Here is why Bush must attack Iran....

[Postman]

Because he has made such a mess in Iraq that a power vacuum has been created that is now being filled by Iran and has essentially created what can be called "Greater Iran."

Bush did in Iraq what the Iranian Army couldn't do in 10 years of fighting....Win power and influence.

Israel, one of the benefactors and motivators of the PNAC policy that created the problem in the first place, is now pushing for Bush to attack Iran.

Is the dog wagging the tail or is the tail wagging the dog?

[saltpoint]

1. We're in the last year and a half of his administration and we're 5 months away

from the Iowa caucus.

A strike on Iran now by the Bush administration would not enjoy the support he received nationally and internationally with the Iraq strike. And the Iraq strike was not unanimous even in the red states.

The political price -- never mind the military risk -- of a strike on Iran would be enormous.

I don't think even Dick Cheney is that stupid. I think Dick Cheney is that arrogant, but in the end, he would not be able to assemble a set of lies and deceits persuasive enough to launch a military assault on Iran.

And in any case, I think the entire "coalition of the willing" would be down to just Cheney, John Bolton, and Bill Kristol.

[billyoc]

3. You forgot Podhoretz!

:rofl:

[Postman]

5. They don't care about political prices to pay.....

Bush Sr. sent troops into Somalia right before he left office just in time for Clinton to be handed the turkey and take the blame for....

I don't think they care about political accountability. That word is anathema to them. It's all about their profits and protecting interests.

An attack on Iran creates more profit for them. It would require perpetual massive spending on military contracts in order to fend off the hordes of angry Persians that will surely be created by doing such an act...

Essentially, a new paradigm to replace the old Soviet Union as the reason for using up our tax dollars to go toward "socialism for the rich" programs (in the form of tax dollars handed to corporations who make war - GE, Honeywell, Raytheon, McDonnell-Douglass, etc.)as opposed to using that money for social programs (aka the people)

[saltpoint]

8. I take your points, but the political landscape and room temperature for

for war and Bush cronies have plunged dramatically since winter of 2001-02

BushCo had public support, such as it was, for the Iraq invasion. That is long gone.

I don't think even the pro-war WMD Republicans would go along with yet a second war, especially when the first one has gone so badly. You're right, IMO, that profit is powerful with Bush cronies and immorally drives policy with them, but political survival counts in an election year.

I think BushCo has played for its last chips on the table.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I think you overestimate Cheney.

He IS that stupid. After all, isn't he the guy who took over Haliburton and ran it into the ground with the asbestos merger? The only way he could salvage that was to start a war.

[saltpoint]

9. Agree, there is a significant blackout section of the man's brain,

and we could never accuse him of moral dignity generally and altruism especially.

On the other hand, I think he shot his wad on Iraq. And it worked for a while. It isn't working now. And the appetite for an assault on Iran is likely to be a great deal less now than when Cheney's chums lied to us about the weapons of mass destruction.

There was also complicity by Tenet and others in the intel community who went along, played along, stool-pigeoned along with Cheney's lies the first time. I think those folks will be less inclined to hang with Dick this time around.

[radfringe]

11. you are assuming bush/cheney

give a shit about national/international support or about what such an attack would do the republics party

bush/cheney aren't running for any office, so why would they care how it will play out in the campaigns and elections? If/when iran is invaded it will be one more mess for the next president/congress to clean up

things are messed up and fucked up enough without adding more

we can't wait until jan-09, and the only way to stop bush/cheney is to remove them from office. But impeachaphobes won't support impeachment because the votes aren't there, and the votes aren't there because impeachaphobes won't support it

conclusion: we're fucked

[H2O Man]

13. While there is

probably not much of a chance that the Cheneyites are seriously considering warfare on a level that would include occupying all or part of Iran, the possibility that they plan 'limited" air strikes on specific targets is a concern. There are a number of reasons that I think this should be taken seriously. They include:

(a) The neoconservatives have had a stated policy since the early 1990s, in which they express a determination to keep any "competitor" from becoming a global or even regional power that could challenge the USA.

(b) The failed Cheney policy in Iraq has allowed Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East.

(c) The neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, largely ignored by the corporate media because it involves "sensitive" issues, involves planning centered upon Iranian military "threats" to the region.

(d) The neoconservatives' poster boy for democracy in the Islamic world, Mr. Chalabi, was not simply a double agent for Iran, but more, represented forces that the neocons wish to bring to power in Iran. This has been the case since the Iran-contra days.

(e) The president is being pressured by the only group that still supports him, to take some action before he leaves office. His shallow grasp of history, and his lack of grasp of reality, makes him prone to thinking he can play a divining/defining role in what he views as a conflict of bibical proportions.

(f) Bush hinted at thoughts occupying space in his mind when he spoke of the US "failure" in Cambodia, which I believe hints at his belief that those advocating air strikes on "limited" targets on Iran is a just cause.

(g) There is reason to consider the possibility that the US is trying to bluff the Iranian leaders, hoping they will be intimidated by the threats. I would suggest that there is little evidence that Iran has responded in the desired way, if that "bluff theory" is true. Yet it continues.

(h) There are reasons to believe that the US and other forces have been involved in small-scale, covert operations within Iran. Such actions do not tend to be the "ends" in and of themselves; rather, they usually set the stage for something else.

I think that it is possible that the Cheney administration will conduct air strikes on targets within Iran.

