Bush Regime attack on Iran: Highly Doubtful

[Disturbed]

Iran, Iraq Herald 'New Chapter' in Shiite-Led Alliance
By Andy Mosher and Robin Wright
The Washington Post
Sunday 17 July 2005

Former enemies to forge closer ties on security, economy, leaders say.
Baghdad - A quarter-century after Iraq's invasion of Iran launched the Middle East's bloodiest modern war, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari arrived in Tehran on Saturday for a three-day visit that officials on both sides said signals a new alliance that could change the religious and political balance of power in the region.

Jafari and more than 10 other Iraqi cabinet ministers are scheduled to work with their Iranian counterparts on closer security and economic cooperation, particularly on counterterrorism, control of their porous 900-mile frontier, and oil, gas and manufacturing deals. Jafari, a Shiite Muslim who spent almost a decade of exile in Iran while President Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, is the first Iraqi head of government to visit Shiite-ruled Iran in more than a dozen years.
"This is a new chapter in relations with Iraq. In the future, we will witness a sharp change and promotion in relations," said Iran's first vice president, Mohammad Reza Aref, who met with Jafari after his arrival Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Jafari, in turn, said a bond with Iran was an "inseparable part of Iraq's foreign relations."
On Sunday, Jafari is scheduled to meet Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as outgoing President Mohammad Khatami and President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Iran, which President Bush dubbed one of three nations in an "axis of evil," has become Iraq's closest ally after the United States, and the countries' new relationship is a dramatic turnabout after decades of tension, highlighted by the 1980-88 war that resulted in more than a million casualties. It is a major shift even from the tentative ties established last year by the U.S.-appointed interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, which often charged that Iran was meddling in Iraq.

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705D.shtml

* In my view an attack on Iran would be a huge disaster for the Bush Regime. The Shi'ites of Iraq would rise up against the U.S. forces within Iraq. A few million Shi'ites have tolerated the Occupation so far but an attack on Iran would in my view spark a violent uprising against the U.S. within Iraq.

[BeHereNow]

1. Please read-

While I do not disagree with you, I am
extremely concerned that these people
are intending exactly that in the event
of another 9-11.
The following is from my post in GD on
the same topic. BHN

"One can only wonder, then, what
their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in
a recent issue of The American Conservative by
intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from
Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has
tasked the United States Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to
be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States. The plan
includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing
both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many
of the targets are hardened or are deep
underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons,hence the nuclear option.
As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional
on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States. Several
senior Air Force officers involved in the planning
are reportedly appalled at the implications of what
they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an
unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any
objections.' "
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

BHN

[Disturbed]

3. I did read that.

Aside Iraq there is also Syria that has a Military pact with Iran. Then the two biggies: China and Russia

An attack on Iran would mean WW3 for real. As insane and stupid as the Bush Regime is, I still feel that the Oligarchy behind the Bush Regime will not allow WW3 to occur.

[BeHereNow]

6. Why are they drawing up the plan in your estimation?

Do you think they feel they could justify
such an attack by connecting Iran to
another attack here?
That is what I fear.
Politically, they would say to Russia and China-
"We acted in self defense, what are you going to do about it?"

I have been re reading parts of the PNAC document
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" and clearly
Iran has ALWAYS been the objective, their problem?
Justifying an attack, so in light of all it-
What do you think?
I am afraid that if there is another attack
in the US, the plan is to blame Iran and
attack "in self defense."
BHN

[BeHereNow]

14. Sincerely interested in your thoughts on this topic...

Waiting your reply.
I realy need to hear your thoughts on why this is NOT
possible in regards to the mis-administration.
I NEED some hope.
:shrug:
BHN

[Jamison]

2. I agree

I believe Bushco thinks that attacking Iran would be like shoving a stick in a hornet's nest.

[thebigidea]

4. it would spark a violent uprising against the U.S. within Iraq?

silly me, I thought we sparked that years ago.

[onecent]

5. I agree it would be a huge disaster, but I almost think * and his

sidekicks want a violent uprising. They can't get the American people to respond TO ANYTHING...and I still think they think the rapture is a suitable way to go out.

[Disturbed]

7. The uprising in Iraq is mild compared to ..

what it could be if al Sistani issued a Fatwa against the U.S. Occupation. He is the behind the scene leader of Iraq. On his word, al Sadr could lead an uprising that would make the current one of the Sunnis seem mild in comparison.

The Bush Regime may seem like it is all powerful but it is a front for the Oligarchy of Global Multi-Natl. Capitalists. I am saying that a war with Iran would not be allowed due to Global Economic concerns.

[wli]

8. Iranian oil bourse to trade in Euros

Google for "Iranian oil bourse".

[Disturbed]

9. OK I read that.

This means that Iran will sell oil to Europe and China, exclusevely?

A war with Iran would be opposed by almost every nation but what would any nation do to stop that from occuring?

[wli]

10. not entirely sure, the SCO is a probable opponent

The SCO is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a military coalition formed by Russia and China and possibly several of their satellite states.

The Middle East doesn't look terribly organized, but my guess is approximately every predominantly Muslim country in the planet would join the fray, in no small part due to being sick of being targeted for their oil.

[enid602]

11. BRIC

Also, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, China and India (almost half the world's population)) Alliance has said it would counter any US move in the area.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. Depends what they'd stand to gain. Bush history? Smash and grab.

W has profited wildly through leaving a trail of smoking ruins behind him all of his life; why would igniting a true Jihad be any different? America would have to unite in war (which W profits from) and WalMarts will spring up out of the ruins (HEY! Halliburton rebuilds war zones! How lucky we are that someone runs a company like that.)

Are BushCo just another Napoleon/Atilla/etc.? Just adrenaline junkies? Astonishing opportunists who don't give a damn about anything but themselves?

"The ones who like damage." -White Noise

[wli]

13. Napoleon was a charismatic demagogue, Attila a patrician wannabe

So I'd say most like Attila.