I completely agree. I don't think any kind of attack, let alone World War 3 like I've heard in other places, will happen. The economies of not only the United States and Israel, as well as others who receive most of their oil through the Strait of Hormuz, are at stake. This past month I have seen the price of oil plunge, mostly due to demand destruction, but also because there has not been much escalation in the talks with Iran. Israel is said to have upwards of 200 Nuclear weapons. If Iran is able to make ONE, what are the odds of them being able to get it anywhere (they don't have anywhere near as advanced a targeting system as Israel). And they also need to come to the understanding that they are dealing with the infancy stages of nuclear technology --- and accidents can happen. The president of Iran needs to know that if he decided to attack Iran (wipe them off the face of the Earth, to be exact) the Iranian economy would collapse. Russia and China need to step in and help the talks and make them understand that if they want a stable economy, and not complete hell breaking loose, they need to prove that all they are doing is building civilian electricity. Once we get a new president in office (Obama) talks will improve. And shame to those who think that war will happen with Iran because talks are failing. People thought the same thing with North Korea and if I'm not mistaken, they have begun mass destabilization of their nuclear power plants and are cooperating with the U.N. I think the talks will work because, whether you were alive or not, you have seen the kind of damage that happens during a World War. Cooler heads will prevail, and I still see a day when nuclear weaponry is completely extinguished.
What kind of delusional madness thinks that if Israel or their pet poodle the USA threatens Russia's and China's oil supply from Iran, these countries will not respond in kind?
A war with Iran coming from Israel or US is a disaster of the widest implications for world order and stability.
IRAN is not Iraq or Afghanistan;there are no destructive missiles in Iraq or Afghanistan positioned to hit Israel or US interest and upset the world economy. No this is not a cakewalk. We are playing into the hands of a ruthless religious sacrificial social order we have no way of predicting how long this war will last and what the implications will be in loss of life and on both sides.
Why we did not bomb North Korea? Sanity over-ruled
If I were you, I would be more concerned about a future US Republican administration scheming to get Mexico's oil. It's a huge temptation to their "we should have it all" mentality and is starting with Calderon's proposal to let big money US companies like Halliburton (which is already well entrenched with Pemex in Tabasco) and Exxon Mobil funding more Pemex corruption for the benefit of the rich families of Mexico and their designs on privatizing Mexico's oil.
If Obama wins, Bush will send troops rolling in to Iran as a last act of revenge. Within a month you will have GOP and pundits shrieking their heads off asking how President "Hussein" plans on getting us out of the quagmire in the Middle East HE thrust us into.
North Korea gave in because China, its only friend, neighbor and looming presence told it to.
China bends the arms in North Korea, nobody else.
There is no comprable influence over Iran.
Similarly, everybody in the world wants Iran's oil. North Korea offers nothing except starving oppressed human being (already in vast oversupply around the planet).
A conventional military attack is probably unlikely, however an economic one [H.J. RES 362] is on the table and it is likely to be approved by the weak (D) majority US Congress.
A conventional military attack is probably unlikely, however a economic one [H.J. RES 362] is on the table and it is likely to be approved by the weak (D) majority US Congress.
Isn't it bad enough Bush is threatening to attack Iran? I do not see this as an Israeli-Iran question, I think most Americans are sick of this misguided, arrogant administration and the current WAR. It is wrong to speculate and place odds. Why isn't someone in the current government trying to stop it? It is madness, Prez George is as loopy as the English King George of old, if any posters remember him!
The author makes rational arguments. That is a flaw with the Bush/Cheney bunch. They put on the glasses they want and insist that the world looks the way they want it to. McClellan, among others proved this. The bubble around them is impenetrable and self-imposed. Let's face it, none of them has yet to admit that they invented the 'intelligence' that 'justified' the Iraq fiasco.
I don't know what u people are reading? Why is attacking Iran bad? Let's see what happens. Iran is really weak military. US could bomb the country without taking over it. They already have missile defense system in place in iraq near the battalions. We bomb Iran for couple weeks, and destroy their infrastructure, including their navy and their air force. Oil shoots up to $300/barrel. It sends shock wave throughout the world, and causes global recession/depression. China has no where to export their stuff, and tanks their economy. US in shock of oil prices starts to invest in alternative energy and force all cars to go away from oil or requirement for cafe mileage increase 200-300%. After 5 years, US no longer requires foreign oil. US Dollar goes up because every other economy is in more of a basket case than US.
Mr. Krauze assumes that Mr. Bush actually cares about anything but himself. Our chances of attacking Iran are quite high, because Mr. Bush is too stupid to think of the consequences and too concerned about looking tough.
Do you really believe that concerns for the economy are going to be enough to stop this adminstration -- or even enough to act as a deterrent. This is the administration that publicly stated that an invasion of Iraq would pay for itself in oil revenue. It is also the administration who told us that after 911, it was our patriotic duty to shop.
The economy will not get in the way of an overwhelming neo-con desire to go into Iran.
As for diplomacy, North Korea does not hold the same significance symbolically or financially (oil) as Iran. Comparing diplomacy there is like comparing apples to oranges.
However, an attack out of Israel is entirely possible -- backed and encouraged 100% by the Bush administration.
Israel is determined to attack Iran, with or without our support. Our government should publicly state that we do not support such action. I am afraid that the right-wing fanatics who seem to be directing government policy have made a decision to support an attack before a new President takes office.
The US & Israel dare not attack Iran. It will redraw the whole region & liberate the Persian Gulf region of cruel " Western -puppet " regimes. It will be a blessing for muslims fighting for re4sistance against "Western -installed" puppet rulers who are serving America's & Israel's interests!The war will backfire on Israel & liberate Palestine from Zionist control! Bring'em on!
I agree that there wont be an attack prior to the November elections. (Or after). Any attack could cause a 30-40% rise in the cost of oil, perhaps even higher, if the Iranians decide to block the Strait of Hormuz or interdict the Basra ports in Iraq by fomenting violence in the port areas. Bombing Iran would turn Shia opinion in Iraq against the U.S., weakening, likely destroying any (slim) chances that a semi-pro American government could be established in the country, which is the ultimate goal of the occupation, by the way. Possible oil exploration contracts for U.S. companies, which would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars, would likely go elsewhere. Add to that higher gas prices, and increased fighting in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan and Lebanon, and an attack on Iran becomes increasingly unlikely.
In addition, there is no way to ensure that any such attack would cripple the Iranian program. Tehran likely learned the lessons of the Israeli strike on the Iraqi's Osirak reactor in the 80's. The Iranians have likely dispersed, diversified, and fortified thier nuclear technology in such a way that no single attack, or series of attacks could completely destroy thier capabilities. The Israelis lack the capabilities to launch a general campaign, so the U.S. would have to play a dominant role in any attack, which for reasons listed above, is very unlikely to happen.
The threats against Iran are just that, threats. They are designed to sow doubt into the ncreasingly confident Iranian leadership. Still the reality is that the U.S. has more to lose from attacking Iran than Iran does, but if possible, the Bush team will try to convince them otherwise. The covert actions in Iran are designed to sow fear in Tehran, and are aimed to provide a bargaining chip for U.S. officials in negotiating an end to Iranian interference in Iraq. Hardly an ingeneous strategy, and not likely to prove effective without a large scale escaltion. Rather than a sign of strength, it appears to be a testament to how weak the U.S. position in the region is.
If the U.S. attacks Iran who no more pretext than it has now - it'll be time for another American revolution. Neocons will die. Fascists have zero right to run this country is such an illegal and immoral faction.
Enough is enough. Maybe it's time we start our own war. That's the frustration I feel with these people and this country.
A bunch of provacative war banter between U.S. and Iran pushing oil prices higher and higher! This G.Bush and Chaney's last chance to make a killing and pocket millions!!
Winner: U.S., Iran, Russia and Saudi its good for business.
Loser: Consumers of the world
Israel is so annoying, only they can have WMDs, suck billions in private and public U.S. help, steal and spy on U.S., dont want to get along with anyone..wont stop crying!!
I am in full agreement with the majority of comments against an attack on Iran. I would, however, ask that you consider the state of Gulf and regional affairs after Iran completes its device. Do you not expect a shock in the psychology of Gulf leaders?
Even without a nuclear armed Iran structural shifts are underway throughtout the region that are altering existing US relationships. Thinking through the diplomatic and economic implications of a newly nuclear armed Iran ought to be a top priority for all parties.
