Iran Inanity...
According to a recent Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker (as well as an interview on NPR), serious plans are afoot -- and have been for some time -- to attack Iran. The biggest proponent is Cheney, who not coincidentally is running his own special ops on the Iraq/Iran border BEHIND THE BACK of the U.S. Central Command Commander, Admiral Fallon (who is supposed to be in charge).
And I thought vice-presidents were figureheads .. I certainly never heard of letting one have his own specialized troops so that he can run real-time operations in one of the trickiest political hot spots in the world. But I suppose there is nothing quite like playing at soldier while avoiding any real physical danger to oneself -- especially for an old man who as a young man was too cowardly to serve a war in which he believed.
Back however to the subject of Iran. Now for some reason Israel (perhaps made nervous by a combination of Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad's poseur threats of annihilation and feelings of obligation towards this administration) has been making sounds about going after Iran's nuclear facilities. Of course (according to Hersh) this would be a nearly insurmountable task, as Iran's nuclear facilities are for the most part buried deep underground.
What I conjecture this means is that "limited nuclear strike" weapons would have to be used -- and the U.S. would have to use them (a thing we have contemplated in the past) -- which would result in catastrophic loss of life, permanent contamination and possibly open the door to World War III (and at the least war crimes charges) .. and all for what? Old oil men's dreams of retaking Iran's oil fields, perhaps?
Regarding Israel's role, the first thought that occurs is that Israel made a similar error some 50 years ago, when they attempted to wrest control of the Suez canal from Egypt at the behest of the United States, France and Great Britain. The Suez Crisis was a debacle from a political point of view, the lesson being that there is rarely any benefit in doing other nations' dirty work.
The second thought is kind of convoluted and concerns Israel's recent bombing sortie against a Syrian factory. The latter was made suspicious by the fact that Syria made no real complaint. One cannot then help question Syria's possible complicity .. a thing truly hard to imagine as Syria has been actively supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. But then again, Syria fears an expanded Iran and possibly Iran's hold on Hezbollah .. so was this attack a kind of bluff or practice run? Was it meant to increase the permissibility of foreign attack in the Middle East without obvious legal cause?
Anyway, here is Iran's top diplomat's response to the idea that Israel and possibly the United States are intending to hit their nuclear facilities:
"NEW YORK - Iran's top diplomat predicted Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.
His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.
"We do not foresee such a possibility at the moment. The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said through his translator. "The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region."
(Click here to read the whole article.)
The point is that it is more than a little worrisome when a spokesman for a hostile country sounds a great deal saner than we do. The one obvious benefit of such an attack is that rising oil prices would benefit oil interests, including our own. The downside is that our economy might fail and the average person suffer hideous consequences. But what the hell.
And I thought vice-presidents were figureheads .. I certainly never heard of letting one have his own specialized troops so that he can run real-time operations in one of the trickiest political hot spots in the world. But I suppose there is nothing quite like playing at soldier while avoiding any real physical danger to oneself -- especially for an old man who as a young man was too cowardly to serve a war in which he believed.
Back however to the subject of Iran. Now for some reason Israel (perhaps made nervous by a combination of Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad's poseur threats of annihilation and feelings of obligation towards this administration) has been making sounds about going after Iran's nuclear facilities. Of course (according to Hersh) this would be a nearly insurmountable task, as Iran's nuclear facilities are for the most part buried deep underground.
What I conjecture this means is that "limited nuclear strike" weapons would have to be used -- and the U.S. would have to use them (a thing we have contemplated in the past) -- which would result in catastrophic loss of life, permanent contamination and possibly open the door to World War III (and at the least war crimes charges) .. and all for what? Old oil men's dreams of retaking Iran's oil fields, perhaps?
Regarding Israel's role, the first thought that occurs is that Israel made a similar error some 50 years ago, when they attempted to wrest control of the Suez canal from Egypt at the behest of the United States, France and Great Britain. The Suez Crisis was a debacle from a political point of view, the lesson being that there is rarely any benefit in doing other nations' dirty work.
The second thought is kind of convoluted and concerns Israel's recent bombing sortie against a Syrian factory. The latter was made suspicious by the fact that Syria made no real complaint. One cannot then help question Syria's possible complicity .. a thing truly hard to imagine as Syria has been actively supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. But then again, Syria fears an expanded Iran and possibly Iran's hold on Hezbollah .. so was this attack a kind of bluff or practice run? Was it meant to increase the permissibility of foreign attack in the Middle East without obvious legal cause?
Anyway, here is Iran's top diplomat's response to the idea that Israel and possibly the United States are intending to hit their nuclear facilities:
"NEW YORK - Iran's top diplomat predicted Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.
His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.
"We do not foresee such a possibility at the moment. The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said through his translator. "The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region."
(Click here to read the whole article.)
The point is that it is more than a little worrisome when a spokesman for a hostile country sounds a great deal saner than we do. The one obvious benefit of such an attack is that rising oil prices would benefit oil interests, including our own. The downside is that our economy might fail and the average person suffer hideous consequences. But what the hell.
Labels: Cheney, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, nuclear facilities, Syria
posted by Ella Fantry at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home