Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iran Shows Its Cards
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure, as well as retarding Iran's ability to train and equip "terrorist" forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane
I've always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets, in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces which would involve "boots on the ground" for several days, if not weeks. Such a strike is not envisioned in any "limited" military action being planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a "limited" military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, large, fixed and well known, would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not into billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special Operations Forces, to a counter-missile fight which would need to span the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement in the U.S. military's counter-missile capability, one must never forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully interdicted by any aspect of American military action (airstrike, ground action or antiballistic missile), and in 2003 the U.S. military had mixed results against the far less capable Al-Samoud missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large salvoes of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006 conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the U.S. and Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait. There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike. The longer ground forces could operate on Iranian soil, the better the chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into tactical support, and away from missile interdiction, creating a window of vulnerability which the Iranians would very likely exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi air space, a violation of sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made in the "surge" would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have thought that the U.S. could actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack will have to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such horrific detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community remaining mute as American military might is assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and politically. The same can be said of both major presidential candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak, about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to pursue a nuclear program which is exclusively intended for peaceful energy purposes. Any concerns which may exist about the dual-use potential of Iran's uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol, rather than pursuing military action which will destroy the inspection process and remove the very verification processes which provide the international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Iran's nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has every right under international law to pursue this program, and regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N. Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia -- derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East -- must in turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that Israel's sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee's continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act of war) by pushing H. Con. Res 362 and S. Res 580 is mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop talking blockade, and start discussing stability and confidence-building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to information and analysis which might prompt a fuller debate. This is the last thing AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But it is the one thing the American people should be demanding. Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.
Scott Ritter was a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2007).
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
78 Comments so far
Show AllSince it seems that corporate power has greater sway over US policy than US voters, it will be business leaders that will prevent an attack on Iran.
As silly as it sounds, they're much more rational.
Remember the origins and beginning of World War I. An attack on Iran could produce the same results . . . an out of control situation leading quickly to a profound disaster no one contemplated. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy wanted every military officer, particularly the Navy, to read Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August". The same should hold true now. Of course, would you expect a stone moron and short pants punk warmonger like George Wanker Bush to ask anyone to read a book?
Scott, Scott, Scott. Now that Iran has tested some missiles (OMG! Iran is dangerous and must be destroyed NOW!!!), we find out that one of the photos was doctored. Which of course will be drummed into the American consciousness, such as it is, as meaning that Iran has no serious defenses after all.
It's precisely the defenseless (or "defenseless") nations that we attack.
We're a lot closer to war with Iran now than we were before the missile tests.
I can have all the nukes but you can't have any.
Scott Ritter has called it correctly for years. He is right again this time.
Americans are blinded by a vision of themselves that has not been true for a long time. They continue to see their military might as un-stopable, but they continue to be bogged down in the poorest country in the world, Afghanistan, and the feeblest, Iraq. Even after ten years of ruthless sanctions against Iraq, American force there is impotent to do anything but hide in its bases when things get tough. The only pleasure it can take is its ability to slaughter civilians from the air – and history has proven time and time again that this does not weaken a country's resolve.
There is no longer any moral strength in the American agenda. Before the invasion of Iraq, America could count on its last-ditch ability to twist the arms of other countries to join it in its aggression, but that ended when it invaded. Even solid allies like Turkey shunned America. Europe turned its back. Canada looked the other way. Tony Blair was a fool.
The American dollar is weak and getting weaker. Not only has it lost value through disastrous foreign policy, but because the US has become 'persona non grata' in the world community: the dollar is tinged with blood and shame, and people don't want to touch it. The Euro will ascend.
But there is one good reason for attacking Iran from the American point of view. It will keep the Bush gang of thugs in power. When you have lost your way, and you know you are generally despised in the world community, there is some comfort in sticking with the ones who lie to you about your value and your power.
I'm not sure Iran would target oil facilities. Iran seems to be looking for friends in the region not enemies.
Taking down Saddam's military was like coming to a zoo and armed with a high powered hunting rifle, walking over to the "old tigers cage", and pumping lead into defenseless beasts. And bush beat his chest and proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Yeah
Taking out Iran will be like going into the jungles armed with a pocket knife and going after Tigers in their element, and in their prime.
