2004 October 03 Sunday
Will Bush Invade Iran In His Second Term?
Spengler thinks Bush will partition Iraq and then move on to target the government of Iran.
Washington's strategic position in the Middle East is stronger than it has ever been, contrary to superficial interpretation. With much of central Iraq out of US control and a record level of close to 100 attacks a day against US forces, President George W Bush appears on the defensive. The moment recalls French Marshal Ferdinand Foch's 1914 dispatch from the Marne: "My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack." To be specific, the United States will in some form or other attack Iran while it arranges the division of Iraq.
An attack on Iran would open up the possibility of a better partitition of Iraq because there are quite a few Kurds in Iran. A chunk of Kurdish Iran could be broken off and united with Iraqi Kurdistan into a larger and stronger entity (unless the Kurds descend into civil war - which can not entirely be ruled out). This would leave both the Iranian Persians and the Iraqi Arabs in weaker positions. However, there are plenty of reasons to doubt this will come to pass.
Laura Rosen of War And Piece thinks the people in key positions in Washington DC in the Bush Administration have decided that Iran must be stopped from going nuclear.
What is Bush's policy on Iran? The administration hints to neocons, through Bolton's statements, that leave it to them, with a second term, Iran's nuclear program will be taken care of (just don't look at Bush's first term record on Iran for proof.) But Bush won't get reelected by stating clearly that a second term would could likely lead America to a new military engagement in the Persian Gulf, especially after the last one went so disastrously based on the fantasies the Bolton supporters wove about what that would entail, and indeed, about what the very threat Iraq posed was.
The irony of the US invasion of Iraq is that two of the reasons given to justifiy the invasion, nuclear weapons development efforts and support for Al Qaeda (AQ) to carry out terrorism, were pretty bogus against Iraq but as Laura Rozen also points out European intelligence officials see a real case to be made against Iran with regard to support for Al Qaeda. Some of Iran's friendliness toward Al Qaeda is pretty well known such as its past (still present?) practice of not stamping AQ passports on the Iran-Afghanistan border is certainly outright complicity on the part of the Iranians. But can the Bush neocons do anything about it? The Iran hawks in the Bush Administration may lose positions in the Pentagon after the election (assuming Bush wins). Even if Bush wins reelection Iran still looks likely to become a nuclear power because preemption advocates have blown their credibility on Iraq and now look like the boy who cried wolf.
Ms. Rozen says the Iran hawks break up into at least two schools of thought.
The Iran hawks' position is skeptical (to put it kindly) of the realist-dominated CFR recommendation for more direct engagement with Iran. But there's at least two schools of Iran hawks. The Iran hawk realists, who think the US should offer Iran the threat of bigger sticks, and reward of bigger carrots, in focused negotiations on the nuclear issue. And then the "Faster, Please" school, who think we should further isolate the mullahs, and push for regime change, not by the threat of force, but through financial and moral support to opposition groups, independent broadcasters, etc. The irony of course is that the theory advocated by the "Faster" group borrows lock stock and barrel from the nonviolent revolution policy of Peter Ackerman pursued to great success by none other than Madeleine Albright (who the Iran hawks ridicule) and the Clinton administration against Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, who is now in the midst of his trial on war crimes at the Hague.
My guess is that any set of carrots and sticks presented to Iran is not going to cause them to stop their nuclear weapons development program without the stick of outright invasion made very credible and believable. The Iranians leaders very strongly desire nuclear weapons. It is not even clear that a credible threat of invasion would be enough to make them abandon their nuclear weapons development efforts. But could Bush in his second term put together a credible threat of invasion? I have my doubts. I do not think Kerry would even try. So if Kerry wins I expect Iran to go nuclear.
However, an attack on Iran is highly problematic. One problem (out of many) with an attack on Iran is oil. The price is now as of this writing at about $50 per barrel and may go still higher even without a crisis escalating over Iran. Well, Iran produces 5% of the world's oil. An attempt to bring down the regime may cost far more in terms of higher oil prices (picture $80 or $90 per barrel oil for months and a huge economic downturn ala 1974 perhaps) than it costs in military expenditures to do an invasion. A covert operation to foment a revolution seems like a long shot. But even if it worked it would bring a disruption in oil production as well.
Oil dependence is an Achilles' Heel on the ambitions of the neocons. Even if one accepts the logic and assumptions of the Bush Administration's approach to the Middle East (and I don't) it is hard to see how they can ignore the need for an energy policy designed to lessen the world's dependence on Middle Eastern oil by developing alternatives and using what we use much more efficiently.
Still, the Pentagon is playing lots of war games with Iran as a target. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports on Pentagon war-gaming exercises against Iran.
