Iran Blowback?

Be careful what you wish for--that might be the catch phrase for American relations with Iran since the CIA helped overthrow the elected government of that country in 1953 and installed the young Shah in power. Much of our present world--and many of our present problems in the Middle East and Central Asia--stem from that particular act of imperial hubris. The Shah's Iran was then regarded by successive American administrations not just as a potential regional power, but as our regional bulwark, our imperial outpost. The US helped bulk up the Shah's military, as well as his fearsome secret police, and, under President Dwight Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program, actually started Iran down the nuclear road which today leaves some administration figures threatening bloody murder, even while former Centcom commander John Abizaid claims that an Iranian bomb would not be the end of the universe. ("There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran... Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with [other] nuclear powers as well.")

The White House has reportedly given secret approval for covert operations to "destabilize" Iran and, evidently, its backing to small-scale terror strikes inside that country, while Iranian influence inside Shiite Iraq remains (as it has long been) significant. Meanwhile, a war of words (and charges) only escalates. President Bush heightened the anti-Iranian rhetoric in his September 13th post-Petraeus-hearings address, while an escalating campaign of charges against the activities of Iran and its Revolutionary Guards in Iraq continues to intensify, just as reports are coming out that the Pentagon is building a new base in Iraq, right up against the Iranian border. The Iranian nuclear situation remains at a boil.

There are also regular, if shadowy, reports that Vice President Cheney's office is pushing hard for a shock-and-awe air campaign against Iran. Recently (and not for the first time), the Iranians shot back: General Mohammed Hassan Koussechi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, threatened to respond to any American action in his country by firing off missiles with a range of at least 1,200 miles against American and Western targets across the Middle East including, presumably, the enormous military bases the Pentagon has scattered across Iraq. ("Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range.")

While US aircraft carrier battle groups slip in and out of the Persian Gulf, a murky Israeli air attack on a site in the Syrian desert, combined with a bizarre and unlikely nuclear tale involving the North Koreans, has added a further touch of paranoia to the situation. (According to the Israeli paper Haaretz, ex-United Nations Ambassador John Bolton has claimed that the Israeli bombing should be taken as "a clear message to Iran.... that its continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are not going to go unanswered.")

The President has indicated, more than once, that he would not hand the Iranian nuclear situation over to his successor unresolved (unlike the war in Iraq). Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a man who knows well the dangers a U.S. attack on Iran poses, continues to claim that "all options are on the table" when it comes to the Iranians. So consider the Iranian-American relationship, splayed on the "table" of Iraq, to be the potential crucible of disaster for the planet between now and January 2009.

At Salon.com, Steve Clemons, the Washington insider who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, has just weighed the likelihood of an American air assault on Iran and managed to suggest a number of hair-raising scenarios, even while indicating that President Bush may have backed off from the possibility. Former US ambassador Peter Galbraith, who considers the Iranian-American relationship in the upcoming issue of the New York Review of Books (in an essay posted at Tomdispatch.com) suggests that, "of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching," and explains just how the Bush administration has actually forwarded Iranian interests in Iraq at every level.

"The US," he concludes, "has good reason to worry about Iran's activities in Iraq. But contrary to the Bush administration's allegations--supported by both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their recent congressional testimony--Iran does not oppose Iraq's new political order. In fact, Iran is the major beneficiary of the American-induced changes in Iraq since 2003."

Who would be the beneficiary of a late-term Bush administration assault on Iran? Only one thing is clear at the moment--not the United States.

Comments (60)

1. ENGELHARDT: Who would be the beneficiary of a late-term Bush administration assault on Iran? Only one thing is clear at the moment--not the United States.

   "at the moment", I agree with you! For the much more important LONGER term, including your kids' and grandkids' future, are you so sure that the West would NOT benefit from a non-nuclear weaponized Iran? I personally doubt Bush will do anything, nor do I advocate his doing anything on Iran....but `winking' at Israel's doing something IS possible.

   Fact is once Iran has mastered nuclear enrichment and long-range missiles, is there any doubt that it will have hundreds of warheads aimed at us and our most precious allies....just as surely as we have targeted it. Question is, which (twisted) culture considers dying life's greatest achievement and which nation considers the other the greatest evil the world has ever seen?

   Posted by Happy at 09/19/2007 @ 10:37am

2. hmmmmm

   let's see

   IRAN

   Nuclear program start date: The Iranian nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States

   First nuclear weapon test: NA

   First fusion weapon test: NA

   Last nuclear test: NA

   Largest yield test: NA

   Total tests: NA

   Peak stockpile: NA

   Current stockpile: NA

   Maximum missile range: 2,100 km

   NPT signatory: Yes

   UNITED STATES

   Nuclear program start date: October 21, 1939

   First nuclear weapon test: July 16, 1945

   First fusion weapon test: November 1, 1952

   Last nuclear test: September 23, 1992

   Largest yield test: 15 Mt (October 31, 1954)

   Total tests: 1,054 detonations

   Peak stockpile: 32,193 warheads (1966)

   Current stockpile: 5,163 active, 9,938 total (est.)[1]

   Maximum missile range: 13,000 kilometers/8,100 miles (land)

   12,000 kilometers/7,500 miles (sub)

   NPT signatory: Yes (1968, one of five recognized powers)

   SO, WHO IS AFRAID OF WHOM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 10:49am

3. The brown shirts think they can have it all their way. As the article points out in the first sentence, the US is reaping what it has sown so long ago. Saber rattling is not going to help in any way.

   How would the US react if a nation advocated "regime change" in this country? How would the US react if a super power invaded Mexico?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:04am

4. As with Iraq, Katrina, 9/11, torture, wire-tapping, etc., one thing 'we the people' can be totally sure of-- whatever the hsuB/cHeney admin is dishing out will be proven to be absolutely false.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 11:06am

5. Impeach cHeney already.

   http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney

   http://slate.com/id/2169292/

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 11:11am

6. Question is, which (twisted) culture considers dying life's greatest achievement and which nation considers the other the greatest evil the world has ever seen?

   Posted by HAPPY

   It's this kind of "logic" that causes problems for both nations.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:28am

7. Let's see: we have our hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Vice President wants to go hard on Iran, and the President wants to resolve the situation before the end of his presidency, and the administration line on negotiations is "do what we want you to do and then we'll talk." Let's play Hangman to determine how the administration will deal with this:

   _ U _ L _ A R

   _ _ A P O _ S

   Posted by BlueSpark at 09/19/2007 @ 11:55am

8. Question is, which (twisted) culture considers life's greatest achievement to be the death of someone else's children in the service of a small group of deluded radicals, and which nation considers the other the greatest evil the world has ever seen?

   Posted by drhammer at 09/19/2007 @ 11:58am

9. Also, do Mr. Englehardt and the leftist bloggers suggest now that they endorse Iran defying the UN Security Council Resolution 1747?

   UN 1747 [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1

   If you're so interested in UN resolutions, what about Israel's defiance of resolutions, hypocrite?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:58am

10. A fool and his brain are easily parted

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    You don't even have a brain, liberyliar. You have nothing but a program, incapable of objective thought.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:59am

11. A fool and his brain are easily parted

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:49am

    Apparently you've never missed YOURS.

    Neither has either of the fools in the WH, for that matter.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/19/2007 @ 12:13pm

12. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:49am

    Oddly enough, when I saw that comment, I looked instinctively to see who was saying that about you, Luvvy.

    Same thing was said about getting rid of Saddam; look how well that's going.

    To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, be careful what you wish for, for you will surely get it.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/19/2007 @ 12:21pm

13. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 12:28pm

    Are you familiar with the phrase "blow it out yer ass"?

    I had a feeling you were. Probably here that a lot, you fascist fuck.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/19/2007 @ 12:33pm

14. Look, two points...

    Bush can't go after Iran with JUST the backing of LVLIBERTY and the 29% Club. The Repubs would turn on him fast and actually bring to reality the HSUBFOOLS dream of impeachment.

    But the advantage he has is what LVLIB posted. The Europeans are scared to death of an Iranian nuke, because the range on their missiles is Berlin, Paris, Prague, and even London...not New York or L.A. Plus there are enough Dems who are scared of a "nuclear Iran" as well.

    Abizaid is right. We dealt with the Soviets; we can deal with the Iranians.

    And NO, the Iranians are NOT suicidal enough to risk handing out the nukes, when they know that the moment one goes off in a Western city, that Teheran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Karaj will become VERY quiet neighborhoods for about 10,000 years.

    Point #2---as for LVLIB himself, this is a "Christian" who thinks that the "real solution" to the Korean War was nuking several Chinese cities....to spare the poor Chinese from the rule of Mao, of course!

    WWJN......Who Would Jesus Nuke?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 12:41pm

15. It's this kind of "logic" that causes problems for both nations.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 11:28am

    thank you

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:46pm

16. If you're so interested in UN resolutions, what about Israel's defiance of resolutions, hypocrite?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 11:58am

    ka-ching!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:48pm

17. I am concerned about a nuclear Iran, but even more concerned about letting the incompetent Bush administration try to "solve" the problem. The next election cannot get here fast enough.........

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/19/2007 @ 12:58pm

18. Posted by MASK

    Israel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 1:01pm

19. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2007 @ 11:11am

    A fool and his brain are easily parted

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:49am

    A ¬v¬ slip, he's unconsciously commenting about himself, when hsuB/cHeney, his masters, command his blind new con servitude.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:05pm

20. Israel.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 1:01pm

    wow. i understand your response.

    however, i think a better response would be:

    no one. he'd gather up the ruling elite of every country and make them work in orphanages, retirement homes, hospitals, food banks, etc.,

    i don't think jesus was ready to press any big, ominous-looking red buttons.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 1:06pm

21. lvliberty_the fact that we don't believe that Bush needs to be starting more wars does not mean that Iran is the lefts great friend.Let's keep the propaganda more reality based.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/19/2007 @ 1:25pm

22. MTS, FZ,

    and Washington D.C.

    Well who press the button on S&G ?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:27pm

23. "MoveOn.org and the media mess: News outlets, Republicans, lose all sense of perspective in the wake of the "Betray Us" ad - It's not just the GOP that's gone over the edge; the media has flipped out over the controversial MoveOn.org ad last week. Eric Boehlert: Last Monday, on the same day that Gen. David Petraeus was testifying before Congress about how important progress was being made in Iraq, the Pentagon announced that nine American service members had died that day in Iraq.... Among the same cable news channels, there were more than 500 mentions of the MoveOn ad last week. According to the decisions being made at cable TV news, the advocacy newspaper ad was 250 times more important than a rash of American fatalities in Iraq."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:31pm

24. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709180005

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:32pm

25. lvliberty_the fact that we don't believe that Bush needs to be starting more wars does not mean that Iran is the lefts great friend.Let's keep the propaganda more reality based.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY

    No shit. Libertyliar and all the rest of the fundamentalist zealots have a lot more in common with the fundamentalist zealots running Iran than the secular leftists.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 1:36pm

26. Don't forget we're in Iraq per non-UN compliance too. No US UN security counsel resolution to go to war with Iraq, it had failed before hsuB pulled WMD inspectors out, started bombing and told our troops to go in...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:36pm

27. MTSpence-Our right wing prefers having the Islamic religious nuts in power than having a secular anti nukes liberal in power in Iran.Odd,but true.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/19/2007 @ 1:40pm

28. It's harder to nuke an anti-nuke liberal secular gov...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 1:43pm

29. We want to go after everybody but the guy who attacked us. What's up with that?

    Let's impeach Bush and Cheney just because they won't stop pissing us off!

    Posted by Donald Weed at 09/19/2007 @ 1:46pm

30. HSUBFOOLS-The right does like having enemies, real or imagined.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/19/2007 @ 1:47pm

31. Well who press the button on S&G ?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2007 @ 1:27pm

    very funny!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 1:55pm

32. Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 12:41pm

    MASK,

    I would like to think that you are right in your assessment that the Bush admin would not procede on acts of aggression with only the backing of the 29% faction of vegatative mental cripples. But just who is going to prevail on Bush? James Baker? The military brass? The intelligence agency? UN? Domestic and international opinion? Principles of human rights? All been decisively stiffed each time they asserted reality based community-style patterns of thought that deviated from wrongness, stupity, and a baked-in America-hating drive for tactical and strategic failure that defines the neo-clowns and their mewling apologists.

    On the other hand, Scott Horton at Harper's has noted that the necessary supply lines and material for an assault are being moved into place according to knowledgable observors; as well as the surrounding climate of neo-Clown hot air in the MSM, whatever their humiliating auto-defeats at the hands of the reality-based community (for ex., "greeted as liberators", "we know where the wmds are located, in the sunni triangle" "major combat missions complete", "last throes", etc etc ...).

    One shudders to think where this may lead ...

    Posted by John_Shaft at 09/19/2007 @ 1:57pm

33. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 1:01pm

    Not "have nukes", nuke. Actually LVLIB pretty clear on another thread that he'd support any President who wants to go to war againsst any country...except Israel of course.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 2:05pm

34. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/19/2007 @ 1:57pm

    If they go against Iran, they'll wait until it's the Europeans practically BEGGING them to do so.

    Again, with the polls in the toilet, and Repubs feared for their political lives, Bush can't start another war without the public all becoming HSUBFOOLS and demanding impeachment, and the GOP will go along with it given they would see their chances at political majorities gone for atleast a generation. (Dennis Kucinich could get elected in 2008, if we attack Iran without a LOT of backing from the allies!)

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 2:08pm

35. Posted by MARY

    I was pointing out that Israel very much wants the US to attack Iran. Israel and its supporters here in the US are extremely influential with both Dems and Repubs.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 2:18pm

36. Posted by MARY

    This administration has complete contempt for the Constitution. Do you really think Jr, et al., give a rat's ass about the threat of impeachment? Do you think the Dems would actually go after him for attacking Iran? I'm not so sure.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 2:23pm

37. what are we really supposed to do?

    very soon (historically speaking) iran will be joined by just about every other nation on the planet in being able to build nukes. i guess this reality slips by many folks of all political persuasions. what are we to do? run around bombing and antagonizing every country on the cusp of nuclear power who backtalks us (and/or israel) for the next half century (or until something unthinkable happens)?

    lordy...sounds like a recipe for permanant great dividends for haliburtons...and disaster for our republic cum empire - and the world.

    the gauntlet we shaved apes have thrown down to our selves, the challenge we have given ourselves is nothing less than an imperitive to change the way we deal with each other, to rise to a higher level...we got nukes, you know...nukes = real reality...ultimate real reality...

    and how comforting to know the most powerful country in the world elected (!?) as its leader chimpy mcmushsmouth and his og neofascist corporatist handlers.

    historically speaking iran has good reason to detest us. our actions in 53 (i bet maybe 5% of americans know what happened...maybe) typify the worst of american hypocrisy...

    hypocrisy...self righteously sing the song of freedom while enslaving others with authoritarian regimes. we did that off and on for a very long time. from before 1900 we had been doing so in latin america (but so what, eh? until one of 'em finally snaps and goes "commie" before we can stop them then flips us off publically for decades....oooooooh how dare they!)

    so at least 95% of the american public has no idea that we (and the limeys) interfered in the internal affairs if iran way back in 53 (that such a long time ago...why don't they just like...get over it?), destroyed their nascent democracy (the iranian pres was, like arbenz in guatemala, a publically stated admirer of FDR...uh oh...socialism...) and instituted a brutal monarchical dictator...

    so why do those crazy towelheads hate us?