These people have to be stopped.
With his experience and thoughtful evaluation of the situation, Mr. Ritter is in a much better position to predict the outcome of any attack on Iran than our cowboy president and his handler "gangsta" Cheny. It would be very encouraging if Bush gave a war and the military didn't go. We would, however be in deep do-do if Blackwater & Co. decided to go for the bucks involved and we were left suffering the consequences. Dream on.
Ritter has lowered his kb count in this entry which is compelling. Societal collapse, financial ruin and WW III can be prevented if we fire the dilletantes who run things. The door isn't likely to hit them on the ass on the way out, because they aren't leaving, especially with a Barack/McCain administration.
This is a very different case from the summer of 1914. For one thing, in 1914, each European country had elaborate mobilization plans. These were detailed plans of how to put millions of troops in the field following the plan that was decided before the war. These plans involved detailed rail schedules. Cancelling or changing a plan in the middle of its execution was likely to lead to chaos and the nation failing to get its armies in the field while its enemies succeeded.
Add to this a series of alliances between the nations. What this resulted in was a case where
1) Nations needed to mobilize early. Being late with a mobilization meant not having an army in the field to fact the enemy
2) The plans couldn't be changed without the same bad result
3) Alliances meant that nations were obligated to mobilize in defense of their treaty partners.
So, when Austrian mobilized to attack Serbia after the assassination of the arch-duke, it was like a series of falling dominoes. War was almost automatic at that point.
I don't see the same situation in the middle-east right now. Don't get me wrong, its still very much a flash-point that could blow up. But its not in anyway like the situation leading to WWI.
Figuratively speaking(at least to draw the AIPAC trolls into the discussion)it would be wiser for the U.S. to launch a surprise attack on Israel (along the lines of that planned for Iran) and try to nullify their REAL nuclear threat to the region.
I lament that the day doesn't seem to be coming where we refrain from attacking, not because we might lose but because instead, in the long run, war isn't something we rely on to solve problems.
Why do we think that we're the only nation that is entitled to nuclear weapons when we won't even "take them off the table"?
Hmmm…Ritter is banking on the US being rational. In any case the decision is up to the unitary executive. Iranians are undoubtedly terrified, but for their leaders, it is a no-brainer. The US is still after "regime change". If the US escalates their attacks, Iranians have nothing to gain by holding back. What the US may do is see how far they can push their current model of terrorist/special forces type of operations without forcing a retaliation.
The First World War is fascinating because its causes have been so poorly explained to so many of us.
Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assasinated in 1914. The British were already in Iraq at that time. Oil had just been discovered in Iraq, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company built their first pipeline terminus oil refinery in Abadan (Iran), starting in 1909 and completed it in 1913. The Ottoman Empire was entering into an alliance with Germany. Work had already started on a Berlin to Baghdad Railroad as early as 1888. This worried the British (who wanted to keep the oil under their control). In March of 1917, the British "captured" Bagdad and entered the city.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_Campaign
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_theatre_of_World_War_I
The "causes" of WWI had a lot more to do with western powers fighting over Middle East oil than the assasination of Francis Ferdinand. (All though I'm sure Francis was a swell guy and all...)
Ritter for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is one of the only sane people left in this country.
"The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is."
This statement, beginning of the third paragraph, to me, at least, says it all. It's like that bully, faced with his next victim, who's making a lot of noise, waving his fists, and throwing sticks in an effort to scare the bully off, knows the victim is basically helpless, and is going to beat the crap out of him anyway.
Yes, but the US is still run by Bush. He doesn't care what the cosequences are for anyone but Bush.
If the US regime is rational and Ritter is correct, this would seem to support the theory that we are witnessing a re-run of the Enron/California energy scam. Each time the US or Israel threatens Iran, the price of oil goes up and the speculators and oil companies make another pile of money. This way, they get to make lots of money and then, if they never do attack Iran, they can brag about their diplomacy. Who loses? Everybody who isn't making money off oil, as usual.
Thank you, Scott.
Scott Ritter is the voice of reason with a brilliant, big-picture intelligence.
However, we are in a kind of Global Coliseum of Insanity, whose Exit doors are closing as every day passes.
For GWBUSH, I truly believe that attacking IRAN is an "itch" [Cheney has it too] that must be scratched before he leaves. It is the last "frog" to stuff with fire crackers, light them up, throw the frog toward a lake, and watch it explode ... for the thrill of it, a practice with frogs GW allegedly engaged in with delight as a boy as his little sister screamed in horror.
And just as MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq, this Psychopath-in-Chief dreams his sick dreams of VICTORY and that becomes FACT in his mind, with no dissension permitted. That is a primary characteristic of a psychopath, to create a FACT because one thinks it or dreams it up, and IT IS SO. Besides ... "I'm the President." "I'm the Commander-in-Chief!" How many overrides has GW done with the Law, The Constitution, over anything he feels like ... a thousand signing statements? ... and gotten away with it?
Since most of the Democrats are Toadies ... Frogs?, and the minds of the Neocons and the Republican Right "Conservatives" are akin to the solid concrete sections of the Berlin Wall, Israel's walls, and the current travesty of U.S.-Mexican border walls, they likely are drooling with anticipation, along with their Presidential candidate John McCain, to have at it with Iran.
We'll show 'em!!!
I think not.
Too many of the "Leadership" in the various branches of U.S. government seem to have lost touch with simple decency and morality and the reasons they are in Washington D.C. in the first place. Their thinking is narrow, self-serving, and small-minded, and concern for the over-all welfare of the public, which includes working toward a peaceful world, has been co-opted by GW's comic-book visions [his FACTS] and scenarios of Good Guys and Bad Guys with the U.S. as Winner and other countries, except for AIPAC's Israel, as Losers.
DEATH and DESTRUCTION: George W. Bush's legacy and the legacy of the vast majority of those who have served in the various branches of U.S. government during his Reign of Terror.
For all our sakes, may it be over soon.
peace ...
++++++++++++++
... and Conrad [2:27 p.m.] your theory of a "rerun of the Enron/California energy scam" may turn out to be the right one. Between a rock and a hard place, I hope it's yours, even with the hardship that will bring to most of us.
I'd rather have to cope with personal hardship than read more ongoing statistics on the massive numbers of dead and wounded U.S., Iranian and Israeli soldiers and Iranian, Israeli, Palestinian and other Mid-eastern citizens in another senseless, long-term, escalating "war."
++++++++++++++++
What a choice. ... Greed-head INSANITY versus Pure, unadulterated INSANITY!
Haven't Israeli jets already flown over Iraq? I thought I just read something about it this past week.
There have been some reports of Israeli jets using U.S. bases and Iraqi airspace for "practice flights". Iraq has so far denied their veracity, not that such a denial means much in the circumstances.
Fundamentally, I am anti-military, but in this situation, the Americamn military is the only enity in the American government with the will and the power to put a stop to G W Bush and Israel. I would welcome a military coup that would stop Bush from taking any military action against Iran in the remainder of his term.
Okay ,we have a borderline megalomaniac and sociopath heading our country---he will not go gently into that goodnight in January, preferring to go out with a BANG!
What do we do? Write your congressmen and you will more likely than not, get scripted talking points about how Iran is a threat to the region, pursuing nuclear weapons,arming Iraqi insurgents, blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps our only hope is mutiny in the military ranks at the order to commence an attack, but don't count on it!
We cannot sit back while this mass murderer sates his bloodlust again!
What do we do?
Since Mr. Ritter mentioned that we will have to have a large ground force presence in Iran, with our military already strectched thin, could it be possible that if Johnny Bomb Bomb gets elected, we might see the draft invoked (unless our allies provide the troops)?
"...why an attack would be insane."
You mean, why an attack would be yet another insane act in a long, eight-year series of insane acts.
TPaine47 says:
"Perhaps our only hope is mutiny in the military ranks at the order to commence an attack, but don't count on it!"
That's our only hope - IMO. And I think the odds for it are better than anything else.
"We cannot sit back while this mass murderer sates his bloodlust again!
What do we do?"
This has nothing to do with "blood lust" and we should not think in those terms either. A military coup would be bloodless and the ones most effected would be merely be exercising their God given right of self preservation. And I frirmly believe that the nation would "support our troops" with enthusiasm.
I think a variation of McCain's latest quip should be employed. If we wait long enough, most of the Iranian leadership will die of lung disease caused by American cigarettes. We could drop Marlboros from B-52s.
It's undoubtedly true that neither Iran nor Israel is deliberately suicidal, although I'm not so sure about the U.S. of A. In any case, it's by no means certain that any of them have the perceptive acuity to know what is suicidal.
Dead on, Arvy.
In the case of the US of A, as long as AIPAC is around, suicide looks more likely. The AIPACS will just exercise their dual citizenship and leave.
Samson July 14th, 2008 1:12 pm
Quite correct I believe in opinion and facts.
Israel won't do anything without us and I am quite sure We are telling them to cool it. Just more saber rattling.
Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies,
I don't think so and I'm darned if I know where they got such awesome power.
The key to preventing a war with Iran and indeed fundamentally changing US policy in the Mideast is to bring home to the American people the fact that Zionist dictation of US mideast policy is a key factor behind soaring gasoline prices and the collapsing dollar -- which are inflicting such misery on millions and millions of people.
Once the US populace realizes how much Zionist control of US mideast policy is COSTING THEM PERSONALLY there will be a long delayed settling of accounts with AIPAC and its fellow travelers.
Joining forces with Israel in attacking Iran would be disastrous. We all know that. But Bush is not known to be wise, intelligent, or cautious. It only takes a fool or two to start another war.
But wait, if we don't take Iran out, they'll attack us and our borders are open and unprotected. We gotta take em out, even our "next" president Obama says they are a threat to our security.
Excellent article from Mr. Ritter. He only touches in passing on another question of great importance: What will happen here at home when oil hits $500 a barrel, when thousands of Americans are killed and our Navy is crippled, when we are isolated by the remaining members of the UN Security Council? Will the people still support the government, or would they seek a radical change (violent or not) when it is at its weakest? Many governments throughout history have fallen when they precipitated a stupid war.
judi July 14th, 2008 6:21 pm
Joining forces with Israel in attacking Iran would be disastrous. We all know that. But Bush is not known to be wise, intelligent, or cautious. It only takes a fool or two to start another war.
I wish you wouldn't remind us of those facts. 5.5 months and counting.
Something that has struck me in the past (almost) decade is the ease with which the 'British heritage' states' governments have been able to frogmarch their militaries into wars without much real debate or citizen involvement...to commit military to attacking other people when so many at home are against it.
USA had the trauma of the story of a bunch of outsiders pulling off a big caper on 9/11/01. So they were looking for action.But,the rationale for the attacks overthrowing the entire regime in Afghanistan to catch one character and his gang seemed a tad weak to many of us, but we had no answers at all to question and stop up that attack. The argument that a member of NATO was a risk and therefore all of NATO had to protect USA from Afghanistan was accepted whole hog.
Then the attack on Iraq was opposed by even more people, but it happened anyway. Now the attack on Iran seems oopsed by most people, but it seems as if allthe regime in USA has to do is give the order for what has to be an illegal action, and tens of thousands of Americans are willing ot carry out that order.
UK was the same. A large chunk of that population was against making war against Iraq, but the Brit gvt was able to give the order, and the orders were followed.
It seems odd to me, here in a democracy, where the people are the source of legitimate gvt, that the gvt is able so easily to frogmarch the nation into a war on Iran, when such a large chunk of the people are against.
Somehow people in democracies outside of the Anglo sphere seem to me to have a bit more of a say in what their gvts do in making war.
Maybe we are more easily frightened because we believe their scare mongering;we tend more to accept secrecy and appeals about national security.
(I'll call this movie HELPLESS IN DEMOCRACY.)
This is a significant turning point in Scott Ritter's view of the potential for an attack on Iran. Until now he's been saying: "It's going to happen! Wake up!"
Now, having witnessed the counter strike capability of Iran (Photoshop is simple-minded disinfo), Ritter has abandoned that posture.
It's about time. Saddam was all bluster and braggadocio. The Iranians have Sunburns and advanced Russian radars.
Maybe Bush has a lick of sense. He will listen to the elder Bush lizard and the female silver headed reptile that laid the egg from which he was hatched.
KEM PATRICK: "But wait, if we don't take Iran out, they'll attack us and our borders are open and unprotected. We gotta take em out, even our "next" president Obama says they are a threat to our security."
