily put off that problem for a good while.
I also know that there’s a “spread the chaos” school of thought amongst the neocons. I’m not willing to stake a whole lot on the notion that they won’t go into Iran just to shake the board up because they’re in a bad position.
Five years ago, the idea that we would invade Iraq was already being discussed as a serious problem.
Six years ago, the idea that we would invade Iraq was being discussed in terms of “what excuse will the Neo-Cons need or dream up to pull it off?”.
You have to go back seven years to find people scratching their heads and wondering “Did GWB really say he wanted to start another war?”.
So, are you claiming the Guardian, and previously Hersh, made up the stories? Are you claiming that Cheney is likely to be against an attack on Iran?
And what we’ve learned in the intervening years is that any time we get even the slightest whisper of military madness coming out of this ignorant, arrogant White House, we all have to jump on it with both feet, immediately, screaming at the tops of our lungs, “What the fuck are you thinking, you bloodthirsty assholes,” if we are to have a hope of derailing the speculative adventure. The laissez-faire anti-war approach in the run-up to Iraq, where we didn’t realize how seriously deluded the hawks really were until it was too late, cannot be repeated, or before we know it we’re going to find ourselves waterboarding children in Teheran.
I used to have a lot of respect for the guy until he started his crusade to expose the “conspiracy” to invade Iran. And yet none of his “predictions” has come true. Of course he always couches his “predictions” in weasel words so he back out later and say that he didn’t have any specific time frame in mind, or some other excuse.
Absurd to do it, or absurd that it might actually be done? Certainly not the later.
Iraq has been boogy-man numero uno since before Bush came to office. We essentially “invaded” that country as soon as we set up the no-fly zones, blocking off SM from controlling most of the territory in his country. Clinton even launched a 4 day bombing campaign in the final years of his two-term presidency. I don’t see a parallel between the war drums over Iraq and the psudo-war drums over Iran.
Well, two things here. First off there isn’t much doubt that Bush at least IS delusional (I’m not so sure about Chaney, though I’m willing to concede it for the sake of argument). The second thing here however is…he/they aren’t the only one. I’ve been hearing about this imminent attack on Iran for, oh, at least a year around here at least. And it doesn’t look to me as if we are any closer to it than we were when the first hand wringing thread on this subject bubbled up on the board (I think it was actually in 2004, but who is counting?).
As I said in the last one of these type threads, we would need to define exactly what ‘military action’ entails. If we are talking about some air strikes or other remote type attacks (i.e. tossing some cruise missiles a la Clinton at them) then sure…I’d say thats within the realm of possibility. I’m not even sure if its unjustified at this point, though thats certainly open to debate. However, the implication is that we are talking about either a full scale or limited scale invasion…which I’d say is pure fantasy. Simply put we don’t have that force too project anymore…and wouldn’t have it even if we stripped Iraq bare. Certainly we’d be doing something like that entirely alone this time, without even the Brits to back us up.
That said, I find even the possibility of the US undertaking air strikes or other remote type attacks against Iraq pretty remote at this time. I think this is simply saber rattling. I’ll wait and see if things change in the next 6 months and give some thoughts when the next “We are about to attack Iran!” hand wringing thread pops up on the radar…
-XT
Of course, without the handwringing, and debate over the wisdom of hitting Iran, the decider in chief would have bombed Tehran a couple years ago. Just IMHO, but these guys have a habit of forgetting things they don’t want to know, so it’s important to keep up the pressure against some of the stupider possible scenarios.
I regard Hersh’s writings on Iran as approximately equivalent to the warnings about the Y2K bug. Had nobody noticed the Y2K problem until the very last minute, the results would have been, maybe not catastrophic, but definitely severe. Instead, the trumpets were sounded years in advance, and the worst problems averted. Similarly, were Hersh or some other crusader not alerting us to the covert activities of the hawks, their unperceived planning would have advanced further than it has. And just as nontechnical people complained that the predictions of digital doom were unrealized on January 1, 2001, failing to understand that it was exactly the loud attention to the problem that permitted action to be taken, it is, at least in part, the warnings sounded by Hersh that are allowing saner heads to obstruct the militaristic madmen with whom Cheney has surrounded himself.
ETA: On failure to preview, what Squink said.
I’m guessing that either there was no unnamed source, and that all of the story was the reporter’s speculations, or that the source is some low-level staffer with a hard-on. The idea that BrainGlutton would like us to believe, that Cheney is pushing for a military invasion of Iran on the same scale as Iraq, is the left-wing fantasy of which I spoke.
This is rather like the tabloids publishing stories about impending celebrity divorces, which they can then re-publish periodically in hopes that they come true. The only difference is that many celebrities do get divorced, but Bush isn’t going to invade Iran.
Or else it is merely another opportunity for the Looney Left to manufacture a fantasy and then blame it on Bush. Then when it doesn’t happen, they can pat themselves on the back for fending it off. See Cervaise’s rant for an example.
Yes, it pops up from time to time, just like the “Bush is cancelling the elections” thing that happened in 2003-4. Note that gonzomax’s “cite” is from a year and a half ago.
Regards,
Shodan
Its possible. Its also possible that the ward I keep in my front yard to repel polar works too…after all, I haven’t seen any polar bears in my front yard (or the back either!) so it MUST be working.
-XT
Where did you find anyone claiming Cheney is pushing for an invasion of that scale? All the stories I have read have been about air strikes, perhaps nuclear, focused on the Iranian atomic facilities. I think even Cheney is smart enough to figure out we don’t have the capacity to invade Iran at the moment, not without a draft.
Hersh’s articles (and his Fresh Air interview) made it very clear what type of people his sources were - in fact high level military people who were deadset against even having a nuclear attack on the table. (Thank Og for our professional military.) They did not seem to be majors at a desk somewhere. You are accusing a respectable new organization of a major journalistic breech of ethics with no reason except it would make your hero look bad. Why the sources are unnamed should be fairly obvious, btw.
Isn’t it a valid diplomatic tool to say you might invade, even you actually have no serious intent to do so? After all, Iranians in the public speeches are fond of saying they want to destroy Israel and do all kinds of crazy things, and we’re expected to write that off as mere “for local consumption” grandstanding.
Basically, I think violent rhetoric is universal.
No? We now have half the ships in the United States Navy patrolling off Iran’s coast.
