Let's attack Iran!

[AlamoDemoc]

Let's attack Iran!

By GWYNNE DYER

01/19/05 "Trinidad Express" -- Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article about American forces carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to locate hidden Iranian nuclear facilities, presumably in order to be able to destroy them all in a surprise attack, may be "riddled with errors,'' as the White House promptly alleged. It may be entirely true. And either way, it may have been deliberately leaked by the Bush administration to frighten Iran. But what was really revealing was the US media response to it.

<more>
http://207.44.245.159/article7763.htm

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. Plenty who would like to

I think there a re a number of people who would npot be upset if a incident happened at the Iranian Reactor site. Such that they would not be able to produce weapons grade fissionable material.

Just nobody likes the cost Iran would extract for making such an attack.

[hang a left]

2. That is a different take. Thanks for that

the last paragraph
snip>

There simply aren't any American troops available to invade Iran, and air strikes will only annoy them. What would really tip the whole area into an acute crisis is a re-radicalised Iran that has concluded that it will never be secure until it has expelled the US from the region.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the PNAC.

Simply put, Afghanistan was the detour. First on the list was Iraq. Next is Iran. Then Syria.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Luttwak makes a point

about the "pay back" macho revenge mode , but strangely, the fact that Osama escaped and is still at large, seems to be a moot point in the glossed over eyes of those in that revenge at all costs, mode. Further, if that is the case, that vengeance is being fed by Bush and may never be satisfied, no matter how many innocent people we kill. Indeed, it seems to have been expanded to attack anyone within striking distance, including other Americans who see the truth. I sense it getting worse.

Dyer does not mention PNAC, but her analysis of Iran was informative to me.

The flack coming out of the White HOuse about Iran is very similar to that which preceeded the invasion of Iraq, except it lacks a man who "killed his own people" to scapegoat. We are seeing villification of Iran, though, as an evil terrorist country deserving of being bombed in the never ending "war on terror".

The points she makes about Iran to dispel that notion are good.

If Israel can have nukes by tyhe hundreds, why can't Iran seek to defend itself by also having nukes? It would be foolish not to, especially now that Iraq and Afganistan are occupied, squeezing Iran into a sandwich. If Iran is meeting with other countries re it's nuclear plans, it would seem plausible to me, an armchair,relatively uninformed reader, that Iran would seek a treaty guaranteeing those to whom she may surrender the cessation of any continued development of her nuclear plans, to defend Iran militarily as allies, should she be attacked by the US. I am not sure the UN would be of any help to Iran, because they utterly failed to stop Bush from his murderous pursuit in Iraq.

As for the media--she did not mention their corporate connections. Further, keeping up the revenge mode is to the benefit of the media. Sensationalism and fear bring in more money than bland, happy, non exciting peace.

[txaslftist]

5. Reticence requires accepting reality.

You may be giving Bush too much credit thinking they wouldn't.