(Crossposted at http://www.dailykos.com by hopesprings
The Guardian has a devastating article about the US hitting Iran – and makes some good points why our Admin would have powerful motive to do so.
LINK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1549198,00.html
The International community is taking Bush’s “every option is on the table” remark damned seriously, people, and so should we. This isn’t empty rhetoric. This is deadly business and part of the reason Bush seems to think ignoring Cindy Sheehan isn’t going to hurt him, any. He and the neocons have bigger fish to fry – at least, in their warped PNAC-addled minds.
(See quote from the article below the fold:)
From the Guardian article:
“America’s devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now – with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.
Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team’s intention to retain power for the next decade – perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.
The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran’s supplies are destined for China – perceived as the US’s main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about “evil empire.”‘
*
We can’t take our eyes off the ball. They will do whatever it takes to get us into this new war – and we’ve seen that they have no compunctions about sacrificing American lives to do it.
October is the deadline for indictments in the Plame leak. September is right around the corner. Do they have motive to make this happen, fast? You bet they do. Remember how many on-the-fence Americans voted for Bush in’04 because of their fear of “changing Presidents during wartime?” Think Cheney in ’08. No, I’m not joking. And how’s that voting reform agenda coming? How many Diebold machines have we taken off the table by now? How are those voter fraud cases coming? We’re still sidelined on every issue that could save us, and the Neocons still very much on point with their agenda.
World War III? “Armegeddon?” Don’t forget the recent Pentagon’s unprecedented plan for “taking over” in case of another massive scale terrorist attack on American soil. This is all right from their playbook, which we’ve had for a long time now. This isn’t a nightmare – it could very well happen, right under our noses. We – and especially our elected officials in Congress – need to take their threats as seriously as the Europeans clearly seem to be doing.