This administration for the least abstract thing that Iran does will attack, it would make it easier to take over Iraq and literally run the country. The issue of to attack or not to attack is not based on nucleolus weapons but rather it is believed Iran is supplying the militants with weapons and for this reason only I believe Iran will be bombed in a little while,Iran realize it is definitely a possiblity.. Iraq and Alghan is doing battle with America one more country is all in the misleading strategies of this administration.
Isn't this the idea: that no matter who wins in November, or perhaps especially if Obama wins, that Bush will feel the need strike; or Israel will feel the need to strike when it will still be assured of Bush providing military back up?
This certainly doesn't mean that it will happen; however, in the history of human endeavor war is never far removed, and events precipitate beyond the medium of cold logic.
Although all the factors you have mentioned against attacking Iran seem rational, I say the Bush adminstration has never been a logical bunch. And for that reason, I think that an attack on Iran is looming in the horizon.
First, as it relates to the economy, a war can be just what brings this country out of the recession. As we have seen from American history it was WWII, not the WPA program that brought us out of the depression.
Secondly, oil seems to be the leading reason why we would be interested in invading Iran. Given that they have the second highest oil reserves just below Saudi Arabia, invading Iran is a necessity for the oil men who run our country. Their opportunity will soon be lost if an attack by the US, but more likely Israel (almost America) does not occur by then end of Bush's term. Then again, McCain could win the election, and leave us with 4 more years of hegemonic foreign policy.
Either way, after seeing what has occurred over the past 8 years, anything is possible. Maybe "terrorist" from Iran will attack the US, then the show is on.
Leon, great post. If more commentators keep writing responsible and well-thought-out articles like this one may be some of the hysteria will settle down.
Realistically, the U.S. government does not have many options regarding the Iranian nuclear program other than doing the thing it dreads: negotiating with Iran. The U.S. cannot launch another large scale open war because the soured public mood and the depressive economic conditions. It cannot strangle Iran into capitulation because any such action requires at minimum the cooperations of Russia and China, both of which want to protect their economic interests in Iran and want to see Uncle Sam unable to act so freely. The U.S. is not satisfied with a policy of deterrence on Iran, because such deterrent capability already exists (with its nuclear warheads in the number of thousands), but Iran is still pushing ahead with its weapons program. So the only option left is to coax and seduce Iran, taking the similar approach as with North Korea. I believe what Iran wants is pretty simple: security guarantee and some space on the playground, which the U.S. can easily give them. It does not help at all if the U.S. continues to keep an threatening posture and while being oblivious to the Iranian concerns (of which some, like security fear, are genuine).
However, Israel probably would like to see continuing tension between the U.S. and Iran. And it does have the ability to drag the U.S. into an another war.
Reagan was an actor. Is it even possible that the shot at him was a drama to show him as brave and crazy and to harass the soviet gorbachev by this ?
Isnt this how the khrushchev, the best, the most democratic leader of soviet union was forced to retreat from cuban missile crisis by a profligate and invalid kennedy who was on cortisone/cortisol hormone ?
It will be a catastroph to ignore the Iranian nuclear program just fore economic reasons as the world community can overcome on deteriorated economic situations,but the destruction of humanity by horrible and deadly device can not be replaced.Washington and the EU states have to take the positive step to freeze the Iranian nuclear proliferation at once before it is too late.
I'd put the probability at 90%. Israel is pushing us to do it, and when have we denied their demands? Bush is still looking for a positive legacy, and is so detached from reality that he thinks an attack would provide it. The U.S. wants cheap oil, and the cabal sees conquest of the Mideast as insurance we'll have it. Cheney and the neocons think it's a grand idea, and when has Bush stood up to Cheney? In fact, if for some reason Bush weren't going to do it, I would expect Cheney to go behind his back and make it happen. This is the last chance to do it, and they're not going to miss the opportunity.
What could avert an attack? Maybe impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Chances of that? Zero, with the cowardly Congress we have. God help us.
If Iran is not attacked by the US or its buddy, Israel, it will not be because wiser and calmer minds have prevailed. It will be because of the fear that oil prices will go through the roof and the US will go into a deep recession.
Fairness is not a consideration because the US believes that whatever it does is justified. What other view would one expect from the US?
what makes you think Kim Jong Il is insane or unstable? In his circumstances, I would do exactly the same thing: blackmail rich countries, and have them deliver what you need instead of getting it yourself.