For the past three years the central war game of the U.S. armed forces has been centered on Iran. But what exactly will await them there, even they do not purport to know.
Six divisional task forces of the U.S. armed forces, subordinate to three corps commands arrive simultaneously from six different directions; two airborne expeditionary forces (combat wings, transport, command and control, intelligence, refueling); five aircraft carriers at a distance of up to 1,500 kilometers from their northernmost targets; three Special Forces battalions - all struck at Iran and pushed to seize its capital city.
My gut feeling on this issue is that I do not trust any Muslim country with the bomb. I can hear some Muslims claiming I have a double-standard. Well, cultures and religions differ in important ways and some are far more problematic for civilization and peace than others. However, my guess is I'll have to learn to live with my fears about Muslim terrorists getting nuclear bombs when some Middle Eastern state falls apart or when some government officials mad with religious zeal smuggle some into their hands. Or, at the very least, Iran will treat its status as a nuclear power as a security blanket which will protect it from retribution while it sponsors terrorists.
I think the Bush team has squandered a great many resources and political capital on ill-considered moves and as a consequence I'm still betting on Iran going nuclear. The strategy of preemption has been undermined by incompetent execution.
Update: Note that a wide variety of observers believe that Iran's nuclear weapons development program is widely popular among the Iranian public and with would-be reformers who would like to cut down on the power of the mullahs. Revolutionary upheaval or invasion might delay Iran's development of nuclear weapons. The overthrow of the Shah is seen in some quarters as having substantially delayed Iran's nuclear program. But as long as Iran has the money coming in from oil sales it seems inevitable that sooner or later the country will develop nuclear bombs.
Each country that gains nuclear weapons creates new pressures for additional countries to go nuclear as well. China's nukes created pressure on India to go nuclear which created pressure on Pakistan to go nuclear as well. Iran as a nuclear power might spur Saudi Arabia to buy its way into possession of nuclear weapons. But then Turkey and other countries in the region might then start pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.
My guess is that efforts to stop nuclear proliferation are basically crumbling. Japan and South Korea have got to be thinking about North Korea's suspected nukes and wondering whether they should develop nukes as well. The Taiwanese are looking at the growing power of Chian and some of them have got to be wondering whether going nuclear is the only option they have for maintaining their independence.
a note on the ethnic calculus in iran: 25% of iranians are azeri turks. though they are very well integrated into the iranian state (they basically founded iran as a nation-state in the 16th century)-so i doubt there is any issue of them wanting to become part of azeribaijan (which has fewer azeris than iran).
This is all assuming the Bush gets re-elected. He got his butt kicked pretty hard in the debate. Not that Kerry had anything useful to say. Just that he had better style than Bush and did not act like a petulent child or the Church Lady (see Steve Sailer's website).
Do we really WANT all of these wars?
Iraq is already a Viet Nam for the US, because the current causalty rates per year are approaching
10 % if you include the wounded and psychologically damaged (even though only 1 % of the soldiers are dead
per year.) Invading Iran and controlling that gigantic mountainous country with a very nationalistic
population, will take a lot more US soldiers than in Iraq. Even bombing by air will be more
difficult due to the more mountainous geography in Iran. So the bottom line is that there will
be a DRAFT in the USA as soon as Bush (or Kerry) takes military action against Iran.
Also, let us consider the possibility that the Iranian nuclearization is a trap to provoke the US
to enter Iran the way the US was took the bait and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11
attack (which was a calculated attack to force the US into a Viet Nam.)
The only solution I see is to start with a Bronx Project to develop alternative energy sources,
especially the newer reactors like the Integgral Fast Reactor (which is 10,000 % more fuel
efficient and burns all the long term nuclear waste as its own fuel )
and zinc-fuel cells that can be charged with this extra electricity.
Bio-diesel fuel is also an already existing source, that is about at the current price as gasoline (still
expensive if you compare diesel to gasoline as fuel at the same price, but this puts a ceiling on the
price of oil.) But the Bush-Cheney team will sabotage all efforts to replace oil as the main
source of energy, since they are oil industry veterans.
Please note that already more than 30 % of the US money supply is in foreign banks due to the trade deficit,
and this cannot continue.
While one has never gotten rich betting on the strategic good sense of the administration, I'll hazard an opinion anyhow: Spengler is wrong. We have neither the material nor the men to go to war with Iran. There's a reason the U.S. looks stretched thin: it is stretched thin. This time the cigar is just a cigar.
The only way such a war will start is if the Israelis launch an attack and the Iranians react by openly invading Iraq. Given that the Israelis are _talking_ so damned much about doing this, I have my doubts about their actually _doing_ it. Even if they did, though, the mullahs are subtle enough to exact their revenge in a more patient manner than we give them credit for.
