Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Next We Take Tehran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:00 AM
Original message
Next We Take Tehran
2006/06/30
Mother Jones
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=539114

{snips}

President Bush may or may not order a massive aerial bombardment of Iran later this year. Or he may wait until 2007. Or he may simply escalate a risky confrontation with Iran through covert action and economic sanctions. But whatever the next act in the crisis, don’t be fooled by the assertion that the problem is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms. Iran is a decade away from gaining access to the bomb, according to the administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate, and despite all the talk about the ugliness of the theocratic regime in Tehran, the likely showdown is, at bottom, driven by the geopolitics of oil. With one-tenth of the world’s petroleum reserves and one-sixth of its natural gas reserves, Iran sits in a strategic geographical position that makes it the cockpit for control of the entire Middle East. It straddles the Persian Gulf’s choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz; it has important influence among Shiites throughout Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states; and it borders highly contested real estate to the north, from the Caucasus to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia.


The logic of the Bush administration is inexorable. Its ironclad syllogism is this: The United States is and must remain the world’s preeminent power, if need be by using its superior military might. One of the two powers with the ability to emerge as a rival—China—depends vitally on the Persian Gulf and Central Asia for its future supply of oil; the other—Russia—is heavily engaged in Iran, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region. Therefore, if the United States can secure a dominant position in the Gulf, it will have an enormous advantage over its potential challengers. Call it zero-sum geopolitics: Their loss is our gain.


By inaugurating a war of choice against a nation that had not attacked the United States, and by justifying his actions under a new doctrine of unilateral, preventive war, Bush shattered the U.S. establishment’s policy consensus while alienating America’s closest allies, angering its rivals, and provoking a storm of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Now, like a high-stakes blackjack player doubling down, the president is letting the world know that he is ready to do it all over again in Iran.


In addition to exaggerating the nuclear threat, the administration has been accusing Iran of harboring Al Qaeda fugitives and supporting bin Laden’s movement, though there is little or no evidence to support these claims. As in Iraq, Washington is sinking millions of dollars into propaganda efforts and alliances with dubious exile groups; according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up Iran intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Frankfurt, London, and Azerbaijan to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.” Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the vice president and a top State Department official, is overseeing a program to spend $85 million on support for dissidents in Iran and to pay for anti-Iran propaganda. She has helped create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, and she reportedly supervises an office called the Iran-Syria Operations Group. As with Iraq, U.S. officials—realizing that U.N. support for an attack on Iran is nil—are talking openly about bypassing the world body and forging yet another “coalition of the willing” to confront Iran. And, of course, as with Iraq, there is the escalating rhetoric, the talk of “all options” being on the table, the news of Special Forces already operating in the country to foment civil conflict.

“If that is déjà vu, then so be it,” John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at the U.N., told reporters in March. “That is the course we are on.”


full article: http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=539114

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. Tin-Foil Hat suggestion time...
feel free to blast my suggestion out of the water as pure stupidity, but here it goes...

How much US debt does China own? How many American corporations are doing business in China?

What if it is China pulling the puppet strings?

Is it in China's interest to have the US military occupy oil rich areas ensuring future energy supplies for them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Iran has a $100bl oil deal pending with China
China's interest is to prevent sanctions or any embargo of oil that would affect them. I can't see China cooperating on anything economically with the U.S. while they have us on the ropes, collecting the interest on the massive amount of U.S. securities they own as we continue to borrow more. They'd like to see us bogged down indefinitely in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending ourselves silly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. If they were determined to stay the preeminent power in the world,
Edited on Fri Jun-30-06 10:30 AM by cornermouse
then WHY did they sell all our technology and allow the majority of our industries to be shipped to China?

Does anyone remember when we had to hold up on the war because we couldn't get enough supplies due to a strike at the ports? The fact that so much of what we actually needed had to be shipped in from China and other places instead of made right here in the U.S. before we could even go to war should tell you right there how dependent we are on China already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oil makes up the bulk of the competition, oil sources
China, Japan, Europe, all have increased demands. They are nudging our sources in Saudi Arabia, looking to coopt out sources in Venezuela (with their cooperation), looking for pipeline deals from former Russian provinces through Afghanistan, Pakistan to Turkey, and looking to hold on to the deals they have with Iran.

The Bush regime goal is to make the environment surrounding Iran, Russia, and Venezuela so unstable that it make it harder for other countries to do business with them. The plan for everyone else is to undermine any U.S. preeminence in the oil trade that still exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. This is yet another case of the people running this country
overestimating themselves and underestimating the rest of the world. They may need oil, but they also need goods and services. Its not going to work and if they insist on playing this out to the bitter end then this country and all of us in it are doomed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC