In a recent published excerpt from Noam Chomsky's new book...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

... Interventions, Chomsky states that he suspects, despite all the saber rattling, it is "unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran." Do you agree?

And secondly, do you believe the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq has only served to harden Iran's determination to develop a nuclear deterrent?

---------------------------------------------------------

---SNIP---

Despite the saber-rattling, it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. The world is strongly opposed. Seventy-five percent of Americans favor diplomacy over military threats against Iran, and as noted earlier, Americans and Iranians largely agree on nuclear issues. Polls by Terror Free Tomorrow reveal that “Despite a deep historical enmity between Iran’s Persian Shiite population and the predominantly Sunni population of its ethnically diverse Arab, Turkish and Pakistani neighbors, the largest percentage of people in these countries favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action.” It appears that the U.S. military and intelligence community is also opposed to an attack.

Iran cannot defend itself against U.S. attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them by the respected British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.” . . .

---SNIP---

The U.S. invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.” The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the U.S. will attack at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to U.S. support.

As already discussed, Iranian efforts to negotiate outstanding issues were rebuffed by Washington, and an EU-Iranian agreement was apparently undermined by Washington’s refusal to withdraw threats of attack. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran-and the escalating warlike tension in the region-would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system, in accord with public opinion in the United States, Iran, neighboring states, and virtually the entire rest of the world.. . .

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/28/2827/

[Buzz Clik]

1. It is not clear to me that Bush won't attack Iran.

It would be stupid and destined to fail without question. But, we knew that going into Iraq, and he did it anyway.

If there is a political reason to do it (e.g., sabotage an incoming Dem President's administration), he'll do it. If it creates a distraction from ... say ... impeachment proceedings, he'll do it.

Nothing is certain with this crew.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. I do worry about what distraction measures...

...BushCo might take if impeachment hearings got underway. I don't think they'd just sit around and watch.

[Palladin]

2. He has left out the

neocons, AIPAC, the Lobby, and their man Cheney, who want to attack Iran at all costs, and will seize the chance if it comes their way....
despite the whole rest of the world's opposition. Obviously "yes" to the second.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Chomsky is failing to understand bush's psychological state

It sounds like Chomsky has done an excellent job applying rational thought to an irrational, defective personality. The article at the link below addresses the "invading Iran" question with a strong focus on bush's psychological state. Its conclusions are disquieting to say the least:

source: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072707a.html

Dangers of a Cornered George Bush

As the nation and the world face 18 more months of George W. Bush’s presidency, a chilling prospect is that Bush – confronted with more defeats and reversals – might just “lose it” and undertake even more reckless military adventures.

In this special memorandum, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated with psychiatrist Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch, to assess the potential dangers and possible countermeasures available to constrain Bush:

Recent events have put a great deal more pressure on President George W. Bush, who has shown little regard for the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Having bragged about being commander in chief of the “first war of the 21st century,” one he began under false pretenses, success in Iraq is now a pipedream. <skip>

What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?

Applied Psychoanalysis

The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how they might react in certain circumstances.

The outlook is not only somber but potentially violent—and includes all manner of threats born of George W. Bush’s mental state (as well as the unusual relationship he has with his vice president).

Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional ways, as they see fit.

While Bush and his advisers make a fetish of it, he is nonetheless commander in chief of the armed forces and the question becomes how he might feel justified in using them and is there still any restraining force—any checks on the increasing power of the executive in our three-branch government.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. Kick for larger sample. nt.

[Greyhound]

6. Y & Y, even a bulb as dim as he has to recognize that we would suffer

major casualties, which the looted military can ill afford. Iran is not Iraq, they have a real military force and have not been starved for over a decade. While they would almost certainly lose the shooting war, it would take months and they have the means to inflict real casualties. How do you think the sheeple would react to the sinking of capital ships (and the loss of the hundreds of crewmen that would go along with it) and casualties numbering in the hundreds on a daily basis.

No, it is much more likely that we will turn attention to South America next. Chavez is becoming a real threat to the long-term objectives.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. Only recently I thought an attack...

...against Iran was imminent. Now I'm beginning to think all the saber rattling might be mostly bluff intended to motivate Iran to curtail any involvement in Iraq.

BushCo may have their sites on South America, I think that would be equally disastrous though.

I hate to say it, but when I hear non-partisan experts say our military is overstretched to the breaking point, I feel a certain sense of relief -- maybe this is the only way to limit BushCo's militarism.

[Greyhound]

10. Kind of makes you wonder where the trillions and trillions of dollars

we've poured down that rat-hole over the last couple of decades went though, doesn't it? I mean really, we've put about 200,000 troops in the field for 5 years with sub-standard equipment, most of whom were robbed from state reserves, and our military is at the breaking point?

Where'd all the money go?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. I think an awfully large amount has been...

...siphoned off by private interests...

[closeupready]

7. Yes, yes. Further, as Al Gore states in his book,

I believe the Iraq War hardens the resolve of not just Iran but others to develop deterrents of their own against arbitary invasion by more powerful states.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Agreed. The lesson for...

... small, resource rich countries in South America, Africa and the Middle East is clear: "The more defenseless you are, the more attractive a target you make."