“My guess is that any set of carrots and sticks on Iran is not going to work without the stick of outright invasion made very credible and believable. The Iranians leaders very strongly desire nuclear weapons.”
I agree that negotiation won’t work. I expect Bush to use force. If Kerry is elected Bush may set things in motion before Kerry takes power. The action could be covert actions, internal revolt, decapitation strikes, or invasion. I don’t expect the US to try to occupy Iran.
“My guess is that efforts to stop nuclear proliferation are basically crumbling.”
In the long run I agree. The technology for building nuclear weapons is going to get cheaper and more widespread. The biotech needed to make a terror weapon will be even more available.
Either the US changes the nations likely to supply weapons to terrorists or the US gets used to losing cities.
For anyone who's interested Asia Times now has a forum where you can communicate with Spengler
I'm not sure if Spengler could be classified as a neocon. He's certainly a far more interesting writer than those at the Weekly Standard and National Review Online.
I'd imagine a US invasion of Iran would be rather uncomfortable for Musharraf in Pakistan. Given that the Pakistanis already have the "Islamic bomb" regime change there - brought about from within the society - could make the removal of the Iranian Mullahs irrelevant. It's hard to see how nuclear proliferation can be stopped.
Matra: “I'd imagine a US invasion of Iran would be rather uncomfortable for Musharraf in Pakistan. Given that the Pakistanis already have the "Islamic bomb" regime change there - brought about from within the society - could make the removal of the Iranian Mullahs irrelevant.”
I don’t put too much credence in this article but I’ve read similar rumors from different sources.
“Gains against al-Qaeda so far, he said, include: action to isolate nukes, include undercover special operations agents monitoring Pakistan's nuclear weapons facility;”
I agree that US actions against Iran will cause problems for Musharraf. Pakistan is a true mess. I’m surprised Musharraf has lasted as long as he has. I’m guessing that the US and India have made plans for the contingency that the Islamists gain control.
Unlike an Iranian nuke, I don’t believe the Pakistan bombs presently threaten Israel, the ME, or Europe. I agree Pakistan nukes could threaten the US if Islamists gain control.
I think the invade/insurrection options are uniformly poor. However, I think there are two viable strategies which I've not seen discussed (see later).
Of the currently discussed options, US invasion is the craziest. You think the US is stretched in Iraq? Well, Iran is 4x larger and has a population 3x greater (66 million people); its terrain is complex and varied (ie no fast desert advances, instead expect lots of painful mountain fighting); also Iran will have learnt the lessons of Iraq and Vietnam - don’t try to hold territory or face the US in the field, rather use guerrilla warfare and aim for attrition of the enemy over a few years.
As for the insurrection option - well, the obvious question is, whose going to do the insurrecting? Iran has a reasonably cohesive society by middle east standards (Iran is 90% shi'a compared to Iraq's 60%) and has a growing middle-class - its not a cobbled together country like Iraq. While Iranians as a people are not happy, they're also not a powder keg waiting for a spark. Indeed, it’s a paragon of democratic virtues and human rights compared to elsewhere in the region. So I suspect any insurrection would get short thrift among the population, particularly if it was US backed. But there must be some wanabe revolutionaries in Iran? Well there is, it’s the MKO, Iran's largest militant opposition group. They've just been added to the US's list of terrorist organisations (the "M" stands for Mujahiddin, so you have an idea of their ideology) - so scratch them from the list of potential allies.
What about the ethnic Kurds? Could form the basis of a revolution? Well the Iranian Kurds are not a hotbed of revolutionary fervour (unlike their kin in Turkey and Iraq), though they appear to have had a couple of demonstrations that turned violent over the last decade, but nothing organised. If anything Iranian Kurds appear to prefer the ballot box rather than the gun. Another problem is that there are two distinct Kurdish regions in Iran, and they are on opposite sides of the country separated by a few hundred miles of Sunnis and Shi'as.
If they could get over ethnic rivalries maybe the ethnic Kurds and the Iranian Sunnis could combine along religious lines (the vast majority of Kurds also adhere to Suni beliefs) - but that would still leave them with less that 10% of the Iranian population even if they could manage to get all of the Sunnis to become revolutionaries in their own country. Also, a grass roots revolution would take years to build up, long after the country has nukes. That said, does the world really need another religious scism?
That leaves regime change (ie an overnight coup d'etat). Presumably, it would need to be performed by the Iranian military, however by the standards of the region the army appears professional rather than political, and even if it mounted a coup, Iran's version of democracy is likely too strong to accept them. Also, a coup in Iran wouldn't simply involve taking over the civil government, the plotters would also need to take over the church - a tough call. And of course, the leaders of a military coup would likely approve of a nuclear weapons program. After all, if Iran had nukes in the 1980s, would Iraq have invaded?
Now for my ideas…
First, the military option...
Instead of invading, the US could mount a reconnaissance in force. It would be a simultaneous large scale air mobile assault and occupation around each suspected Iranian atomic weapons production site. The helicopter landed troops would hold a strong cordon around the site and the air force would suppress the formation of any Iranian counter attack. Inside the cordon, all nuclear infrastructure would be demolished over a couple of days while lots of intel is gathered / nuclear scientists killed and the US would then packup and leave. During the operation, the Iranian people and the rest of the world would be told that the US is simply on a search and destroy mission and will be leaving in a few days, the US would emphasise that it is not going to be an occupying power, that its not expecting regime change. This message would hopefully stop Iranian soldiers being too eager to mount a counter attack, and so long as the US could maintain air superiority its losses would be minimal.
Within a week its all over - Iran is no longer a nuclear capable state (at least for another decade or two). The message to the world is that the US will seek out and destroy military nuclear infrastructure, so develop it at your own risk. Europe would be happy because the policy is clear and the US wouldn't be suspected of empire building - Europe might even join in. Domestically, the citizens of the US would see the long term benefit of the policy and would be willing to accept the troop losses in return for a quick and clear goal - ie no years long bleeding as happened in Vietnam and currently in Iraq. Within a few months the attack would be old news, but the lesson will have been learnt around the world… To show that its nothing personal, the US could even remove its trade embargoes.
Rinse & repeat for other wannabe countries when they are about a year or two away from developing a weapon.
The second diplomatic option takes a more positive view of human nature...
Accept that the region is a political vacuum and that its better to have Iran fill the vacuum instead of a bunch of loony al Qaida types. Accept that in filling the vacuum Iran will become a regional superpower. Cross fingers that Iran is sufficiently sophisticated (I mean in terms of social and political structures) to manage nukes and suppress the more extreme religious elements. Encourage long term thinking by making sure they don't feel threatened by the US. Stop all embargoes in order to encourage the development of a broad based economy (ie not just oil export) and thereby a large middle class. Let nature take its course. If all goes well, Iran will help stabilise the region and its economic well-being might begin to spread across the region. Oh, and the US can still apply the military option to the tinpot dictatorships who hanker after nukes.
I started out writing this with a strong preference for the military option, but now I'm leaning toward the diplomatic option.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
I wonder if you have enough data on the capabilities of the US Air Force and the US Army for
being able to conduct such a complex operation to demolish all the Iranian nuclear facilities.
Iran has MANY sparsely distributed nuclear labs all over the country, deep inside its territory,
and the US may not have so many helicopters to carry thousands of troops to carry out
this mission. Refueling the helicopters is also an issue. The Osprey vertical takeoff aircraft
is still experimental, even though the Marines definitely want hundreds of these. The
Black Hawk helicopters are OK, but their number may not be sufficient, and they need to be
refueled. Such an operation also requires bringing in 4 or 5 aircraft carriers into the Gulf,
which may become a trap, since the Gulf is too small. The situation will be VERY difficult
in this century.
Invisible, you're right - I've not really looked at US air assault capability.
As for the size of the operation, my guess is that nuclear weapons development facilities in Iran would have two or three key sites and those are the only ones that need to be destroyed - for instance, the enrichment plant and its output storage facility (though they are likely both near each other). I'm assuming none of these are in cities - if they are then my plan would not work.
As for US capability, I think the US army has at least two air mobile corps (admittedly I am assuming that each corps have intrinsic air transport). The way I envisage an assualt happening is something like this: (1) simultaneous light airborne assualt landings to secure the target sites before the local Iranian garrison can react; (2) airforce creates and holds an air corridor to each site (an exclusion zone); (3) infantry reinforcements are brought in through the air corridor - perhaps by aircraft instead of helicopters as I recall the army engineers built a temporary runway in Iraq during Desert Storm so I guess they could do the same in Iran subject to terrain; (4) airforce maintains local air superiority and its bombers attack any massing Iranian troops; (5) do the search and destroy bit; (6) withdraw in good order.
In summary: 1 week maximum effort + real good US command and control + localised US air dominance + Iranian surprise + poor Iranian C&C.
I think that would be doable...
Regards, Stephen (armchair general).
Spengler writes: "The moment recalls French Marshal Ferdinand Foch's 1914 dispatch from the Marne: "My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack." To be specific, the United States will in some form or other attack Iran while it arranges the division of Iraq."
Well, that's reassuring! Only four years of trench warfare to look forward to!