[saltpoint]

14. And even that he wants to.

I don't dispute that at all, but believe the stage is no longer set for the same level or ease of skullduggery that precipitated the first war against Saddam Hussein.

Fool me once... etc. I don't think The Company is on board for another romp in the Middle East.

[H2O Man]

15. Right.

The stage isn't the same. But few people think that the administration is considering a war of occupation in Iran. In fact, I haven't seen anyone make a serious case that there is any chance of it. Thus, rather than consider the chances of what everyone agrees won't happen, it might be more beneficial to consider what is possible.

While the Bush-Cheney administration does not enjoy much of any support for their policy in Iraq right now, other than among the international neoconservatives pushing an extremist agenda, there is also scant evidence of any stabalizing force right now. There has yet to be any serious challenge, for example, from the congress -- unless one considers fully funding the "surge" as a step towards limiting the administration's violence. Thus, in terms of "limited" air stikes on targets in Iran, if the Cheneyites were intent upon doing so, one could reasonably ask what you see on the stage that would prevent them?

[saltpoint]

20. My best hunch says that it's a intra-administrative pissing match

between Cheney et al who want the strike and cooler brows who know better than to even propose it.

Unhappily there is not an adult among them, or if there is, he or she has been consigned to a distant file room location and hasn't been heard from.

Rice at State is ineffectual; presumably that's why Negroponte is now there as Deputy, and his MO tends toward the hyper-discreet and clandestine, as demonstrated by his Central American puppeteering. If State is a player, he's the player, and would likely oppose a direct strike.

The Pentagon might be compliant with White House pressure, but they have extensive contacts in Congress and the Company, and the mood has shifted. I'm not seeing Gates, for example, making the same golly-gee-whiz-slam-dunk-Mr. -President mistakes of his predecessor. Gates left a cozy job in Academia to pull this bunch of fools out of the ditch and I doubt seriously he's tasting blood. He's custodial, IMO, and will likely prefer to return to the college position possibly sooner than January 09.

Still believe that a core group with Cheney as its instigator cravenly push for military strikes against Iran but don't think this time they have the horses.

[The Stranger]

21. They are not "reality based" -- that is, they will create a new fear/war/power nexus.

[saltpoint]

23. As governments, some of them, are want to do. But there is now critical

mass risen against a declaration of unwanted and unecessary military action, including from within military ranks.

I don't believe you've missed a thing in your analysis. But I do not believe Cheney has the cards in his hand to run the table this time. By contrast, Iraq was "easy" -- that is, in a very short period the Bush talking heads could careen around on the talkshows and construct a fear-rich rationale for deposing Hussein. The occupation has been bungled beyond anyone's imagination and remains to the hour a bloody mess. There's always one last shot in a gun near a fallen soldier, and Cheney could lunge for it and shoot. But if there was tentative, intermittent, and wobbly support internationally for the Iraq war, there'd be considerably less for a new one against Iran.

There's no critical constituency to advance the case and the average voter has already caught this act before and didn't like it much.

[seemslikeadream]

2. Doesn't it seem that's what they wanted all along?

[AlinPA]

4. The R's need another war to get the flags waving so they can call everyone

traitors and campaign as the patriots.

[Lint Head]

7. If this lying traitor attacks Iran we 'will' have terrorism come here.

Then the little dictator will declare marshall law. Are you willing to stand by and let this happen? Call your Congressman or Congresswoman. :dem:

[althecat]

10. I wish you were wrong..... however I fear you are not.

[spindoctor]

12. Do you have something solid on Israel's pushing?

And there are many more reasons why Bush "must" attack Iran. There are even more reasons why he shouldn't.

Do I trust this administration to do the right thing?

[Disturbed]

16. "a second war"?

Afghanistan isn't going so well either.

The Shia Govt. of Iraq is now alligned with Iran. The Shia population might not stay out of an attack on Iran. China & Russia might not lay back either. Syria might send in troops to Iraq. There are a whole lot of things that could happen that would devaste the USA if such an attack were to occur. One thing is certain, Iran would not merely complain about an air attack.

[seemslikeadream]

18. HERE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1647826

[and-justice-for-all]

17. If those idiots attack Iran...

Do not think that surrounding countries will just sit by and watch it happen, I think they will say "Well Fuck it!" and just turn the entire region into a living hell.

[bemildred]

19. You DO know that Iraq attacked Iran, not the other way around?

Iran has never shown (in recent centuries) any expansive tendencies until Shrub and his idiot handlers came along and destroyed Iraq. In the circumstances I don't really see what else Iran could do, and in the circumstances they have been quite restrained about grabbing influence and throwing their weight around.

[Postman]

22. I understand that....

Iraq's attack on Iran was just another way of keeping Iran in a box....

[yardwork]

24. Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi royal family is a long-time business partner to the Bushes and their cronies. The Saudis influenced Bush to invade Iraq. Are they encouraging strikes or even invasion of Iran? The Saudis don't care what happens to our country as long as they have a market for their oil. I don't think that the Saudi elite are any more reality based than the Bush administration.

My concern is that we will have another "terrorist" attack against the U.S. Bush is capable of thinking that that would be enough to declare martial law in the U.S. and invade anybody he wants. I wonder if he's right?

[BlueIris]

25. Ding ding ding. Ladies and gentleman, the thread is won.

Thank you very much, and good day.

[yardwork]

26. Why, thank you!

:hi: