In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, former UN ambassador John Bolton fantasizes about Israel unilaterally attacking Iran. He attempts to game out what would happen and how Iran would react. Now, my first reaction to this is to ask how well, in the near past, have neo-conservatives been able to predict things? I think the record is clear that people like John Bolton, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol made many confident predictions during the Bush era that simply turned out to be dead wrong. So, I don’t have any confidence that Bolton has the first clue what would happen if Israel launched an attack against Iran without getting permission for it from the United States.
Bolton assumes that Iran would refrain from closing the Straits of Hormuz or from retaliating against the United States in any way. He assumes that Iran would not withhold oil exports. He also assumes that Iran would not risk more lethal attacks from Israel and, therefore, wouldn’t attack Israel directly. He thinks Iran would just ramp up their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, effectively limiting themselves to skirmishes on the Israeli borders.
I don’t have access to the best intelligence, but I think Bolton’s smoking the crack-pipe with his analysis. I believe Iran would disrupt the shipping lanes. I believe the United States, furious with Israel for starting a war without permission, would seek to negotiate the reopening of the Straits rather than being shanghaied into another war on Israel’s schedule. U.S.-Israeli relations would be shattered, and the U.S. government would be at pains to make clear that they did not give tacit permission for the attacks.
It is extremely unlikely that Israel would succeed in destroying Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and they would emerge on the other side of the conflict without having accomplished anything, and isolated (perhaps fatally) like never before.
What’s so reckless is that people like Bolton can dismiss dangers so cavalierly. Israel cannot afford to listen to this kind of advice. Hopefully, they can read history as well as I can. The neo-conservatives are as close to always wrong as it is possible to be.
Neo-cons like Bolton are always very free with the lives of other people and other people’s children.
Reminds me of a quote from the Cold War: “What the Americans describe as a limited nuclear exchange looks pretty total from Bonn…”
Not only would Israel not destroy any nuclear program Iran might have had, when the dust settled that day the Iranians would have a full-bore nuclear program running full-tilt boogie with the full support of everyone inside Iran. Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon would be even worse for the industrialized world, because Iran doesn’t need ballistic missiles or long-range bombers to deliver a nuclear weapon to the most valuable targets it can find. All they need do is place a nuclear bomb on a barge or sink it offshore and blockade the whole damned Strait of Horumz, including denying passage to any and all US warships unless the US takes definitive and confirmable action against Israel. This Bolton piece just solidifies why the ‘Stache shouldn’t have been confirmed for the UN post he got rejected from.
“the Iranians would have a full-bore nuclear program running full-tilt boogie with the full support of everyone inside Iran.”
And there would be plenty outside Iran that, while not fully supporting it, would understand completely Iran’s ‘need’.
What needs stating, again, is that Iran has violated NO treaties, it is the US and Israel that are in violation.
Our media is a complete shambles. No where is that told to American’s. But worse than that, no where in the MSM is Iran shown to be the large, vibrant country with a huge young population that wants change in their country.
nalbar
Neocons are just plain nuts.
You have to admit that Bolton raises ignorance and poor judgment to an art form. Any civilization that follows his advice should be prepared to go over the cliff and to kiss goodbye any aspirations it has for its future well being. Bolton is a crazy man and should be institutionalized not lionized. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. With John Bolton as our guide, America would have accomplished the first part of this deadly formula.
Have to disagree: I think Bolton and the con gang around him have an accurate view of what would happen, at least regarding what they think matters. Thing is, that’s not what they describe in public.
An attack by Israel would stand a good chance of setting off a major regional war. In the very best case, it would assure that the current hostilities go on for generations more. The attack and the response would keep theocrats and terrorists in power all over the region and would nip any democratizing movements in the bud. The US would be hard put not to be drawn into the hostilities, so the current wars would open 3rd and 4th fronts. The militarists and torturers in every country could then rest easy that their power would not be seriously questioned.
Bolton and his ilk don’t care about Israel beyond its role as a pawn in their dominance game. An attack by Israel would be the best possible event for the advancement of the neocon game plan.
This is one part that stands out;
“Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs’ regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppressive regime.”
This proves Bolton is the one in a million troll. He is a lier beyond belief. He KNOWS this is not true, and does not care.
Amazing.
nalbar
The neocons have always been more than a little unclear on the difference between our SOB’s and their SOB’s. When a country is attacked, unless it is already under foreign occupation, the populace overwhelmingly supports the current local leadership even if, before the attack, they disliked those leaders.
Take 9/11 as a case in point. Americans rallied around George W. Bush, of all people, including a lot of Democrats still smarting from the stolen election. If ostensibly sane Americans could support Dubya, Iranians will certainly support their government which, aside from their plainly unstable but fortunately powerless president, is an order of magnitude more competent than our previous president.
The whole “they’ll thank us for bombing them” meme needs to be taken out back and, well, waterboarded to death.
Notice how Bolton adds “a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy” so there is an out.
If Iranians did support their government (of course they would REALLY be supporting their country, neo’s never make that distinction with ‘others’), then it would be because Obama did not do good enough public diplomacy.
God, what fools these people are! They would be wildly funny except 1) they are incredibly dangerous and 2) the media treats them as though they have been right, instead of wrong, on everything.
nalbar
I want to clarify;
What Bolton is doing with the ‘public diplomacy’ comment is making any Iranian response the fault of the AMERICAN government (meaning Obama), and not the fault of a Israeli attack. “We did not back Israel up, so the closing of the Strait’s is our fault, not Israel’s”.
nalbar