You are geting this all wrong. America has no military option that doesn't end in disaster. At this point of time, America has the opportunity to deprive the mullahs from obtaining nukes, and rebuild its ties with the nation. Face it, most of the people in this country are pro american. If you know anything about the history of Iran, you would know that these people are not particularily fund of being deemed as Arabs. They don't give a damn about what happens in Palestine, and still the country explodes in joy when Iran beats any Arab team in a soccer match. There is a deep, subconscious sense of superiority over arabs and arab nations in the minds of Iranian people. If you just look at how these people have kept their zaroastrian traditions, in terms of the new year celebration of 'norouz' or the fireworks of 'chaharshabe soori' you would know that the people of this country are among the most nationalistic people in the world. Plus America is at a position that is actually "liked" by the people of Iran. You removed 'Saddam Hussein', the man responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. The man who gased the kurds alongside Iranian troops in that bloody war. Now you have a choice to make, you either enter this country like thieves, destroy their nuclear sites and leave as theives, and have yourself turned into savage barbarians in the eyes of the Iranian people, or you actually start taking a more 'civilized' course of action, which I highly doubt due to your inherent, national, 'cowboy' nature.
There is an opportunity here to turn Iran into a regional power and have them police the arab fundamentalists for you. It just takes some hard work and political stamina. Any attack would result in a reaction, even after you have left the country. What that means is all out war. Then assuming you defeat the Iranian military in say, 2 years, you have another mess at your hands to deal with. Plus this time you WILL face massive resistance from actually the "people", which would in turn suck you into a hell of guerrilla fights.
I'm an Iranian who lives in Canada. I am absolutely sick of the regime currently in there but I have to admit, I aint no caoch potato who would just sit and watch you bomb and kill my father, mother, and others. I might go on food strike in front of your embassy in Canada, but I'd never pick a gun and start shooting, because then I'd be at the same lame level as some of you Americans.(Trust me there's nothing personal, but I must say, nearly 43% of the Americans are drop dead stupid) Don't get me wrong, these mullahs MUST be stoped from acqruiring weapons grade Uranium, but this has to be done 21st centurt style, not through bloodbath and heavy bombardment.
I must admit I love your iF22's and F117's and aircraft carriers, and even the magnificent B2 bomber. They are awesome! seriously, congratulations on all of this mind blowing technological superiority. Yet don't forget, sometimes words are more powerful than bombs. (Not to mention your supposed "precision bombing" has killed enough civilians in Iraq, to make me think of it all as merely an XBOX game!)
The truth is, you directly sabotaged Iran by grounding Dr Mosaddegh's legitimate government. You shot down an Iranian Airbus commercial airliner and killed 300 innocent men, women and children. Yet Iran has done nothing serious to you. Plus you've always had an 'unhealthy' interests in Iran and in general in the Middle East, and as the old saying goes, 'what goes around, comes around', you will have to face the consequences of your actions. 9/11 was one of these incidents, where you suffered the result of your wrong foreign policies, and yet 3000 innocent people had to pay the price. It's kinda ironic too, a nation that kicks Alians kaboose in 'Independance day' cant stop a couple of brat arabs from boarding airplanes and crashing them right into the twin towers! It is a indeed a dark comedy.
Again the choice is yours. I'm not afraid if you invade Iran, or any other freaking country on the face of this planet, because I believe if you do anything wrong, you will pay the price for it; more Binladens will be produced from the breeding grounds of terrorism for which you provide the necessary element of 'Hatred towards America' yourselves, and you will become the architects of you own demise. More innocent Americans will die. Why? Simply because you have an 'orgasm' when you think of yourselves as the most powerful country in the world. Well indeed you are the most powerful country in the world, but great kings have often fallen victim to their own vanity. Lets see how you can destroy the 'Binladen' production factories in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc, with JDAM bombs and AIM120 missles.
Act like a true great nation, and never forget: "An eye for an eye, leaves the world blind".
Long Live planet Earth!
An invasion of Iran would indeed make sense, alas, as he screwed up Halliburton buying an asbestos brick-making company, thus assuming all its legal liabilities, Cheney screwed up Bush by pushing him into Iraq. As Sec. of Defense Cheney proved to be utterly incompetent. But he backed his mentor, Rumsfeld all the way. Rummy, ironically, in Woodwards first book on the attack of Afghanistan, BUSH'S WAR, warns all not to ruch half cocked and things. But in the second book on the attack of Iraq, PLAN OF ATTACK, he comes off as half baked and totally unprepared. This is because he had been promised that if Bush fails, the neocons' sugar daddies would back him for the presidency. He was the right Zionists' man. That these people never had any constituency in Jewish or Christian Evangelical circles is irrelevant, showing how "it takes only money to be president" an ideology Republicans live by. At any rate, with his trole as Vice President, Rummy pushed for an Iraq War that only the neocons ran. Furthermore, the mental weakness of Bush can be seen in his reaction to the arms shipment from Iran to the Palestinians which the Israelis intercepted. Suddenly, Bush abandoned the Roadmap and came to see the Palestinians as a sort of wild gang seeking a turf and Sharon as the civic leader seeking public order. He never noted that for Sharon, Zionist extremism combined with Holocaust mania into a psychotic criminality of "never again." All of the avarice, criminlality and murder committed by the Shjaron regime was passed off as for "security." Thus, any goyim who questions his moves Sharon deemed an "anti-Semite." To accomodate antiSemites, therefore, would be to again sucumb to Nazi demands; and, given the lesson of the Holocaust, any restraint on Sharon would be responded to with: NEVER AGAIN!
