tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post9168486620402449785..comments2024-01-21T02:42:13.447-05:00Comments on Middle East Reality: Iran Thinks Attack Talk is a BluffArnold Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-82524779407472117302007-10-30T23:25:00.000-04:002007-10-30T23:25:00.000-04:00"Do you think Cheney expects a regime change from ..."Do you think Cheney expects a regime change from bombing?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure, but I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>"Do you think he expects Iran not to retaliate, or that Iran will retaliate in a way that does not substantially hurt the US?"<BR/><BR/>I don't think he cares.<BR/><BR/>"Do you think Cheney thinks the US can bomb Iran without being drawn into a ground campaign?"<BR/><BR/>I think he wants a ground campaign. We can't get the Khuzestan oil fields without one, and that's what Cheney wants.<BR/><BR/>"Or do you think Cheney is not calculating at all, and will bomb without regard to the consequences?"<BR/><BR/>Well, "without regard" is a wide statement. I think Cheney wants the war regardless of what he THINKS will be the consequences. The question is: what does he think the consequences will be? Since he's agitating for war,clearly those consequences are less important to him than the war. That's obvious.<BR/><BR/>Bush may be another matter, but I doubt that, too. Bush may have some issues with unilaterally declaring war on Iran, but since he made that "WWIII" remark, it seems clear to me that those issues aren't terribly threatening to his purpose.<BR/><BR/>"In 2002 Bush said if the UNSC doesn't impose a resolution it will be irrelevant. Today Bush sees sanctions not coming. Sees that Iran isn't going to back down and still says diplomacy is his first option."<BR/><BR/>If you're still accepting what Bush says as relevant, you're seriously in a time warp. Bush can easily say diplomacy is his first option while he's preparing for war. The problem is, we don't know what is slowing down the preparations. <BR/><BR/>It's not a case of: well, he's decided, so we go to war next Tuesday. I suspect the Pentagon, some of whom, if not all of whom, don't really want another war at this point, are dragging out the preparations and coming up with excuses to slow down the initiation of the war.<BR/><BR/>We also don't know if Bush and Cheney think they have enough "support" from their base for the war, or even if they care. <BR/><BR/>There are a lot of considerations they have to take into account before just giving the order. We don't know what those are with any certainty, or how they are making their decisions.<BR/><BR/>The fact that Cheney commissioned a war game on what would happen if the Israelis did the initial strike and then the US attacked after the Iran retaliation indicates to me that he's seeking an end-run around the Pentagon naysayers.<BR/><BR/>Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. The point is we don't know, therefore we can't draw firm conclusions from the fact that the war hasn't happened yet.<BR/><BR/>"Iraq actually complied with the resolutions - a point that is usually missed today."<BR/><BR/>And Bush ignored that fact, since it wasn't relevant to his plans whether Saddam actually had WMDs or not. Remember - that was the EXCUSE, not the REASON.<BR/><BR/>"Iran could not care less. Ahmadinejad stood at the UN and said the issue is closed while there are open resolutions."<BR/><BR/>Again, if you believe that Iran's nuclear energy program is really the casus belli, you are living in a time warp. The new one - which isn't being played up quite as much, but is still in play - is that Iran is behind the problems in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>This demonstrates that there IS NO "real reason" for the war in Iran. There is only the "public reason". Therefore, whatever Iran does or does not do is irrelevant. It is only relevant in terms of how it plays in the public media. If Iran can continually game the "public reason", it causes Bush some problems, but in the end, the war will happen anyway, no matter what farfetched reason Bush has to find to justify it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714834063347100750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-58217397858336693122007-10-30T17:52:00.000-04:002007-10-30T17:52:00.000-04:00Thanks for commenting.Our main disagreement on the...Thanks for commenting.<BR/><BR/>Our main disagreement on the Middle East is whether or not the US will attack Iran soon.<BR/><BR/>We can agree to disagree. We'll at least know if Bush made it through the term without bombing as I expect by inauguration day.<BR/><BR/>But I have some questions about your position:<BR/><BR/>Do you think Cheney expects a regime change from bombing? <BR/><BR/>Do you think he expects Iran not to retaliate, or that Iran will retaliate in a way that does not substantially hurt the US? <BR/><BR/>Do you think Cheney thinks the US can bomb Iran without being drawn into a ground campaign?<BR/><BR/>Or do you think Cheney is not calculating at all, and will bomb without regard to the consequences?<BR/><BR/>I've said before that the US really isn't acting like it was acting in 2002 and Iran is definitely acting like Iraq was acting in 2002.<BR/><BR/>In 2002 Bush said if the UNSC doesn't impose a resolution it will be irrelevant. Today Bush sees sanctions not coming. Sees that Iran isn't going to back down and still says diplomacy is his first option.<BR/><BR/>Iraq actually complied with the resolutions - a point that is usually missed today. Iran could not care less. Ahmadinejad stood at the UN and said the issue is closed while there are open resolutions.<BR/><BR/>To me, today does not feel like 2002 at all. You disagree, but we'll know for sure before February 2009.Arnold Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-76197807768202027882007-10-30T15:19:00.000-04:002007-10-30T15:19:00.000-04:00I suspect what Putin meant when (if) he told Khame...I suspect what Putin meant when (if) he told Khamenei that is that Russia would use its "oil weapon" against any parties who joined the US against Iran - such as the EU. Russia might also be able to persuade China to dump the US dollar - not that China would need much persuasion if the US cuts them off from Iranian oil and gas - if the US attacks Iran.<BR/><BR/>In other words, Putin probably would not directly threaten the US with military action over an Iran attack, but he could easily hint at it while directly threatening unspecified "reprisals" with oil and other economic moves. That alone would be enough to throw the Pentagon and the Treasury into a tailspin and increase pressure on Bush and Cheney not to act. Not to mention completely collapsing any EU support for such a war. Even England, France and Germany, allegedly on board for a war with Iran, would get pretty nervous over taking on Russia economically as well.<BR/><BR/>Putin is as much a wild card to Bush and Cheney's plans as the Pentagon naysayers.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714834063347100750noreply@blogger.com