Bush and Cheney don't care about our economy, only their own. An attack on Iran would send oil even higher and create demand for arms supplied by Carlisle. They would love to see both because it's good for THEIR economy.
The attack may not come if McCain wins but if Obama wins count on Bush to kick over the table.
Suicide By Global Police
It is alright to be worried, because fear causes action.
Here is what is happening:
"Suicide-by-cop" is a suicide method in which a person deliberately
acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response
from a law enforcement officer, such as being shot to death.
The United States is acting as the world's Police.
World War 3 is in the making, and elements in the middle east
are bent on Suicide By the Global Police.
You are suggesting that this administration would not attack Iran based on the foreseeable consequences of such an action.
Sorry to differ with you. I don't believe this administration has shown such level of maturity or logic of conduct as to weigh the consequences of its actions.
For Iraq it pretended to know the locations of Iraq's WMDs. Has this administration even pretended to know the locations of Iran's nuclear warheads? No, the public and the press are simply not asking, disinterested, unpoliticized, ignorant, and blindly sleep-walking in to an even more harmful, unnecessary and self-destructive war!
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its editor and producer.
All Comments (37)
I completely agree. I don't think any kind of attack, let alone World War 3 like I've heard in other places, will happen. The economies of not only the United States and Israel, as well as others who receive most of their oil through the Strait of Hormuz, are at stake. This past month I have seen the price of oil plunge, mostly due to demand destruction, but also because there has not been much escalation in the talks with Iran. Israel is said to have upwards of 200 Nuclear weapons. If Iran is able to make ONE, what are the odds of them being able to get it anywhere (they don't have anywhere near as advanced a targeting system as Israel). And they also need to come to the understanding that they are dealing with the infancy stages of nuclear technology --- and accidents can happen. The president of Iran needs to know that if he decided to attack Iran (wipe them off the face of the Earth, to be exact) the Iranian economy would collapse. Russia and China need to step in and help the talks and make them understand that if they want a stable economy, and not complete hell breaking loose, they need to prove that all they are doing is building civilian electricity. Once we get a new president in office (Obama) talks will improve. And shame to those who think that war will happen with Iran because talks are failing. People thought the same thing with North Korea and if I'm not mistaken, they have begun mass destabilization of their nuclear power plants and are cooperating with the U.N. I think the talks will work because, whether you were alive or not, you have seen the kind of damage that happens during a World War. Cooler heads will prevail, and I still see a day when nuclear weaponry is completely extinguished.
August 8, 2008 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 8, 2008 10:43
What kind of delusional madness thinks that if Israel or their pet poodle the USA threatens Russia's and China's oil supply from Iran, these countries will not respond in kind?
July 5, 2008 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2008 21:42
A war with Iran coming from Israel or US is a disaster of the widest implications for world order and stability.
IRAN is not Iraq or Afghanistan;there are no destructive missiles in Iraq or Afghanistan positioned to hit Israel or US interest and upset the world economy. No this is not a cakewalk. We are playing into the hands of a ruthless religious sacrificial social order we have no way of predicting how long this war will last and what the implications will be in loss of life and on both sides.
Why we did not bomb North Korea? Sanity over-ruled
July 5, 2008 8:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2008 20:09
Estimado Señor Krauz,
If I were you, I would be more concerned about a future US Republican administration scheming to get Mexico's oil. It's a huge temptation to their "we should have it all" mentality and is starting with Calderon's proposal to let big money US companies like Halliburton (which is already well entrenched with Pemex in Tabasco) and Exxon Mobil funding more Pemex corruption for the benefit of the rich families of Mexico and their designs on privatizing Mexico's oil.
July 5, 2008 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2008 17:32
If Obama wins, Bush will send troops rolling in to Iran as a last act of revenge. Within a month you will have GOP and pundits shrieking their heads off asking how President "Hussein" plans on getting us out of the quagmire in the Middle East HE thrust us into.
If McCain wins, he'll punt and let gramps decide.
July 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2008 14:10
North Korea gave in because China, its only friend, neighbor and looming presence told it to.
China bends the arms in North Korea, nobody else.
There is no comprable influence over Iran.
Similarly, everybody in the world wants Iran's oil. North Korea offers nothing except starving oppressed human being (already in vast oversupply around the planet).
July 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2008 13:52
Leon,
A conventional military attack is probably unlikely, however an economic one [H.J. RES 362] is on the table and it is likely to be approved by the weak (D) majority US Congress.
Check out:
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-362
July 3, 2008 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2008 15:59
Leon,
A conventional military attack is probably unlikely, however a economic one [H.J. RES 362] is on the table and it is likely to be approved by the weak (D) majority US Congress.
Check out:
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-362
July 3, 2008 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2008 15:59
strange that the top military man in the US would say the options (military) are limited (to have a new front in the middle east).
iran are sleeping with only one eye open.
July 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2008 13:48
Isn't it bad enough Bush is threatening to attack Iran? I do not see this as an Israeli-Iran question, I think most Americans are sick of this misguided, arrogant administration and the current WAR. It is wrong to speculate and place odds. Why isn't someone in the current government trying to stop it? It is madness, Prez George is as loopy as the English King George of old, if any posters remember him!
July 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2008 13:43
The author makes rational arguments. That is a flaw with the Bush/Cheney bunch. They put on the glasses they want and insist that the world looks the way they want it to. McClellan, among others proved this. The bubble around them is impenetrable and self-imposed. Let's face it, none of them has yet to admit that they invented the 'intelligence' that 'justified' the Iraq fiasco.
July 3, 2008 9:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2008 09:55
I don't know what u people are reading? Why is attacking Iran bad? Let's see what happens. Iran is really weak military. US could bomb the country without taking over it. They already have missile defense system in place in iraq near the battalions. We bomb Iran for couple weeks, and destroy their infrastructure, including their navy and their air force. Oil shoots up to $300/barrel. It sends shock wave throughout the world, and causes global recession/depression. China has no where to export their stuff, and tanks their economy. US in shock of oil prices starts to invest in alternative energy and force all cars to go away from oil or requirement for cafe mileage increase 200-300%. After 5 years, US no longer requires foreign oil. US Dollar goes up because every other economy is in more of a basket case than US.
Looks like they killed many birds with one stone.
July 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 17:53
Attacking Iran would be wrong, unless something clearly changes. This needs to be said.
July 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 17:32
Mr. Krauze assumes that Mr. Bush actually cares about anything but himself. Our chances of attacking Iran are quite high, because Mr. Bush is too stupid to think of the consequences and too concerned about looking tough.
July 2, 2008 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 16:16
Do you really believe that concerns for the economy are going to be enough to stop this adminstration -- or even enough to act as a deterrent. This is the administration that publicly stated that an invasion of Iraq would pay for itself in oil revenue. It is also the administration who told us that after 911, it was our patriotic duty to shop.
The economy will not get in the way of an overwhelming neo-con desire to go into Iran.
As for diplomacy, North Korea does not hold the same significance symbolically or financially (oil) as Iran. Comparing diplomacy there is like comparing apples to oranges.
However, an attack out of Israel is entirely possible -- backed and encouraged 100% by the Bush administration.
July 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 15:45
Israel is determined to attack Iran, with or without our support. Our government should publicly state that we do not support such action. I am afraid that the right-wing fanatics who seem to be directing government policy have made a decision to support an attack before a new President takes office.
July 2, 2008 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 15:17
The US & Israel dare not attack Iran. It will redraw the whole region & liberate the Persian Gulf region of cruel " Western -puppet " regimes. It will be a blessing for muslims fighting for re4sistance against "Western -installed" puppet rulers who are serving America's & Israel's interests!The war will backfire on Israel & liberate Palestine from Zionist control! Bring'em on!
July 2, 2008 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 13:56
I agree that there wont be an attack prior to the November elections. (Or after). Any attack could cause a 30-40% rise in the cost of oil, perhaps even higher, if the Iranians decide to block the Strait of Hormuz or interdict the Basra ports in Iraq by fomenting violence in the port areas. Bombing Iran would turn Shia opinion in Iraq against the U.S., weakening, likely destroying any (slim) chances that a semi-pro American government could be established in the country, which is the ultimate goal of the occupation, by the way. Possible oil exploration contracts for U.S. companies, which would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars, would likely go elsewhere. Add to that higher gas prices, and increased fighting in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan and Lebanon, and an attack on Iran becomes increasingly unlikely.
In addition, there is no way to ensure that any such attack would cripple the Iranian program. Tehran likely learned the lessons of the Israeli strike on the Iraqi's Osirak reactor in the 80's. The Iranians have likely dispersed, diversified, and fortified thier nuclear technology in such a way that no single attack, or series of attacks could completely destroy thier capabilities. The Israelis lack the capabilities to launch a general campaign, so the U.S. would have to play a dominant role in any attack, which for reasons listed above, is very unlikely to happen.
The threats against Iran are just that, threats. They are designed to sow doubt into the ncreasingly confident Iranian leadership. Still the reality is that the U.S. has more to lose from attacking Iran than Iran does, but if possible, the Bush team will try to convince them otherwise. The covert actions in Iran are designed to sow fear in Tehran, and are aimed to provide a bargaining chip for U.S. officials in negotiating an end to Iranian interference in Iraq. Hardly an ingeneous strategy, and not likely to prove effective without a large scale escaltion. Rather than a sign of strength, it appears to be a testament to how weak the U.S. position in the region is.
July 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 13:52
If the U.S. attacks Iran who no more pretext than it has now - it'll be time for another American revolution. Neocons will die. Fascists have zero right to run this country is such an illegal and immoral faction.
Enough is enough. Maybe it's time we start our own war. That's the frustration I feel with these people and this country.
July 2, 2008 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 13:47
All a sham!!
A bunch of provacative war banter between U.S. and Iran pushing oil prices higher and higher! This G.Bush and Chaney's last chance to make a killing and pocket millions!!
Winner: U.S., Iran, Russia and Saudi its good for business.
Loser: Consumers of the world
Israel is so annoying, only they can have WMDs, suck billions in private and public U.S. help, steal and spy on U.S., dont want to get along with anyone..wont stop crying!!
July 2, 2008 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 13:21
I am in full agreement with the majority of comments against an attack on Iran. I would, however, ask that you consider the state of Gulf and regional affairs after Iran completes its device. Do you not expect a shock in the psychology of Gulf leaders?
Even without a nuclear armed Iran structural shifts are underway throughtout the region that are altering existing US relationships. Thinking through the diplomatic and economic implications of a newly nuclear armed Iran ought to be a top priority for all parties.
July 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 13:02
This administration for the least abstract thing that Iran does will attack, it would make it easier to take over Iraq and literally run the country. The issue of to attack or not to attack is not based on nucleolus weapons but rather it is believed Iran is supplying the militants with weapons and for this reason only I believe Iran will be bombed in a little while,Iran realize it is definitely a possiblity.. Iraq and Alghan is doing battle with America one more country is all in the misleading strategies of this administration.
July 2, 2008 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 12:30
Isn't this the idea: that no matter who wins in November, or perhaps especially if Obama wins, that Bush will feel the need strike; or Israel will feel the need to strike when it will still be assured of Bush providing military back up?
This certainly doesn't mean that it will happen; however, in the history of human endeavor war is never far removed, and events precipitate beyond the medium of cold logic.
July 2, 2008 12:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 12:04
Although all the factors you have mentioned against attacking Iran seem rational, I say the Bush adminstration has never been a logical bunch. And for that reason, I think that an attack on Iran is looming in the horizon.
First, as it relates to the economy, a war can be just what brings this country out of the recession. As we have seen from American history it was WWII, not the WPA program that brought us out of the depression.
Secondly, oil seems to be the leading reason why we would be interested in invading Iran. Given that they have the second highest oil reserves just below Saudi Arabia, invading Iran is a necessity for the oil men who run our country. Their opportunity will soon be lost if an attack by the US, but more likely Israel (almost America) does not occur by then end of Bush's term. Then again, McCain could win the election, and leave us with 4 more years of hegemonic foreign policy.
Either way, after seeing what has occurred over the past 8 years, anything is possible. Maybe "terrorist" from Iran will attack the US, then the show is on.
July 2, 2008 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 12:00
Leon, great post. If more commentators keep writing responsible and well-thought-out articles like this one may be some of the hysteria will settle down.
Nah, who am I kidding?
Anyway, keep up the good work!