Thus, Bush found himself wiping out the only force that held back the Iranians, Ba'athist Iraq, and repelling all Arabs by treating the Palestinians as a subunit of Israel in prectice, though in theory he spoke of giving them a state. Yet, Bush never challenged Sharon's absolute authority massacring from behind American provided armor and our Apache helicopters as if all the territories were Israeli until such time as Sharon expells any of that land. Little wonder that Sharon felt that 9/11 had given him carte blache to reorder the Middle East. Under such circumstances, even the Saudis came to see Iranian seizure of the Shia in Iraq as the lesser of two evils. The January election will clinch that and no one, not even Jordan will jump in to stop it because of the programing of Bush's brain the neocons wired during the last term. Yet, the Keystone cops qualities of the Rummy-Cheney team became apparent as Iraq became a mess starting the day after Bus declared "mission accomplished." Bogged down in Iraq, we have no more 62 year old reservists to call up. Our military: men, machines and ordnance is EPUISER!
We have no allies for war, no Arab advisers and friends, only psychotic Israeli killers egged on by the neocons to shout "NEVER AGAIN, NEVER AGAIN" in order to make Israel a little bigger to accomodate the olims (Diaspora Jews) who will never come, for they like it in "anti-Semitic Europe" just fine-- even the neocon Darth Vedar, the crook of time, Richard Perle basks in his French coast villa on his ill gotten gains from the arms industry. Rummy is forced to stay so that he cannot pull a Tommy Franks-- get out at peak and leave the mess to others. He will be ejected from his office at a time when with him will go the public rage for our "bugging out of Iraq." Cheney is now boxed in a cage, only his wife has enough testosterone to yelp loudly from captivity. Bush is now lord and master of his presidency. Too proud to ask "Poppy" for help and too proud to seek expertese, he and his trusty human Ms. Bizzly-- Condi Rice-- will try to run America as best they can. She has brains but no experience, Bush has experience but no brain. The duo just won't cut it!
Look at the tsunami. We can't REALLY help because we are broke. Try to buy a book on Bush from Europe; when you convert to dollars you'll see what our dollar is really worth!
So, we can't go after Iran-- the REAL home of JIHADIST GLOBAL TERRORISM-- because we are trying to hit last what we should have hit first. But, when Bush got ther, the cupboard was bare!
Nuclear power may moderate Iran. Surely it knows that all nukes we had pointed at China will now point to it. That's bad for Taiwan but good for the Arabs.
Here's the last piece. Poppy Bush retired well off and a Presidential library was built for him by, you guessed it, the Saudis. The family is very beholding to them. So, expect GW to screw Sharon before it's all over in 2008-- and even the Evangelicals will cheer, remembering how the neocons cursed the "Passion of the Christ" movie. They will at the last moment realize that Israeli dominance of the Nideast-- especially as a Sharonista state-- is nor what Christ requires before he revisits.
So, friends, stop the certainty that more war lies befoe us. Bush is bugging out of Iraq, losing it to Iran and will compensate by smashing Sharon in order to create a Palestinian state. The Arabs will applaud him as the Iranians moderate, befitting their nucl;ear power stats along with India and Pakistan. The war on terror will peder out as potential shaheeds get USAID scholarships, sneekers and jobs abroad. However, should yet another suitcase nuclear bomb get into someone's hands, someone crazy enough to want to die, all bets are off. Only thing, it may be another home-grown nut job like McVey, not a bunch of Jihadists.
Conclusion in form of an equasion: dumb president+ crazy Islamists---> Zionazi uprise, guided by the neocon chickenhawks desperate to be called "mensch" by the like of the old IDF commando, Ariel Sharon. However, add a nuclear Iran---> Islamic big-power moderation and dumb president crushing of Sharon like a bug---> big Bush II presidential library+ decreased oil prices as Saudis increase production. Meanwhile, Cheney, alreday with a cardiac ejection fraction of 38% dies in obscurity. Pleople hear it on the news and say: Oh yeah...well, I didn't like that crazy crooked SOB anyway. Rummy, meanwhile, fades into DIS-graceful retirement.