Kem, at least Obama is open to communicating and diplomacy with the Iranians --- which is MORE than "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" John McInsane plans to do. But Old Johnny is an OK guy in your eyes, I take it.
Corvo - you're a fool with your asinine "Scott, Scott, Scott" rubbish. Attacking Iran will most assuredly lead to the end of the world as we know it, and most certainly of the US that lives by oil.
I'm thinking of the lyrics to the old Kingston Trio song circa 1963 (don't know the title): "Their rioting in South Africa, there's strife in Iran, what nature doesn't do to you ...... will be done by your fellow man."
God it's really had to believe it's gotten down to this... that we have to cross our fingers that thre will be a military coup to save life as we know from these irrational monster bullies.
If the strike happens I think things will quickly get out of hand with catastrophic results and near world conflagration. Historians, if there are any left, will trace the spark back not to the attack on Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanisthan, but to 9/11 itself. Naturally a honest historian would keep on digging and go way back to the 50's when the CIA over thru the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mosadeck (sp?).
Notice Ritter doesn't even mention Russia and China (and to some extent India who has natural gas pipeline contract with Iran). Are they going to sit quietly and watch the US try and make a clean run of the table of mideast oil from the Caspian (Afghanistan) down through Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (who will be protecting them from the dominant U.S. hegemonic military power) to Israel on the eastern Mediterranean sea.
Once started, one slip, one false or misinterpreted bit of information could set the first "real kill" nuclear attack off in 63 years and then all bets would be off for any salvation. Of the nuclear powers, in this case India, China, Russia, Israel and the U.S. it would probably the one with the biggest chip on it's shoulder: Israel that would draw first. In such a scenario you better reference that obscure survivalist web site, get your supplies and start digging because a "hard rains go' fall."
When we McCainites say bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb lran we do not mean a puny little shock and awl, we are talking turning Tehran into a nuclear wasteland; wiping the place off the map, making Armagen look like children playing in a sandbox.
Have the military elegible offsprings and family members of the Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Kristol and Romney families signed up for the military yet? The new Bush son-in-law, Henry Hager, should also want to show how much of a manly man he is by signing-up.
And surely good and patriotic Monica Goodling, D. Kyle Sampson, J. Timothy Griffin, Luke Russert, Andrew Rove are now lining up the recruiters office. Jonah Goldberg is still not to old. A chickenhawk yes, but not too old. But I understand that old Jonah now has a family to support.
Be very clear !!!!!!!!
AN ATTACK ON IRAN is an attack on the US citizens by this administration and its congressional allies on both sides of the ailes and their masters the jewish neo con gangsters controled by AIPAC.
The above groupes have had no trouble in disregarding their oath of office,they are traitors to America,and international war criminals who have systamatically gone about destroying our constitution,while causing extreme economic disastors for our citizens,no Arab,musslem no matter how much they would have professed to hating us could have possibly done.
Scott , do you really think that these monsters would not wish to continue the carnage and the further destruction of our US socity,they know they won't be harmed and would be able to pick up the spoils of our economic disaster cheaply with all the cash that they have stolen from our treasury and then they would have a whole class of wage slaves to boot !!!
Bu$h the inferior's preemptive attack policy means that Iran's legitimate protection of their nation is a threat allowing an attack.
That is why no intelligent person with any morals can hold a preemptive policy as right or even logical.
To those who are soooooo certain that an attack on Iran 'will never happen':
If that were true, why has Bush just given israel the 'amber light' to ramp up plans and set them in motion?
You doubt me?
See the CD article at the top of the page!
Also, to those who will go to protest:
Watch out for the HUMMERS with the big grey dish on top. It's a Microwave Area Denial System.
The Bush Junta has VERY broadly hinted they are NOT going to be used against enemy combatants in far off lands.
Domestic enemies in the US? You Betcha!
people are so estranged from their power as citizens (marginalized, isolated, balkanized) that some only find hope in a military coup!
imagine being so afraid of your supposed democratic government.
.
The Mad Zionist who call the shots in Israel are insane enought to start WWIII.........They will destroy the State of Israel, and endanger every Jew on this planet.
President Bush is both stupid and insane!!!!! He might be deluded enought to attack Iran, just to secure his place in history............the Mad CowBoy !!!!!!!!!!!!
.