Anyone here but me think that Bush won't actually strike Iran?

[Ignacio Upton]

I fully agree that the administration wants to go launch a strike, considering the fact that they are repeating the same process of manufacturing consent that they did with Iraq. However, I don't see it happening. Why?

1. There was already the opportunity to do so with the British sailors. Bush didn't so much as even threaten Iran with the aircraft carriers already in the Persian Gulf.

2. Striking Iran would lead to a massive casualties and loss of aircraft carriers. The Iranians already have Chinese-built and Russian-built missiles that could take out some of our ships. If Bush is dumb enough to have part of our Navy destroyed, then this could embolden another country (China vs. Taiwain, for example) to do shit that they wouldn't normally do. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 because Britain had pulled back resources from the area. Iran would also have an excuse to pour troops across the Iraqi border, and even openly ally with Al-Sadr.

3. Oil prices would skyrocket, and the Republican party would be toast as a result. I don't think that Rove would approve of an attack this stupid. Americans can stay complacent about the war right now because it hasn't affected the daily routine of American Idol-Britney's cooch-Anna Nicole's corpse. High oil prices caused by Iran block the Straight of Hormuz would cause a recession pretty quickly, and send Bush's job approval into the single digits.

Please, chill out! For the upteenth time in the LBN section, I saw today a headline stating "Iran Attack Imminent! We're Screwn!11!!" or something to that effect. I agree that Bush wants to attack, but even he knows that there are ramifications that will hurt him.

[rwenos]

1. Yes, It would be Surprising

There's an old Supreme Court case saying the President is at his most powerful when he acts as Commander in Chief WITH the people's support. Bush doesn't have it.

Oddly, it's Republican opposition that restrains him. I think he'd pick a fight with the Dem's -- even with them in the majority -- if he had the country behind him. But with his approval polls in the 28-30% range -- and with no looming catastrophe like impeachment hearings -- he probably thinks he can run out the clock -- there are only about 610 days to go, aren't there?

Since his domestic agenda is dead on arrival on the Hill, there's not much else for Bush to do, but give speeches at military bases, propose stuff that dies on Capitol Hill, and play tin soldiers in Iraq. And this guy is not known for his cojones . . .

ON EDIT:

It's interesting you think a carrier battle group would be at risk in the Persian Gulf? Don't you think a carrier battle group can protect itself against incoming Exocets (or similar)? And on the other hand, the carriers don't really even need to be inside the Gulf.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. I think political selfishness will prevail over personal selfishness

While Bush is stubborn, I honestly don't think that his handlers (especially Rove) want an attack on Iran. I can see Rove having a stroke while pouring over the poll numbers in reaction to sky-high oil prices and the reinstatement of the draft to fight back an Iranian incursion into Iraq.

[rwenos]

10. Yes, Rove Wants a Bogeyman

You're right, I think. Iran is still useful to the Bushies as a Bogeyman -- galvanizing their red-meat militarist constituency, and as a Bogeyman to scare the electorate. But that country is mountainous, wealthy, hard to invade (it's not tank warfare in open country, like Iraq), and would be fiendishly difficult to control after conquest.

Oh, and one other thing. They ain't got the troops.

[mike_c]

3. I agree that it's unlikely, but I also believe that Bush REALLY wants to...

...attack Iran, and that he has all the pieces in place to do it whenever he screws up the courage-- or the recklessness-- to insist on it. I think he is a very dangerous man with access to very dangerous toys, and his personal judgment is NOT up to the job of restraining him. I suspect that he would have already initiated serious provocations, like aggressive violations of Iranian airspace, if he were not being restrained by others, presumably the military command.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. True

I'm willing to bet that possible resignation of Generals, Rove worrying about political ramifications, and fear of actually being impeached if the attack hurts this country, are factors keeping him in check.

[Fovea]

5. It is the Rubicon

Now the question is, will the die be cast?

I think there is not a soul on earth, including GWB that can say for certain.

Is he crazy enough? Yes.
Can he be stopped?
Probably not within the confines of the law.


Will he?
Wait and see is the only rational response short of insurrection.

And we do not yet have the will to dissolve this criminal conspiracy masquerading as a government.
When Nancy puts impeachment back on the table, we might be closer to an answer to that question.

[SusanaMontana41]

13. i really like your answer

especially the last sentence.

[NanceGreggs]

6. He's an Idiot ...

... but I'm sure the non brain-dead around him have made it clear that his own party will get on the impeachment bandwagon if he so much as spits in Iran's direction.

It's not that they care about the loss of life, etc. It's because they know they're already hanging by a thread going into '08, and another war will sink their chances of being elected dog-catcher -- which, by the way, is about the only position they're still in the running for.

[AlCzervik]

7. i have never thought he would because it's not an easy one like Iraq was

my bil was born an Iran and lived there until he was 16 and my sister as been there to visit with him a few times, after hearing her talk about it, and she isn't a fan btw it seems ludicrous--not that going to war with iraq was sane but you know what i mean.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. The "insurgency" in Iraq has slowed him down.

I would guess that it has had to make them rethink their plans for mid-east transformation/domination.

[rodeodance]

9. I think it is highly unlikely

[NormanYorkstein]

11. I don't think he has the ability

They have been gunning for it for over a year now, but I don't think the Bush neo-cons can do it, one major reason is that the old-cons, Bush I's oil money, doesn't want it since it could seriously hurt their profits from day one.

Russia did remove their workers from the nuke sites, and I had thought Israel might strike "selected targets" but I don't think they can get away with it either. The world is in a tense stand-still at the moment.

[Fovea]

31. I respectfully disagree.

A war with Iran would be the answer to both American oil producer's and refinery company's prayers.

If you think the old Lee got fat in 2005 and 2006, imagine what $5.50-$7.50 a gallon gas would do his Jabba like physique.

They don't care what happens to the rest of us. They just want to score big and move to Dubai... or anywhere with no extradition and lots of brown people to exploit. The game is winding down, and it is time to make a killing on what is left of America's economy and split.

[NormanYorkstein]

35. in theory that's true

In theory the price of oil would go up and their profits would skyrocket. But in reality the political backlash would be so intense we'd probably have price controls, which they want to avoid any sort of precedent for.

[Fovea]

47. Like War Communism

we will be at total war, and have War Capitalism.

Hallmarks--
Shortages
No price controls
Rationing
Cancelled elections.
Impressed labor with hourly wage caps, but no executive salary caps and no overtime pay, period.
A full prison employment policy.

Eventually, a non-convertable currency for wages and bullion (and govt assets) transfers to pay for military (contractor) spending.
Basically, everything FA Hyeck said collectivism would do, will be done in the name of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

[Ignacio Upton]

41. I think fat bastard will pop like a bubble if a recession is caused

[The Magistrate]

12. An Attack On Iran Does Not Seem Likely, Sir

There is no doubt some elements in the administration want to attack Iran, but it does not seem in the cards as things stand now.

[Cobalt-60]

14. I hope you're right. I was wrong last time

I couldn't believe that Bush would prang our country with an illegal adventure in Iraq.
I now believe they will stop at absolutely nothing to maintain political power.
As you have pointed out the carriers are being used as billion dollar bait.
England has already tried once to provoke Iran with a territorial water violation.
Bushco has been financing Pakistani terrorist attacks into Iran.
I also expect a false flag WMD attack during the 2008 election season, probably on New York or San Francisco.

[MadMaddie]

15. What you are stating are logical facts...

1. There was already the opportunity to do so with the British sailors etc...

This is true, and that is because Iran did not fire one weapon. * was looking for that one glimmering moment when he could claim that the Iranians attacked the Brits.....
no bullets no war...to the dismay of the * cabal...


2. Striking Iran would lead to a massive casualties and loss of aircraft carriers....etc

This is true, however; once again you are talking about logic....if the same logic were used to understand the repurcussions to attacking Iraq...then we wouldn't be losing US soldiars and Iraqi's on a daily basis....

So casualties and the fallout impacting other countries does not enter the thoughts of the * cabal...

3. Oil prices would skyrocket, and the Republican party would be toast as a result. I don't think that Rove would approve of an attack this stupid.....

You are talking logic again....

Back an animal into a corner and anything is possible. This administration is going down and we must not fool ourselves into thinking that they are above taking the whole country down with them....

Call it Tinhat...whatever you would like...but as in the past when we have come to the conclusion that they have hit rock bottom in their pursuit of power and domination....they always seem to top themselves.

Just sayin...

[L. Coyote]

16. It won't happen overtly. Secret warfare yes.

Imagine bombs and missles hitting the concentrated forces in the Green Zone. Would US forces there survive? Would the aircraft carriers come under attack too? How many other nations would join the counter attack.

In sum, too risky!!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

17. Bush and Cheney are in no rush... the Iraq war is still making money.

I think the fact that Iran turned over the British hostages as an "Easter Present" (making Iranians look more human then our government tells us they are) kind of put a damper on Bush's plans (for the time being).

I also think bush is waiting until the funding is in his hands.

[BlooInBloo]

18. The idea that "he wouldn't do it because it'd be stupid-or-costly-or-whatever" is laughable...

... You *do* recall of whom we're speaking, right?