When I was a medical student under Ceausescu, 51% of the students were Muslims. The Arabs were never in class, treating Romania like a giant birdello. But the Iranians studied real hard. On the rooftops of all the student center housing complex, they blared Khomeini's speeches in Farsi 24/7. No one could study. But the Arabs were damned impressed with the Iranians. Once Iran goes nuclear, the Arabs will again be impressed, so impressed that when Tehran says: cut the crap, stop this JIHAD nonesence and go do business with the West, they will trade in their robes for suits and will bring the arab world to GLOBALISM....So, maybe a nuclear Iran is not so bad. It may prove even better than nuclear Pakistan and India. We'll see because Bush can't do anything about it anymore, thanks to those he-men wanna be Jewish Girllie-men called the neocons, who screwed up America real bad thinking that the Israeli "heroes" will give them a pat on the head...BY THE WAY, PLEASE *DO NOT* INCLUDE WOLFOWITZ AMONGST THE NEOCONS, he is nothing of the sort. In fact, Rummy brought them into DoD only to dilute and contain Wolfowitz....Wolfie is a REAL American, whether he is right or wrong!
P.S.>>>>>Here's a little more food for thought:
Here's a story from a "friend" of GW Bush whose relationship with the
President was never one of politics and policy. He supported Bush because
Bush is his friend, period.
He came to the White House last summer and expressed grave doubt about the
"fool's choice" Bush had boxed himself into in Iraq. The President seemed,
to this friend, to have forced himself into either devastating
Iraq, chasing an insurgent fly with a cannon, so that there would be little
money left to rebuild the country at least to the level that Bush found it
at, or, worst still, after smashing much of the resistance with even more
boots and guns, rigging together a "rinky-dink leadership election, putting
our unknown quantity into power," bugging out of Iraq, once more insisting,
Bush insisted that both his guts and his instincts are in accord, making him
sure of his answers. As a ritualistic aside, added Bush: "Of course, I pray
and God gives me his O.K."
The friend protested. George, he insisted, you always flew by the seat of
your pants, following your guts and instincts; but, may I remind you, sober
or drunk, you always came up with the same result: which the
friend reminded was expressed as, "Oh.oh, sh-t, I should have been more
To this, President Bush replied: Ah so what? What's the worst that could
happen to me? I could lose and would go back to Crawford...and, as you
know, I looooove Crawford.
Well, as taxpayer and one time Bush supporter, I cannot bring myself to ask:
what's the worst that can happen to ME, but, I wonder rather, what's the
worst that can happen to this nation, to the Middle East and to the
Karl Rove had slipped from the political guru slot, encroaching on the
policy slot, the agreed to province of VP Cheney. It all happened when Rove
in a 1-->2-->3 steps maneuver turned Bush from a dubious presidential
election winner in 2000 into the leader of a House and Senate majority in
2002, and, finally, into a "mandated" president, leading an even more
Republican House and Senate with lots of political capital to
invest in all sort of hare-brained schemes and thank you gift-legislation
for his "base." All this was done by a lot of brilliant manipulation of the
"silent majority" and the weary Evangelical Christians (they sat it out in
2000). But more importantly, the Bush avalanche began with, what most of us
interpreted as a symptom of Bush's mental limits: the "I am a war president"
The neocons pushed for that as Cheney's commandos. But Cheney pushed for an
Iraq War, in part, because it would enable him to make up for his
disastrous acquisitions of a company that transfered its legal liabilities
with the buy, by making Iraq a bonanza for Halliburton (it was not the
epiphany at Aspen when he
heard Shcharansky speak about Israel). For four years,
each for his own reasons, the Bush bloc and Cabinet
stuck together on domestic and foreign policy. Bush,
as former Sec. of Treasury O'Neill tells us, acted at
Cabinet meetings like the boy who likes to be
inconspicuous in class because he never came in with
his homework done. After all, how much contemplation
on the state of the world can one expect from a
President who never reads his morning intel brief but
had it given to him verbally by CIA chief Tenet--one
time, each morning, that's it!
It should not be forgotten that one of the Bush
chromosomes you will find a homozygous gene pair for
ego (from both his mom and dad). You wouldn't think
so. given their apparent public modesty rituals. But,
now affirmed as the *winning* president who brought
his party more power in both houses of Congress, that
gene in GW Bush is undergoing full expression.
Having suffered little pain and remorse in his life,
because of "Poppy's" protective power, other than
hangovers, which were self-inflicted, Bush has never
known the agony of life he imposes on the men and
women he sends into combat, the Iraqi men, women and
children constituting "collateral damage" in that
combat, and the economically most defenseless forced
to suffer more want because of his bias to his "base"
and his extravagant Iraq War. And so, confronted with
his moral obligation as a "Compassionate
Conservative," which he seems to be reneging on with
his anomie towards all that suffering (none of LBJ's
all night agonizing while going through the casualties
lists from Vietnam) by responding: what's the worst
that could happen to me, I'll just have to go back to
Crawford; and I looooove Crawford!
