April 9th, 2006

Nuking Iran = The Only Card Left

Like some others, I started blogging about Bush nuking Iran months ago. I knew he would, because I knew he was up to his eyeballs in outing Valerie Plame, and the key player who was gonna save them all ran away instead.

John Ashcroft.

Oh yeah. Rove got him the gig, and he was expected to cover up, obfuscate, obliterate, and otherwise suppress any concept of responsibility in outing Plame. Oops. So we got Fitzgerald instead. Are you really suprised that Bush ordered this smear? Please.

Then Iraq started to go exactly as planned. I say this because I’m certain Bush invaded and occupied Iraq to win the 2002 mid-terms, establish permanent bases there to protect the oil, and continue to empty the treasury into his corporate supporters’ pockets. He couldn’t do this with an organized, united government there, so he counted on the civil war to keep everyone occupied while he sited and built said permanent bases. He didn’t give a shit about the Iraqi people, and he had an ace in the hole.

Nuking Iran. This had to be in the planning all along, and it’s been dependent on the 2006 mid-term election timing. It’s possible that he never would have had to nuke Iran if Iraq had been slower to collapse into civil war. But, as always, he misunderestimated the situation, and the Iraqi people are killing each other now while killing U.S. soldiers faster than he planned. Bush’s polls are sliding down faster than he planned. So his ace in the hole is looking like the only card in the deck. I knew that he would have to divert attention. I knew he was capable of killing more hundreds of thousands of brown people to maintain political control over the Congress and avoid a Democratic Senate Select Committee.

I have blogged about Bush nuking Iran here and here and here and here.

Sy Hersh writes about it here and here.

But I think Bush has misunderestimated the situation again.

I think Bush has gone to the terror well too often. I think playing the only card in the deck for short-term political gain, to bump the polls in advance of the mid-term elections, will backfire on him, for precisely the same reason Iraq backfired on him.

He is getting only the information he wants to hear. Many of us out here in Left Blogistan have known about the dangers of this idiotic move all along, but Bush is hearing that if we nuke a country, the people of that country will rise up and overthrow the government. Really? Did we rise up and overthrow Bush after September 11?

Bush is expecting us to unite in total supprt of him for dropping the biggest nukes in history on Iran, and also expecting the Iranian people to rise up and support him for nuking their country.

Can he possibly believe this?

He doesn’t give a shit. Playing the only card in the deck, slaughtering brown people, creating more chaos, birthing more terrorists; he doesn’t give a shit. All he’s trying to do is avoid the perp walk. And I think the deck is stacked against him.

Click these buttons to share this story:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb

Posted in DailyFeatured



16 Comment(s)

Leave a response »

  1. Bukko Says :

    You’re not the only one who believes Bush-boy plans to nuke Iran. (Actually, President Cheney will do it.) I don’t think it will be a massive attack. It will be portrayed as a “surgical strike” with “bunker-busters” because “we have to use a nuke to stop the nuke that they would use to nuke us.” Great diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the impending economic collapse in the U.S. It’s truly evil, mate, like something Hitler would plan in 1936. That’s why my wife and I emigrated from the U.S. last year and are now living in Australia. I don’t want it on my conscience that I was paying taxes to support the war machine that’s likely to kill hundreds of thousands in one fell swoop.

    If you want to read an interesting cost-benefit analysis on the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iran, Google this professor named William Engdahl who has a website titled “EngdahlOilGeopolitics.” He wrote a scholarly article on the subject that I saw in AsiaTimes online. In Oz, we get exposed to a lot more Singaporean stuff. He’s not some leftist conspiracy nutball. I’m pretty tuned-in to world politics and economics, but I was flabbergasted at the angles this guy thought of. Cheers!


  2. Miz BoheMia Says :

    It is a HUGE mess that Mr. Gungho Bush has created.  However, I am half Danish/ half Iranian and through the news the hubby reads and our direct contact with the people there, they are waiting for outside help to rid themselves of the regime because it is something the people do not have in them to do on their own, unfortunately.

    I want the regime gone.  It is hell and it is shit.

    But I don’t want people to die and I don’t know about using nuclear weapons if other options are available.  The fallout problem is too big and horrendous a  reality.

    But we cannot have it both ways unfortunately.  I am stumped on this one but one thing I do know for sure and I can say this with confidence because being part Iranian I KNOW the mentality and that is that Ahmadinejad is whacko and must be stopped because I would not put it past him to use his nukes once he has them and if not stopped, he will have them sooner than we all think…

    Great post by the way!


  3. Paul Watson, Cranky Brit Says :

    Miz BoheMia,

    I don’t think anyone disagrees that President Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons is not a good thing for us. The problem is, what is the solution?

    General sanctions won’t be supported by China and Russia at this time and without them are useless.

