Why We are Going to go to War

[katty]

excerpt/more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/why-we-are-going-to-go-to_b_20215.html

Why We Are Going To Go To War

by Hooman Majd

As the Iranian nuclear crisis moves into what may be its final phase, i.e. either U.N. Security Council action but more likely eventual military strikes by the U.S., the pages of the nation’s newspapers have been filled with editorials and opinion columns suggesting, for the most part, that war with Iran would be a folly of unprecedented proportions.

And yet the Bush administration refuses to rule out military action against Iran, and more ominously, still refuses to rule out a preemptive nuclear attack. The media has taken note, as have some members of Congress, but there is a surprising calm in the air given that the U.S. doctrine of “no first strike” has (like a few other wise American doctrines) been supplanted by the “anything goes because I’m the decider” policies of President Bush. Perhaps the thought of another Middle Eastern war, let alone a nuclear one, is so frightening, so preposterous, that Americans cannot bring themselves to contemplate it. It may be tempting to believe that the “options on the table” are merely part of the psychological weaponry we employ, or whose existence are necessary in applying diplomatic pressure, but one has to examine the realities of the U.S.-Iran dynamic in order to understand why war is in fact the most likely route the U.S. will take.

For the first time since the hostage crisis of 1979-1980, the U.S. finds itself in the position of finally having to make a real decision on policy towards Iran. President Bush has two choices, but only one is in any way palatable to the administration. The unpalatable (or even repugnant) choice for the administration is, as suggested by a growing number of commentators, to engage the Iranian regime directly and not only come to an agreement on Iran’s nuclear policy, but to also begin to repair the fractured relationship that must inevitably lead to full U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Islamic Republic. The other choice is military action that, even if it doesn’t result in regime-change, will in theory substantially weaken Iran so that it can no longer wield its rapidly growing influence or threaten U.S. interests. There are no other choices, for the U.S. knows that it cannot make demands of Iran, even with support from European allies, that it can expect Iran to meet without some serious give-and-take between it and the United States. And the United States refuses to give.

[yellowcanine]

1. Unfortunately we have a President who knows nothing about history or

diplomacy and a Secretary of State who knows nothing about the Middle Ease, let alone Iran. Her knowlege is of the Soviet Union, which doesn't even exist any longer. We are pretty much screwed, as near as I can figure, unless we can find a way get someone into the Bush inner circle who can talk some sense into the guy.

[katty]

2. we're screwed,all right...bush has to be cut off at knees NOW

even if he remains 'in office' he must be, in effect, under house arrest. China and Russia have already severely warned U.S. state dept and the Pentagon...who or what has the balls the stop the psychos in the WH?

[politicaholic]

5. He got his bachelors degree in history from Yale...

that makes him highly qualified to be a rich alcoholic with a coke problem.

[Imagine My Surprise]

3. Believe me, I am no optimist, but I have a question...

there seem to be at least some people around Bush who may actually have a clue what an attack on Iran could incur. And they know that it wouldn't be pretty and would make Iraq look like a tap dance class. And just as I may have been foolish enough to have thought at the time that there were those around President Ray-gun who would have literally prevented him from invoking any genuinely inane action (with obvious consequences to everyone but HIM) I also think that there may be people around Idiot Son who would do the same. Do I need to adjust my medication?

[Dhalgren]

6. Not being catty or anything, but could you name one?

Just one?

[Imagine My Surprise]

8. I guess I was honestly thinking of the CIA...

and they certainly have "ways" of changing one's plans.

[atreides1]

11. Remember George Tenet

And his "slam dunk" claim, now also remember that Bush buddy Porter Goss is now the DCIA, and his loyalty to this president is unquestionable, just like the rest the support Chimpy without question.

They are loyal to the man, their loyalty to this country means nothing to any of them.

[atreides1]

9. Medication adjustment required

There were people around Bush who had a clue as to what an attack on Iraq would incur, if it was done on the cheap. Bush did'nt listen and went with the cheap option. So to really believe that people around him will tell him no when it comes to attacking Iran, is definitely an indication that your medication needs to be adjusted.;)

[Imagine My Surprise]

10. Well, I'll go on and up it...

I just seems that a nook-klar war could end all life as we know it and that such a thought might occur to someone within a few blocks of Idiot Son's abode.

[atreides1]

12. The only ones that can stop this

Is the US military itself, because USAF pilots or USN ships will have to drop the bombs or fire the cruise missiles with the nukes.

And as many have pointed out here at DU, the military will go along without question, because that's how they are trained.

[paul_fromatlanta]

4. Odd, the article doesn't actually adress the question of why we are going

to war

[politicaholic]

7. It has a severe lack of evidence also. n/t

[Dhalgren]

13. Yes it does.

It talks about the locked-in nature of our "relationship" with Iran. The author describes it in a way that is reminiscent of the politically brittle political structure of Europe in the run up to WWI. The Bush regime has painted itself into an idealogical corner, with the only palpable way of moving is toward war. There are no "facts" that make war inevitable, it is only the mental straight jacket that Bush has placed himself in that makes war the only option...

[katty]

15. yes-perfectly put

[endarkenment]

16. Guns of August.

"The author describes it in a way that is reminiscent of the politically brittle political structure of Europe in the run up to WWI."

Exactly my view of the crisis. A cabal of maniacal, ignorant dunces on both sides are unable to reflect on or understand the real situation and the consequences of the policies that they have set in motion. Instead, like clockwork, we are advancing automatically towards disaster.

In fairness to the hideous Iranian regime, they are not the aggressors in this dance, although they could just stop dancing.

[Dhalgren]

20. To bad Barbara Tuckman isn't around to set these gomers right.

Then, again, I'm glad she didn't have to see how these "educated" people could ignore all of her work and just make the same blunders over and over...

[paul_fromatlanta]

18. That really misses the point. We are locked in, I agree. But why Iran?

[endarkenment]

Two reasions: a) oil; b) oil. nt.

[katty]

14. it's certainly commentary, but really, hasn't bush&co made

it more than clear that we are NOW going to war PRE-EMPTIVELY because we BELIEVE
some country WILL EVENTUALLY do us (or Israel) harm? Why we're going to war is because Iran continues to be a target for the Neocons and their BIG plans to conquer the world. Why we're going to war again like this...because bush is clinically mentally ill and those around him refuse to challenge him or believe and support his messianic christian mission as well.

[Dhalgren]

17. It is just that simple. Sickeningly, frighteningly simple...

[paul_fromatlanta]

19. So you think this is a random choice - no Syria, Not North Korea, etc

but just random? I find that hard to believe.

[Dhalgren]

21. I have no idea what you mean, "random choice"...

[paul_fromatlanta]

23. My point is there has to a reason we have chosen Iran

and the article doesn't suggest any except that Bush is locked in.

[Dhalgren]

26. But he does - it's Iran's threat to Israel...

[paul_fromatlanta]

27. I think its more than just that but even that is more than the article say

My only point, in the begining was that the article title is misleading -

[Dhalgren]

28. Yeah, you're right. I read a little more into a couple of the

comments than was actually there, vis a vis Israel. And the article could have been titled better. But the actual premise, that Bush (and the US) has backed himself into a corner with very little room to maneuver and few options ideologically available is, I think, very accurate...

[paul_fromatlanta]

30. On that I agree. We aqre going to war with Iran

Unless something unexpected happens - like another revolution in Iran or congress refusing to cooperate.

[Dunvegan]

29. Look into the PNAC "Spheres of Influence" for the "Why Iran?" answer.

Iran is the next stepping stone for bringing the entire Middle East into the superpower sphere of influence that PNAC says is necessary for the "New American Century: 2001 - 2002."

[katty]

22. one big choice among the others...they will try for Syria,NK

as well-but right now Iran is the big, resistant gorilla in the room-with lots of OIL-a country that prefers Euros and wants to knock off Israel.

[paul_fromatlanta]

24. they don't have time left for Syria or NK.

[Dhalgren]

25. Right. Syria and NK have to oil to speak of - they are far down

the list...

[JPZenger]

31. The Threat of War With Iran

Randi Rhodes today on her Air America show provided an excellent set of quotes from national security experts about the very serious dangers that would result from attacking Iran. It is a much more dangerous situation than attacking Iraq. For instance, Iran has connections to a much more effective terrorist ring than Iraq ever did.

[katty]

32. it certainly is more dangerous - my dad worked in the

Middle East and Iran will not back down.