[Ignacio Upton]

23. I'm not saying that Bush himself doesn't want to do it

He very much still does. However, I think that Rove and the military brass won't support it. Rove was willing to help build up support for going into Iraq because Bush still had post-9/11 inflated approval ratings and global goodwill back in 2002. Now its 2007, and the public has seen just how Iraq has turned out, not to mention Bush's incompetence in areas such as Katrina. Rove will continue to wage his "permanent campaign" but will do so more narrowly now that we have Congress.

[soothsayer]

19. Depends if we're mad enough at China to cut off their oil for 2 months

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Then they'll simply retaliate by calling in our debts

n/t.

[lligrd]

20. Actually, he Wanted To Use The Aircraft Carriers But

Britain forbid it.

[The Count]

21. I think we avoided one sure point of striking - when Blair asked him to STFU

But dunno how long they'll be able to keep them. Sy hersch said Cheney really wants it!

[Ignacio Upton]

27. He also said that we would attack in 2006

That did not happen either.

[TwilightGardener]

22. I agree with most of the other posters, it seems unlikely, because

the top brass, Gates, Rice, and Congress would literally have a cow. Chimpy would then isolate himself from whatever stalwart high-level support he still has. The 30-percenters are not in Congress or in his administration--they know what's up. However, I think he wanted to at least "buzz" or otherwise threaten Iran during the British-sailor thing, and England told him, no thanks, you've helped quite enough already.

[CK_John]

25. Timing my be bad for *, but Iran is not helping. n/t

[Lint Head]

26. He will strike Iran because..

he is a cynical criminal that wants to leave the mess to a Democrat to clean up. Doesn't anyone realize that this dictator will do what all dictators do. If it gets too hot, say he gets charged with a crime, he will move to South America. Fact: He already owns land there.:dem:

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Obviously we are not going to attack Iran.

Anyone who says otherwise is--in my opinion--simply looking for something to be outraged about.

[catzies]

37. "Looking for...outrage!" I call that ilk "the professionally offended." n/t

[Bucky]

29. I'm trying to think of one example of any Bush attacking a strong opponent

Hmmm, nope, not one. They launch wars against battered has-beens and former CIA employees. Since Iran is neither, there was never a risk of a deliberate attack. The risk has always been of a triggering accident after all the reckless saber-rattling on both sides that escalates into an unplanned conflict. But Bush, being a bully by nature, would never pick a fight with a well defended opponent.

[whoneedstickets]

30. Beware of the wounded animal...

It would be lunacy to attack Iran, but the administration has never appeared beyond a little lunacy. If things get desperate enough, who knows. They are reaching a point where they could have nothing to lose.

[gravity]

32. He doesn't have the support

The last thing the American public want to see right now is another war. I doubt the Democrat controlled congress is going to let it happen, especially when half of the Republicans now won't support another war.

[Ignacio Upton]

34. Note, it's DemocratIC controlled Congress

I know you're not using that term deliberately, but the right-wingers use it a lot as a slur for our side of the aisle.

[melody]

33. He can't

He'd love to, but Congress (Democrats and Republicans) would flee him like a fomenting
leper.

[Contrary1]

36. I gave up long ago trying to figure out what

monumental disaster this administration would undertake next.

Look at all the damage in the last six years. Not saying they will or
they won't. I just think that they are capable of trying anything.

[lligrd]

38. I Can't Help But Recall When Many Said He Would Never

invade Iraq.

[Ignacio Upton]

40. I don't personally remember many people saying that

Hell, I even remember hearing people on 9/11 say that Saddam Hussein did it!

[The Count]

45. Yup. Even I made that prediction shortly after 9.11

And other than that, I got them pretty well...

[Vidar]

39. Hard to tell with psychopaths.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

42. The Redirection -- Sy Hersh

Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by Seymour M. Hersh

A STRATEGIC SHIFT



In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East...

More http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

I can't say I am overly optimistic about the coming months... the chimperor and his Dick are very unstable now.

[dkf]

43. "The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2051971,00.html

including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq against coalition forces.

At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less confrontational.

The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout."

I hope you are right but I suspect Bush is waiting for his opening.

[AshevilleGuy]

44. Poppy left Bill Clinton with Somalia.

Junior might just leave a Dem president with a mess that would make Somalia look like the proverbial Day at the Beach. He and Uncle Dickie and Rove could snicker about it for years. It wouldn't occur until after the election, need I say.

[The Count]

46. That is very possible - the lame duck last kick in the face.

[ContraBass Black]

48. I thought they wouldn't strike Iraq because it was so obviously and catastrophically stupid,

but, guess what...

[eridani]

49. Why would Iran ally with al-Sadr?

Aren't they closer to SCIRI?

[pampango]

50. Now that the "Russian intelligence" inspired prediction of a

Good Friday attack has fallen into the waste heap, let the mid-April, late-April, early-May predictions begin. ;)