    the usa will be paying for its arrogant and hypocritical treatment of funny little economically less developed brown skinned people around the globe for years to come in the form of hostility, suspicion, and the traumatized results of rightwing authoritarian thuggery endorsed and enthroned by, or with the approval of US.

    currently we are funding sunni islamic fundamentalist terrorists who are waging war against iran. would it not be darkly hilarious if they have ties to al qaeda? who would be shocked? oh yeah, maybe up to 95% of the country...

    take the individual's capacity for self serving self deception, multiplied by 95% of this strangely ignorant/well edumuhcated country's population...throw in amoral self percieved demigod ideologues (our current regime from top to bottom, and unfortunately an apt description of too many involved in foriegn policy in the past), and some crazy brownish towelheads/slopes/beaners(throw in whatever ethnically denigrating term appropriate for specific non-american unfortunate) who dont want to be like us and POOF!

    instant boogymen and enemies...people to screw over and feel like we wear the white hats...

    and indeed many of the monsters we helped to create are menaces to the security of the world and must be opposed.

    but what about a gigantic nation chock full of nukes, chemical and bio weapons, who over the last 50+ years has repeatedly threatened to use them, who has meddled in the internal affairs of almost every corner of the world, who has time and again destroyed democracy and instated fascism...95% of whom's people have nothing more than some vague notion that their country may not be perfect...a country who elects an idiot whose handlers pull about the stupidest bloody foriegn policy blunder since the suez canal fiasco of the brit/french/israelis (56)...

    since 2001 we have been the most dangerous nation in the world, to be rightly feared by any and all who dare not follow our model and who are weaker than we. and god help them if they flip us the bird!

    but i see one and only one way to assure that our cowardly fascist leaders will not now nor ever invade your country. you will be able to order your own domestic and economic affairs as you see fit, be able to play skeezy diplomatic chess yourself, and like america, rest assured that nobody will ever invade you (again - and impose a fascist puppet dictator over you)...

    get you some nukes...

    iran is getting nukes, like it or not...

    then the debate will be over. then we will beforced to do what we should have been oing all along - treat all with respect and dignity and throw our incredible bulk not into stupid imperialistic black holes of baghdad and evil clandestine manipulation of other nations' polities, but toward stabalizing and transcending old hatreds, grudges, and feuds.

    but the old paradigm is so much easier...is it? when the cold war ended we no longer had the bullshit fascism enabling anti-communist excuse to meddle malignly in others' affairs...and look where we are now!

    bringin' freedom...democracy...economic development, randian corporatist ideology...walmart...nascar...car title financin'...apple pie and american idol to every heathen savage monkey corner of this here flatass earth!

    god bless the usa! god bless gearge bush and all the good godly aurukin things he and his corporate pals stand fer!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2007 @ 2:32pm

38. Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 2:08pm

    Frita, it's the opposite actually. Once hsuB/cHeney bomb the hell out of Iran with tacticals, it'll be way way way too late to start anything approaching impeachment procedings. Everyone will be too busy ducking.

    Er, or do I mean duct-taping...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 2:34pm

39. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 2:23pm

    Sure, Empty, they care about impeachment and they know if they make it impossible (not just really, really hard) for Repubs to win in 2008....they're not going to take it lying down.

    Besides, why do it "solo", when you can wait and let the Europeans get antsy and nervous (not just Israel) and ASK us to do it and have a ton of CYA?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 3:04pm

40. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2007 @ 2:34pm

    Ya ever consider....the other way around?

    That Pelosi and Reid and Conyers might be telling Bush "We'll keep impeachment off the table, if you keep Iran off the table"?

    Not impossible, though I think they just don't want to go through the trouble.

    BTW...

    41 Days and counting....time just flying by, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 3:06pm

41. maybe when enough scary little countries who backtalk us get nukes we wont elect people who appear stupider than we.

    stupid - not good trait in leader...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2007 @ 3:23pm

42. Stats already make it obvious the real 'final solution' that hsuB/cHeney had going into Iraq, was to wipe out its population. Considering the numbers of US troops, mercs, contractors, Iraqi military/police and their casualties VS civilian casualties when compared to Vietnam numbers of civilian casualties vs. number of troop numbers and their casualties, indicate a 500% increase in population elimination. Seems very intentional from a scientific stat perspective.

    I, like others, was looking at possible decimation of our troops if/when regional war broke out thus comparing troop levels and their casualties' numbers. However, the US occupation in Iraq adamant refusal to count civilian casualties-- now makes sense. Considering the efficiency and technology of the modern US military, even less civilian casualties should be in order as well. Yet instead of projecting less than 5,000 Iraqi casualties, we have as many as 900,000 and even millions more maimed and even millions more migrating out.

    That the hsuB/cHeney admin can't use the same tactics to wipe out Iranian civilians will not stop them from using other tactics.

    As the hsuB/cHeney admin used to say-- "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Impeach cHeney now, then hsuB.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 3:29pm

43. Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 3:06pm

    Frita, once again hsuB/cHeney have this major tendency to lie. Most likely if there's a deal with the dems, I suspect hsuB/cHeney are figuring a way around it. The only way they came close to winning in '04 was to go into Iraq. The only way they have of staying in office is to attack Iran.

    The only legal and moral way to stop the hsuB/cHeney admin from attacking Iran is to impeach them asap for the crimes they've already commmitted.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 3:37pm

44. so why do those crazy towelheads hate us?

    by IBBS

    so many answers, so little time

    paz

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 3:40pm

45. Posted by DONALD WEED 09/19/2007 @ 1:46pm

    the Bin Ladens and the Bushes are family buddies from way back. Money is thicker than blood as they say.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 3:44pm

46. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 3:40pm

    the lowdown on mercs...

    mercs [homestarrunner.com]

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2007 @ 3:46pm

47. Sure, Empty, they care about impeachment and they know if they make it impossible (not just really, really hard) for Repubs to win in 2008....they're not going to take it lying down.

    Besides, why do it "solo", when you can wait and let the Europeans get antsy and nervous (not just Israel) and ASK us to do it and have a ton of CYA?

    Posted by MASK

    People tend to rally around the flag when a conflict begins; it's only later that they sober up and recognize what's been done.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 4:01pm

48. Don't forget the 'fog'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 4:07pm

49. And as new con repubs con us into more war:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6999078.stm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 4:36pm

50. People tend to rally around the flag when a conflict begins; it's only later that they sober up and recognize what's been done.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 4:01pm

    I'm not entirely convinced that such would happen in this instance; the 29% bimbos would rally around these cretins, certainly.

    It's a pretty hard sell for Shrub and The Clot - 50+ years of the Cold War and no direct attacks on each other, no shots fired when China, India, Pakistan, Israel and apparently North Korea went nuke and now all of a sudden we have to start attacking anyone who looks like they might think about building a bomb?

    I have said before and still maintain that it is well within Chimpy's personality to do this - he's the type that thinks he can connect on the Hail Mary, hit the dinger in the 9th, bury the 3 at the buzzer - and this is what makes him so dangerous. If he believes that he will be viewed as a failed president otherwise, our bacon is well and truly fried.

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/19/2007 @ 5:13pm

51. I see the hsuB/cHeney admin as having proven long ago the extreme level of their dellusions and very capable of going for it whether or not they believe they might face impeachment prior to or post accomplishing their desired WWIII. Ergo the neccessity of their impeachment asap.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 6:07pm

52. This country needs real spiritual values NOW.

    Our "leaders" have no real morality, and the values of this country are just drifting and heading towards the rocks. Although most people are waking up, there are still 30% of us that are following spiritually blind authorities, like blind lemmings, off the cliff, and the rest of us are afraid that we are going to be pushed off in the rush. Now we find ourselves in a mad rush to war with Iran – to World War III. Leaders, who claim to be religious, like Hagee and Leiberman, are urging the military and the executive to take the plunge.

    It is time to stop this madness and re-examine our moral values. Did Jesus advise pre-emptive war? Did he promote ethic cleansing? I don't think so. Nevertheless, the drumbeats are getting louder and louder.

    "Stop, children, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down."

    Laura Flanders, when filling in last week for Thom Hartmann, brought up the terrifying possibility that the assassination of Sheik Abu Rishsa might be blamed on Iran, which would then become Cheney's casus belli (reason to go to war) that he has been longing for. Greg Palast has said that this Sunni Sheik, which the Bush administration glorified as a hero, and the hope for Iraq is a fake Sheik. He was given millions of dollars and arms to ethically cleanse the Anbar province of Shiites. The other real Sunni Sheiks are jealous, and I think that they, or the Bush administration, killed him. The Shia are mostly afraid of the Madi army, so they probably didn't do it, but one has claimed responsibility. The Iranians, of course, are Shiite. How convenient. Look for the bombs to start falling soon on your favorite cable network. God help us.

    Posted by shick at 09/19/2007 @ 6:45pm

53. Who would benefit from US attacking Iran- first the Saudi's then the Isreali's. But ultimately it would be the muslim extremists, Like bin laden. We've played into his hands so far- The bush admin. has been doing all the work when it comes to bringing down America.

    Posted by Kimmy B at 09/19/2007 @ 7:33pm

54. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

    LIBS,

    i hope you see this.

    i currently teach guitar to a fellow in his twenties. he arrived here from iran 3 years ago. HE IS A PRACTICING PRESBYTERIAN. his parents live in tehran. are you sure you want THEM to die?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 10:01pm

55. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 10:38pm

    i'd like to see the IRANIAN people take down the mullahs.

    if they can take down the shah, the can do it to these amateurs.

    it is not america's job.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:13pm

56. they

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:14pm

57. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/20/2007 @ 12:19am

    well, from what i remember from t.v., i sure saw a lot of people.

    but it was the u.s. who took down the democratically elected p.m. in 1953 and installed the despised shah.

    oops

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:40am

58. SO, WHO IS AFRAID OF WHOM

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 10:49am

    FZ -- Brilliant response to that idiot Happy.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 09/23/2007 @ 01:37am

59. This country needs real spiritual values NOW....

    God help us.

    Posted by SHICK 09/19/2007 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person

    I'M INCLINED TO THINK GOD HAS BAILED...

    And how do we get those "more spiritual value"? More church? Look where THAT'S led us. Moreover, morality is not (as most people seem to think) a matter of following a set of rules or moral "code." It really is based on developing one's moral intuition by actually SEEING, for example, what the golden rule (actually a guideline NOT a "rule") implies. The problem is, when anyone starts talking about this sort of thing, it usually comes out sounding like (because it often is) a lot of New Age bullshit.

    Who can blame God for bailing?....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 09/23/2007 @ 02:00am

60. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 11:13pm

    Unfortunately, it wasn't the people who took down the Shah, but the Islamic Revolution. Why do you think so many Iranians fled Iran after the overthrow of the Shah?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/20/2007 @ 12:19am

    BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...

    If the U.S. (I refuse to use the pronoun "we" anymore when speaking of the actions of the American government) has not installed the Shah in the first place, Iran would have been able to develop a functioning democracy the could have precluded the Islamic Revolution. In fact, this is a general model. Oppressive revolutions happen in many places where we've installed corrupt dictatorial regimes -- the Middle East, Latin America.... Why anyone would expect a different outcome remains a mystery to me. U.S. policymakers seem to think they can shove any government they please down the throats of any third-world country they please and the people are supposed to respond with grateful submission and subordination of their interests to ours. I will say that this mode of thinking has unfortunately characterized Democratic as well as Republican administrations in this country. In fact, classical conservatives tended to be isolationists. It was the Democrats (I have to and hate to say) who taught them to stop worrying and love interventionism. And boy howdy, did they ever learn that lesson well....

    "I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn: Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return."

    --W.H. Auden "1939"

    Posted by w_m_bear at 09/23/2007 @ 02:36am