Saturday, May 06, 2006

Iran

By now, anyone who doesn't think we are going to war with Iran is a pig-headed fool. Consider: Last month, the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told BBC Radio that it was "inconceivable" that Britian would support a strike against Iran. Tony Blair refused to back his Secretary, offered a statement of support for the Bush position -- and then canned Jack Straw. From the Guardian:
His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things. In any case, Mr Straw had boxed himself in on Iran to the extent that he would have had to resign if a military strike became a reality.
Obviously, firm plans for a strike are a reality. If the administration's war plans were just a ploy to raise oil prices (one oft-heard theory), Straw would maintain his position.

Although I think Xymphora has been, well, a pig-headed fool on this issue, this paragraph is worth a study:
The Americans would have to do something to protect the flow of oil. The only possible thing to do is the thing that bombing is supposed to replace, boots on the ground. Iran has two to three times the population of Iraq, a much more challenging geography, and has not been weakened, like Iraq, by years of sanctions. The 150,000 troops in Iraq weren’t sufficient, so how many troops would be required for Iran? 500,000? How many more American troops would be required in Iraq due to Iranian-arranged attacks against them there? How much would it all cost? Some multiple of the one to two trillion that the attack on Iraq will cost. The United States has neither the troops nor the money to follow through on the occupation required after the bombing. On top of all that, the world can’t do without the Iranian oil that would be removed from the market due to sabotage during the occupation (just look at what’s happening in Iraq).
Big Wedding II will mollify world opinion, and will justify both a new draft and the expenditure. Hell, Bush may even tax the rich, temporarily. All-out nuclear attack may provide a more cost-efficient option -- although I don't know how the Bushites can hope to filch oil from a radioactive land.

I don't agree with those who feel that the Bushfolk intend to use the Shi'ites as a cudgel against the Sunnis. The propaganda build-up within the United States has demonized all of Islam. Bush wants the oil. To get it, he will kill the rightful owners -- by the millions. The situation really is that simple.

And anyone who doesn't think there will be a Big Wedding II is a pig-headed fool.

5 comments:

sunny said...

Oh.MY.GOD.

Anonymous said...

In the beginning the neocons had a plan. They are just winging it now. The questions you've raised, about necessary number of troops for occupation, and radioactivity of the oil fields, I don't think the neocons have any answer to those questions either.

They're painting themselves (and us) into a corner. They can't back up the bluff ultimatums that they're giving the Iranians.

Except by plunging us all into a global apocalypse.

What really scares me is not their malevolence, but their incredible incompetence. Hitler was a genius compared to these fools.

Anonymous said...

unirealist said...
"The questions you've raised, about necessary number of troops for occupation, and radioactivity of the oil fields, I don't think the neocons have any answer to those questions either."

"They" have an "answer" - "they" are not the ones who will be going there afterwards .Look at "their" disregard of the use of DU in Iraq ,which ultimately will harm more Americans than all the insurgents combined.Your soldiers DNA will change and there offspring will suffer...
MMIIXX

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I am not convinced that Bush and his neo-con cronies are really intending to attack Iran. It seems an extremely desperate and risky undertaking even for Bush/Cheney with the American people having such a negative view of the Bush administration and Congress. I don't think another supposedly provocative attack on our own soil will necessarily persuade people to get behind Bush either for another military adventure. There is far more skepticism among the population concerning anything our government does or says than there was after 9/11. Also, I don't think the military's top ranks will be fooled or go along. I believe they are quietly threatening mutiny or a military coup if Bush and the neo-cons try anything new.

This saber-rattling may be just an effort to jack up the prices of oil for their friends at Exxon and Chevron, et al while they still can, as the days of Bush/Cheney are clearly numbered (and that number is a hell of a lot less than 990 days).

Anonymous said...

People searching for rationality in our foreign policy are missing the point. The neocons (i.e. the Israeli Lobby)are motivated by a desire to destroy Israel's enemies. They do not care about the cost either to the US or to the population attacked. Thus, bombing Iran simply to trash the country is fine with them as is causing civil war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine. See www.dundeesblog.blogspot.com "Civil War Advocates" 4-15-06