Method In The Madness; Why They Want To Attack Iran

[laststeamtrain]

Method In The Madness

Why They Want To Attack Iran

By Ed Kinane


<snip>

Realpolitik demands we crush our rivals. Despite its intense resistance, militarily Iraq is broken – in the Middle East that just leaves Iran. Going after Iran would further align our power structure to Israel’s military machine and to its allies here in the US. Neutralizing Iran would further strangle those pesky Palestinians.

But note: it’s delusory to think that attacking Iran will just be a spasm of quick, “surgical” air strikes. Wars morph; violence bounces. Violating Iran will generate enormous blowback, both in the region and here in the US. This country will polarize. Widespread dissent or “terrorist” retaliation – contrived or otherwise -- might lead to martial law.

Surely the think tankers have explored the martial law card and have worked out every last detail of implementation. The plans are right there on the shelf. Martial law could provide the pretext for postponing the November election. Far fetched? Does the gang in Washington act as if it’s ready to bow out? Can it really allow subpoena power and indictment power to fall into unfriendly hands?

Now, if elections do go forward and we’re bogged down with Iran, McCain -- marketed as the tough, commander-in-chief type – will be more likely to win this otherwise uphill vote. But even if Obama wins, at least his White House years might be hamstrung cleaning up one vast mess. An Iran war begun before either the election or inauguration would, conveniently, derail any partisan domestic agenda he and a Democrat-controlled Congress may have.

***

If you’ve read this far, go with me a little further. Consider this back room scenario. Sometime late this summer Cheney and Bush’s people offer the Obama camp a deal: “Have your new attorney general drop any Iraq war crime charges and we won’t drop the bombs...”

<more>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20342.htm

[WhiteTara]

1. let's say Okay

with our fingers crossed and do it anyway.

[Salviati]

2. And have the meeting taped, and put up on youtube...

'cause lord knows the networks wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole...

[bemildred]

3. Well, this argument seems to be built on a number of false or questionable premises ...

1. "Realpolitik demands we crush our rivals." -- Well no, it demands that you crush your rivals if you can. It demands that you adapt to the exigencies of power. It does NOT demand that you do stupid things. Anyway, Iran is not our rival, it's more like a rebellious client regime that we want to bring to heel.

2. "militarily Iraq is broken" -- Well, it never was much, but it was a rebellious client regime, so bringing it to heel was at least a "realpolitik" sort of thing to do; but we have not even managed that, we have made it an ally of Iran, and we will not control the oil.

3. Paraphrasing: McCain is more likely to win if we are in a hot war with Iran. Bwaaahaaahaaa. Sure he is. That would be the icing on the cake. Did Nixon run on a war platform or a peace platform? He ran promising to end the war. The notion that the Amurkin people will flock to the flag one more time is fatuous. If there was another terrorist incident on the scale of 9/11, maybe, but it would have to be faked, and faked really well. The Japanese really did bomb Pearl Harbor, we suckered them. Iran will do no such thing.