The neocons started pressuring Bush to invade Iraq from the day he took office. I don’t think they required to be “duped.”
Well, if all you are asking is if there will be an attack, then I’d say the chances are pretty good depending on what Iran does in the next month. As far as a bomb raid on their nuke program, I’d say thats where the prime danger is. Certainly its a pain in the ass IF they are actively assisting the insurgents (or providing their own operatives) in Iraq, but its their nuke program thats the real danger. Also, nothing precludes the US from striking identified camps or columns along the boarder (if there are such) in addition to Irans nuke program.
Its really all in Iran’s hands…they will be ‘rewarded’ if they discontinue enriching uranium and completely drop even the appearence of having a nuclear weapons program…and they MAY be punished if they don’t (god knows if the UN will actually put some teeth into it this time or stay true to form). Personally, I’d support a limited military operation into Iran (i.e. air strikes and maybe even SF raids on the borders) IF Iran doesn’t bow to the will of the international community…it isn’t JUST America asking them to cease and desist after all.
-XT
But, x, as Newsweek pointed out, the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prohibit uranium enrichment. Under international law, the Iranians have a perfect right to do what they’re doing.
And would you stop and think for just a moment about the probable consequences of a “limited military operation into Iran”?
Sure, I realize that there are peaceful applications to enriching uranium…and that its not forbidden under the NNPT. However, with the current climate I have to think Iran is TRYING to provoke with this program…otherwise they would drop even the suspicion that they MIGHT be creating a weapons program. They have been warned by the UN now…and have until November to discontinue. Its in their hands.
Perhaps they only have peaceful intentions for their enrichment program…but then again BG, perhaps they don’t. I don’t think the world is willing to take that chance at this point…certainly the US isn’t.
I don’t really see how this would do more than ratchet things up a degree or two…the folks who hate us over there will continue to hate us reguardless of whether we show restraint or not in limited strikes into Iran. I doubt there are all that many folks sitting on the fence over there at this point who will be swayed to hatred of the US (and whoever else participates…IF anything happens that is). Perhaps there are vast pools of ‘undecideds’ in the ME who will be swayed to the US’s side by a show of restraint as far as Iran’s nuke program goes…but I’m unaware of it.
BG, we are ALREADY in a fight in Iraq…it can’t get too much worse IMHO. We are already fighting in Afghanistan. AQ is already a sword over our head, and they have already said that they will attack us directly in the US if and when they can…and have shown repeatedly that they WILL do so. So, if the US attacks limited targets in Iran dealing with their POSSIBLE weapons program, its really not going to change anything for the US…except that not taking out Irans nuke program MIGHT give Iran access to a nuclear weapon, which would be a bad thing IMHO…a VERY bad thing.
-XT
So? They haven’t succeeded in an attack on American soil in three years. The FBI, the CIA and the DHS have, apparently, blocked them. And those are the only agencies that can. The Defense Department cannot be of any real, effective help at rooting out terrorists – that’s like using a machine gun on a cloud of mosquitoes.
Well, sure, I agree that, if this happened the way those articles say, it must have been like feeding candy to a baby for the Iranian intelligence services. But, I think that it is established that fanciful stories from Iraqi defectors and whatnot who were made available by Chalabi played an important role in providing the neo-cons with the “evidence” that they needed to justify the invasion. And, the point of this articles is that Iranian intelligence may have played an important role in all this.
So, in other words, the Iranians didn’t dupe the Bush Administration; they just helped the Administration dupe itself, and dupe the American people.
Well, then what exactly did you mean by “And would you stop and think for just a moment about the probable consequences of a “limited military operation into Iran”?” (which is what I was responding too). BTW, just because AQ hasn’t attacked the US again directly, doesn’t mean they can’t…look at how long between the first WTC attack and 9/11. Also, AQ has been pretty active out in the REST of the world.
-XT
What I’m afraid of is that, if we stage a “limited” military attack on Iran, the Iranians might take complete leave of their senses and fight back. Say, by making incursions into occupied Iraq, or Afghanistan. And then, of course, we have to escalate our own attacks on Iran . . . you get the picture? Also it would turn even more of the Islamic world against us (yes, that is possible). And destabilize the region further – raising the possibility of a free-for-all regional war which might suck in Saudi Arabia and Syria.