July 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 11:36
Realistically, the U.S. government does not have many options regarding the Iranian nuclear program other than doing the thing it dreads: negotiating with Iran. The U.S. cannot launch another large scale open war because the soured public mood and the depressive economic conditions. It cannot strangle Iran into capitulation because any such action requires at minimum the cooperations of Russia and China, both of which want to protect their economic interests in Iran and want to see Uncle Sam unable to act so freely. The U.S. is not satisfied with a policy of deterrence on Iran, because such deterrent capability already exists (with its nuclear warheads in the number of thousands), but Iran is still pushing ahead with its weapons program. So the only option left is to coax and seduce Iran, taking the similar approach as with North Korea. I believe what Iran wants is pretty simple: security guarantee and some space on the playground, which the U.S. can easily give them. It does not help at all if the U.S. continues to keep an threatening posture and while being oblivious to the Iranian concerns (of which some, like security fear, are genuine).
However, Israel probably would like to see continuing tension between the U.S. and Iran. And it does have the ability to drag the U.S. into an another war.
July 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 11:25
Reagan was an actor. Is it even possible that the shot at him was a drama to show him as brave and crazy and to harass the soviet gorbachev by this ?
Isnt this how the khrushchev, the best, the most democratic leader of soviet union was forced to retreat from cuban missile crisis by a profligate and invalid kennedy who was on cortisone/cortisol hormone ?
July 2, 2008 2:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 02:20
The question is not whether the USA will attack Iran; the question is whether Israel will.
July 2, 2008 1:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 2, 2008 01:59
It will be a catastroph to ignore the Iranian nuclear program just fore economic reasons as the world community can overcome on deteriorated economic situations,but the destruction of humanity by horrible and deadly device can not be replaced.Washington and the EU states have to take the positive step to freeze the Iranian nuclear proliferation at once before it is too late.
July 1, 2008 10:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 22:08
I'd put the probability at 90%. Israel is pushing us to do it, and when have we denied their demands? Bush is still looking for a positive legacy, and is so detached from reality that he thinks an attack would provide it. The U.S. wants cheap oil, and the cabal sees conquest of the Mideast as insurance we'll have it. Cheney and the neocons think it's a grand idea, and when has Bush stood up to Cheney? In fact, if for some reason Bush weren't going to do it, I would expect Cheney to go behind his back and make it happen. This is the last chance to do it, and they're not going to miss the opportunity.
What could avert an attack? Maybe impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Chances of that? Zero, with the cowardly Congress we have. God help us.
July 1, 2008 9:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 21:27
If Iran is not attacked by the US or its buddy, Israel, it will not be because wiser and calmer minds have prevailed. It will be because of the fear that oil prices will go through the roof and the US will go into a deep recession.
Fairness is not a consideration because the US believes that whatever it does is justified. What other view would one expect from the US?
July 1, 2008 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 21:25
what makes you think Kim Jong Il is insane or unstable? In his circumstances, I would do exactly the same thing: blackmail rich countries, and have them deliver what you need instead of getting it yourself.
He's not an idiot, this is all calculated.
July 1, 2008 9:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 21:13
Bush and Cheney don't care about our economy, only their own. An attack on Iran would send oil even higher and create demand for arms supplied by Carlisle. They would love to see both because it's good for THEIR economy.
The attack may not come if McCain wins but if Obama wins count on Bush to kick over the table.
July 1, 2008 6:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 18:13
Iranian regime is a threat and should be removed!
July 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 16:53
Suicide By Global Police
It is alright to be worried, because fear causes action.
Here is what is happening:
"Suicide-by-cop" is a suicide method in which a person deliberately
acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response
from a law enforcement officer, such as being shot to death.
The United States is acting as the world's Police.
World War 3 is in the making, and elements in the middle east
are bent on Suicide By the Global Police.
July 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 14:36
Bush would love to send oil prices through the roof. What does he have to lose?...he is on his way out anyways.
July 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 13:46
You are suggesting that this administration would not attack Iran based on the foreseeable consequences of such an action.
Sorry to differ with you. I don't believe this administration has shown such level of maturity or logic of conduct as to weigh the consequences of its actions.
For Iraq it pretended to know the locations of Iraq's WMDs. Has this administration even pretended to know the locations of Iran's nuclear warheads? No, the public and the press are simply not asking, disinterested, unpoliticized, ignorant, and blindly sleep-walking in to an even more harmful, unnecessary and self-destructive war!
July 1, 2008 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 1, 2008 12:49