This smells like the surprise act that was to take place in October of 2004. Bah.
Dubya should just start lobbing nukes everywhere. You know, to “cement his legacy.”
There was chatter last year about a potential attack on Iran, things like moving carrier groups into the gulf. But talk about waiting to see if Obama is going to win before attacking almost sound like a political coup-d’etat against the democratic system; as bad as Bush is i can’t imagine him wanting to stay another 4 years, so the only other option, in helping the Republican party in general, is the only? other explaination. In other words, it just sounds like hand wringing worst-case scenario speculation.
Attacking Iran would almost certainly cause them to invade and attempt to occupy Iraq.
Military action by the US against Iran during this administration is so insane I don’t even want to take it seriously. I don’t know how people would react here in the US, but I suspect it would be very, very badly. That kind of crap would be grounds for impeachment, because Bush would have no Congressional support.
The thing is, that I’ve been wondering about this since the latest news about North Korea broke. By settling things there, Bush may now feel he has a free hand to use against those who argued we were spread too thin already militarily. I really hope that isn’t true.
It’s like that WWII leader in his bunker moving non existing divisions around…
(No Godwin!)
I agree, it seemed more far-fetched conspiracy theory than the rest of the interview. I’m concerned the degree to which I’m distorting the message, so I encourage folks to read the New Yorker essay and listen to the interview over trusting my summary.
If Israel lobs the nuke first, the USA would be hardpressed to continue supporting what is left of Israel.
Besides, Israel shouldn’t have any nukes. Right? Right? Right? Bueller?
Is Iran crazy enough to try to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv? Probably not. Will Israel gamble on that? Absolutely not.
Israel is also well aware they can’t knock out Iran’s nuclear program themselves pace something dramatic like nuclear weapons, which is why there’s so much discussion about using nuclear weapons in the Israeli media. Even if they have no intention of using them, it’s like the 150-plane ‘exercise’ the other day – meant to send a message to Iran AND the US that, hey, if someone doesn’t do something we’re just crazy enough to topple the hornet’s nest. And they have been telling everyone who’ll listen, repeatedly, that they absolutely will not peacefully coexist with a nuclear-armed Iran (a rational view as long as Iran refuses to peacefully coexist with Israel).
I can’t see Cheney and the administration pulling an October Surprise though. That’s just… mindblowingly stupid. Much like Dirt’s latest post:
And which nuclear power would destroy Israel, in that event?
Oh, just hush. Big people talking.
and what about the NIE that said Iran abandoned it’s nuke projects back in 2003?
I know this popped up on the NRP interview, but I arrived in my driveway right about then.
PS - Interview on NPR is now up.
Oh, so that’s your fat ass?
Everyone agrees that they’ve continued refining uranium which is the time-intensive part of the project. Israel is adamant that the NIE was wrong and based off Iranian disinformation.
If Israel fires off a nuclear weapon, and especially if they do so and hit a city, the whole Middle East (including Turkey on an outside chance) would attempt to completely level Israel with a full-scale (if uncoordinated) military attack. It would be said that virtually every Muslim was obligated to attack Israel in any and every way imaginable. The concept of human waves comes to mind.
I don’t think the US would stay out of the conflict if such an eventuality took place; we’d fight beside Israel. In other words, declare war on Iran, Syria, possibly Egypt, and everybody else involved.
Hmm, I better invest even more in oil stocks…
I get your point, and it’s a solid one. I do think though that it’s a real problem trying to decipher what “Iran” is in this context. Ahmadinejad isn’t a dictator and he isn’t all-powerful; he’s no Kim Il Sung type. So even if he has batshit insane ideas, that doesn’t follow that 1) anyone else in his government does, and 2) he has the power to make anyone cooperate in commiting national suicide.
I will grant you though that from Tel Aviv the question is not nearly so academic. If I were responsible for Israel’s security I too would not want to have Iran as currently established with a nuclear capability. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, there is no way to stop Iran, eventually, from getting nuclear weapons with a purely military approach. Not short of erradicating them as a nation, which I think would be very difficult and morally indefensible–and most likely far, far more costly than most any other option. No, if you want to keep Tehran from getting nukes you have to engage in the process by which everything in the Middle East gets done–the active and often sub rosa establishment of mutually satisfactory ambiguity. In this case I think that involves figuring out how to convince Tehran that they don’t need nukes. That might include shows of force, sure, but it has to involve much more as well.
And if the bottom line is Israeli long-term security, a confrontation with Iran is a lose/lose situation. In any event, it will most likely be demographics that poses the biggest threat to Israel, far greater than any outside power.
The Israelis could be right. Or, they could be themselves guilty of disinformation. They are not at all unfamiliar with the practice. I count myself as a strong supporter of Israel but truly, they do have a history of shaping facts to their liking and to insure support. In the Middle East, truth is a very scarce commodity.
docvego: Most conservatives in general and war hawks in particular discount that NIE report (just like they discounted all the intel indicating Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program).
If necessary, weapons inspectors will find without question that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very bad man. Everyone supports going to war against very bad men, right? Men like Hitler. Fruit flies like a banana.
If only it was that easy.
As Nasr clarified to CBSNews.com, Ahmadinejad is not the top leader of Iran and does not have power over Parliament or the Judiciary, nor does he oversee any of the powerful councils and foundations in the country. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the ultimate decision maker.“The paradox is this: When his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was president, the U.S.'s position was, ‘There’s no point in engaging with him because he’s powerless and meaningless,’” Nasr explained to CBSNews.com. “And now we have all this focus on the current president.”
It’s a miracle we survived the cold war with the logic available.
Yeah, the focus on Ahmadinejad is misplaced. He’s more than a figurehead, but not much more.
The problem is that Iran is still an easy target for US politicians to attack. Even Hillary took a few shots their way during the primary. Too many Americans are still caught up in what happened during the 1979-81 embassy hostage crisis and fail to see the other side of the coin, notably US support for a horrible dictator in the Shah, the US role in pushing Iraq to start the Iran/Iraq war, and, of course, the accidental shoot down of a jetliner by the US Navy that killed hundreds of Iranians.
Obama has the right idea. It’s time to sit down and start talking to some of these people, particularly when they are the widely recognized government of a country.
I think you make my point–Ahmadinejad is the oen making most of the bizarre statements. In fact, he isn’t the be all and end all of power in Tehran, but he is the only one really livingo ut there on the edge–the rest of the establishment I believe is far, far more pragmatic. So, if you get rid of the one guy who is, because of his position and nominal power within the system, making the most trouble with his views and statements, what you’d have left is a regime that is generally interested in survival and relatively mundane power politics stuff.
My main point is that Iran is not, inevitably, an extremist you-can’t-talk-to-them type of wacko state. They simply have wacko president right now.