So who’s been sending all those booby-trapped letters to our governors?
Sorry, can’t follow that link without subscribing to the Sydney Morning Herald.
My guess would be, they caught the wrong Unabomber. 
Oh, and I forgot to mention Turkey. What do Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey have in common? A discontended Kurdish minority that almost certainly would seize on a general regional war as an opportunity to create an independent Kurdistan. And what side would the U.S. be on in that, considering that Turkey is a traditional and valued ally?
Of course, if they are already doing this (which I think they ARE, to a certain extent), then it doesn’t really change much of anything, does it?
I don’t see an escalation that entails an out and out invasion reguardless…and I seriously doubt that it will go much beyond taking out Irans ability to make nuclear weapons (if it even goes that far…I think they will back down in some face saving way). Iran certainly does not WANT a escalation with not only the US but with whatever other nations are afraid of them having nukes BG…again, you are painting this thing as a US only initiative, and its not. IF there are air strikes into Iran, it won’t be only the US doing so. Iran isn’t going to want that kind of heat, so I think that they will be more than willing to put their head down for a while and at least have the appearence of being good and playing nice…and who knows? Maybe they really WILL want to be good and play nice. They have the example of Libya fully rejoining the world community as an example.
I don’t see how some air strikes could completely destabalize the region and turn it into some kind of free-for-all armaggedon. I certainly don’t see how it could destabalize things worse than the simple fact of Iran having a nuke in fact (which would be a destabalizing force in and of itself, no?). I also don’t think it would seriously further turn the Islamic World against us (against the West I guess, and the US specifically)…its already almost completely polarized and will remain so until Iraq and Afghanistan are ‘resolved’ one way or the other…and probly not even then.
-XT
You think? If Bush decides to bomb Iran, I really can’t see the British coming with us – Blair’s already taken too much heat at home over Iraq, and unlike an American president he doesn’t serve for a fixed term. The Israelis might join us, but how would that play?
Fucking Sydney Morning Herald! Half the time the story shows up, and the other half you get that ‘please register’ crap.
Here’s the Googly news on the story. 18 governors as of Sept. 13, more since then.
OK, but nobody was hurt, so my original point remains valid: Terrorists have not succeeded in any attacks on American soil since 2001. Also, there’s no indication Islamic fundamentalists sent these mail bombs. We do have our own domestic terrorists, you know. Remember Timoty McVeigh?
Why would you think its just the US thats concerned with a nuclear Iran…or just the US/UK?? Do you think the US is the only driving force behind all this…that its just the US in the UN, and everyone else is opposed or something? Could you list out why you think this is compeletly a US oriented initiative without traction with the rest of The World™?
-XT
Pardon my ignorance, but what does AQ have to do with Iran?
If you’ll carefully read the short Newsweek article linked above, you may notice the following points:
-
Although France, Germany and Britain did join with the U.S. in offering a draft resolution at last week’s IAEA meeting demanding Iran immediately cease its uranium-enrichment program, other members of the council challenged that provision’s legality. Since France and Germany were dead set against our intervention in Iraq, I don’t think these concerns will be enough to get them behind us if we attack Iran; and I’ve already explained why I don’t think the Brits would join us.
-
Only two countries are mentioned as seriously considering a military option for dealing with Iran: The U.S. and Israel.
-
The article also says:
I’m not clear on why Brazil would want nuclear weapons, but apparently they do. If we violently object to Iran acquiring them but ignore Brazil and NK, how do we justify that double standard? Furthermore, it would appear there are now a lot of countries around the who would like to join the nuclear club if they can. What are the chances we could put together a “coalition of the willing” to de-nuclearize Iran, if the nations we’re trying to recruit have similar goals in mind?
- The article also says:
And other countries’ defense departments can run those war-game scenarios just as well as ours can. In other words, they would know at the start that joining with the U.S. in a “limited” strike on Iran might commit them to hanging in there with us when (not if) the conflict escalates.
You have to learn to think like a Bushivik. Iran is evil. Al-Qaeda is evil. North Korea is evil. All evil is the same.