IN other words, putting the full blooming of his
winner's ego together with the pathologic inability to
vicariously feel the pain of those on the receiving
end of his policies, GW Bush now feels he no longer
needs Cheney and the neocons to turn into policy and
explain to the public what his gut and instincts feel.
He only needs to put together a new Cabinet that is as
hermetically sealed (no leaks) with loyalty as it was
in the first year of his last term; and then HE can be
President because he proved himself as a "war
president," for which eh-- so he claims-- got
We now will see this side of the Atlantic's version of
"l"Amerique c'est moi" as Cheney gets boxed away and
Rove as his Richelieu and Hughes as his word-smith
make his bumbling mind's concoctions sound like
"rational choice" or "prospect" theory brilliance.
The fool's choice in Iraq that Bush was warned about
will become-- as is typical GW Bush resolution-- not a
choice but parallels. He will be,like his body's
homeostatic mechanism, the operating dialectically,
working on the basis of an "opponents theory" of
action. Thus, Iraq will suffer as he complies with
Sharon on the road map, so that Iraq can be let loose
after its elections while Israel suffers his new found
sympathy for a Palestinian state. Instead of playing
musical chairs with polices, Bush will add a chair so
that the only thing that matters in the game will be
the sequence of seats occupied, not who DOES NOT get a
seat when the music stops. History may yet say that a
great President reigned from 2005 to 2009 who based
his actions on a child's inability to choose (A) or
(B); so, he manages to squeeze in both in dynamic
sequencing. This he will be able to do by staying
close to the policy sequences Rove plans out and the
meaningless "thesis" speeches Hughes crafts on the
basis of a "Communication 101" undergrad's notion of
the value of words.
In the end, nothing feeds presidential ego more that
the "presidential library" issue. It is the ultimate
house of lies for every outgoing president. And, in
America, good lies machines are very, very expensive.
Unfortunately, few American political deep pockets see
much value in investing cash into a president on his
way out. But the Saudis are quite different. They
understand that library thing and that is how they get
to "own" presidents during their twilight days.
GW Bush, whom the neocons consider the next best thing
to the Messiah-- they really didn't like Reagan-- will
curse his name as he undoes their Likud dominated
dreams for the Middle East. Rational Arabism-- what
the Saudis were for so long trying to get the Arab
states to practice-- will be the payback for the new
Bush II library. And, concurrently, Europe will feel
that Bush must have "matured" as he tones down his
either/orisms. Only Sharon, the Likudniks and the
Greater Israel Zionist extremists will suffer. But no
matter how much they throw "anti-Semite" epithets at
him, most Jews and most Israelis will feel quite
comfortable with his more "even handed" road map. We
will know all there is to know because Sec. of State
Rice does not have the depth and patience of Powell.
She will blow up and will put the smooch patrols from
Jerusalem in their place, no doubt in public. Then Mr.
Podhoretz and Co. will say that old Bush refrain: Oh,
oh, sh-t, I should have been more careful!"
Don't expect Mr. Cheney to save the day for the
Zionist right, because as of now he is in a cage,
pacemaker, oxygen tank, crash cart and all. It is now
time for the GW Bush Show in the Mideast as elsewhere,
all the way to 2008!
Ya, guys, put yourself outside the box here. If we are going to invade Iran, which is not a question, it is a need. We will do it at the hands of another state. Within good time, Iraq will become a superpower within the middle east once all of it's internal affairs are addressed. We will modernize their military like we similiarly did to Israel. And with a superior military, Iraq will be a key we need to declare war on Iran. If Iraq goes to war with Iran, we won't just sit back and watch it play out. We will contribute to the cause of Iraq's war against Iran. We are now almost fully vested in Iraq with finances and blood. The invasion and establishment of a new Iraqi government a is door opening the U.S. up to the middle east. Don't worry about the U.S. itself fighting Iran, Iraq will take this task up for us given time and patience. And also in regards to Bush, he might not be able to finish a job such as this throughout his second term. But it is feisable that his brother can succeed the presidency after him. And this will give the Bush Administration another 8 years of authority in the U.S. No one thought Bush was going to be reelected, but he was. there is a form of "strategery" behind this whole Iran conflict. I say let Japan and Soele deal with North Korea. And for those of you who think Iraq is another Vietnam, it is wishful thinking. We are winning the war in Iraq and there is no official military might challenging us. This is like saying the rebels are going to overthrow the U.S.