Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

EmmaG,

Excellent article.

Joe

Building on my previous suggestion, we may now argue that if the US must bomb Iran in order to prevent the flow of weapons to Iraq, it must also bomb China:

Iraqis to Pay China $100 Million for Weapons for Police

Subtitle:

As far as the administration is concerned only Syria and Iran are targets of a neocon agenda, therefore China gets a pass on this one.

The Chinese I suspect don't care who is in charge of Iran or Iraq as long as they can make a deal for oil. I also suspect the recent Chinese arms sale is part of a quid pro quo i.e. arms for future considerations regarding oil rights. Should those arms fall into some factions hands will be ignored much as the US ignores SA jihadists in Iraq.

As far as the administration is concerned we will only invade nations we can quickly whup, where conquered citizens respond by throwing roses to the feet of our soldiers, where the citizens have ready to serve, well-respected, selfless & cooperative politcal leaders to form an honest democratic gov't and where those nations have natural resources which can be pumped to completely reimburse us for our benevolent brutality...like Irrrrrrr...never mind.

The problem with their evidence is under direct examination no one in the military will admit they have proof the Iran government is involved, yet they continue to insinuate it as long as no one asks them any questions the administration can build their case. What they do have proof of is that there are weapons manufactured in Iran and some people have been trained in Iran. Note there is a large porous border between Iraq and Iran. Common sense dictates that certainly arms will flow across the border but that in and of itself does not prove anything.

The problem with the testimony of several implicated "insurgents" is none of what they say has been corroborated. I have a high tolerance for pain but eventually I will break and admit Alfred E. Neuman is directing the insurgency.

The only argument the administration has offered is Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq in order to gain some political advantage. Sure I guess if you are an American who can't think beyond the next WS article telling you what to think that would be an argument. But every donkey trader in Iraq knows Iran has a very close relationship with the current Iraqi government and certainly with the largest political coalition which in itself guarantees a binding relationship with Iraq. What would benefit Iran would be the end of the insurgency and the withdrawal of American troops. The American are too clumsy to win anyones heart or mind in Iraq and Iran has already a firm handle on that.

What the neocons and therefore the administration fears is someone other than America will control the oil. Yikes can one imagine if Iran and Iraq controlled their own oil which would amount to about the same reserve as SA?

With Israel chomping at the bits to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, the US is drowning in the ethical/political quagmire of it's own creation. How's does the US defend Israel and at the same time guarantee the continuous flow of oil? Does it not strike anyone as strange that the American government is working overtime for the capitalists oil companies to keep them from competing against the Chinese and Indians?

I hear that the Senate is reaching out covertly and preemptively to Iran to stall the WH.

Putin visits Iran and warns the US not to attack Iran. Oil is $90/barrel and probably will rise to $100 before the 2008 US elections. The Chinese and Japenese are selling dollars. The Baby Boomers will begin to retire soon.

Not being privy to the facts or any "insider" info, I don't know what's really going on. However, there's a renewed call for a draft. President Bush is warning of WWIII if the Iranians continue their nuclear program. What better way to revive the dollar and failing US economy than another World War?

Will we bomb Iran before Hillary becomes the next President? Any opinions?

Joe

I believe the article offers further corroboration of current activities in the administration to formulate a plan to gather appropriate evidence for justification of an Iranian attack. Neocon writers have for quite some time been repeating the mantra that we have the evidence of Iranian governmental involvement in Iraq but as the article again states the US military still can not find the direct link. Neocon thinkers viewing this from a perspective that they may not have influence in future administrations are under some pressure to force the issue. Of course if Clinton should win the election the neocons may not have the influence they desire but certainly the Israeli lobby would, so it is still possible an attack on Iran is in the offing.

I think a good scale of comparison is the 1998 bombing of Baghdad versus the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Certainly Saddam posed a much greater threat in 1998 than in 2003, and yet the Clinton Administration managed to placate the neo-cons without spending a half trillion dollars and several thousand American lives. I suspect a second Clinton Administration will similarly examine the cost/benefit ratios with much more circumspection than the neo-con cabal would like, and come up with a regimen that is at least marginally satisfying to them, and at the same time much more difficult for peacemongers to argue against.

Until January of 2009, however, I am still holding back, afraid to exhale too loudly. Every day that passes without an attack on Iran is another day we are less insecure, less in danger of a cataclysm.