    Targeted sanctions won’t make a lot of difference. How often do members of the regime leave the country anyway?

    Invasion or ground-based military action? Unlikely. Even though Iran is more of a threat that Iraq, the Iraq mess has certainly soured people in the UK on militarty solutions. And of course, with all our forces occupied in Iraq, there aren’t enough troops to mount an effective invasion anyway.

    Special forces? Not outside a Tom Clancey novel would this actualyl be effective. You’d have to kill too many people to remove the regime. If you just kill the President, someone as bad could easily take over.

    Airstrikes? Difficult to make sure you’ve destroyed enough of the facilities to render things inoperable. Plus some are underground, making airstrikes less effective. And is we use ‘bunker busters’, well, all that radioactive material gets thrown up.

    Nuclear option? Welcome to World War III Nuclear edition.

    It’s a problem of what means will accompany the ends.


  4. BYOC Says :

    Has any one read the Scorpians gate by Richard Clark? Though it is a work of fiction, I think it is a fair intelligence assesment in that, “what if sense,” and he should know.

    We will most likely never nuke Iran because crazy as it is they are smart enough to know we will fry them off the map in a heart beat if given the chance and will avoid legitimate provocation against us. They just want nukes so that they can control the region. We have a 30 year old bone to pick with ‘em because Saddam couldn’t seal the deal, and Reagans admin thwarted his ability to do so by selling arms to both sides.
    Smart move in some sense let em kill each other {regionally} first them move in for the oil.


  5. Miz BoheMia Says :

    I agree with you Paul.  Iran should have been the target from the getgo.  What really complicates matters is the reality that is Iraq but we are stuck in a race against time.  Once the Iranian Regime has nukes then all bets are off and the Regime will remain.  Something needs to be done before it comes to that and the only option left on the table is not a pretty nor a desirable one.

    Yes, WWIII nuclear edition is most likely in the works.

    Shit.


  6. Tom Harper Says :

    Bush might be driven to attack Iran (for the reasons given in the post) but it would be a stupid move.  No matter how much hatred people have for their government, they’re not going to greet an invading army as “liberators.”  (We’re still waiting for those flowers and candy and ice cream from grateful Iraqis.)

    It’s also a mistake to think that a country will be easy to defeat just because they’re in chaos or the people hate their government.  The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s started when Iraq invaded Iran.  They thought Iran would be easy pickings since the country was in chaos right after Khomeini had taken over.  Didn’t happen; both countries suffered incredible losses.

    Some people in the State Dept. are afraid that if we attack Iran, international terrorist attacks (Hezbollah) will get worse than ever.  Maybe this fear will restrain the Bush administration.


  7. The Cranky Brit Says :

    I think that sums up the situation, pretty well.

    It seems the US is serious about this, though.

    Anyone got a spare bunker they don’t need?


  8. JamesRaven Says :

    We’ve gone from the idea that any use of nuclear weapons is insane, to a seemingly rational discussion by apparently intelligent people deciding who we should nuke first. Bush didn’t nuke Afghanistan, and he claimed Osama was being sponsored and hidden there. Bush didn’t nuke Iraq, and he claimed Saddam was sponsoring and funding Osama. Bush didn’t nuke North Korea, and he claims they’re part of the “Axis Of Evil.”

    Why not? Why did Bush bypass all the chances he’s had so far to nuke nations he claimed had something to do with 9/11 or present a nuclear danger to the U.S.? I have no idea, but if anyone thinks that any good can come from dropping massive nuclear bombs on Iran, I want to hear about it. I want to hear how slowly killing Iranian civilians with radiation from U.S. bombs, on top of the thousands killed by the blasts themselves, will make them support George W. Bush.

    Bush had a chance to organize an effective Iraqi army and open substantive talks with Iran three years ago, and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld destroyed both. So the blood of the thousands of American troops along with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is on their heads.

    As I said in the post, Bush doesn’t give a shit. If he had a choice between every American dying in a terrorist attack his policies spawned, and avoiding a courtroom, we’re toast, my friends. 


  9. Ann Says :

    Don’t worry Paul, there’s one not far from you…

    http://www.jokeornot.com/gallery/secret_nuclear_bunker.jpg


  10. PhiloTBG Says :

    Hersh was on Late Edition this morning - I expect someone will post the video later today or tomorrow - and his discussion of the Bush administration’s demand to retain tactical nuclear weapons in operational plans for attacking Iran was the scariest thing I have ever heard or read in the context of politics anything.

    What would we do if Bush preemptively nuked Iran, a country that is 8-10 years away from having the bomb? As citizens, what could we do?

    Hersh suggested that if the Joint Chiefs allow the nukes to stay on the table (he claimed that Bush would listen if the JCoS said “pull it”), a number of top Pentagon war planners and officers would quit. They’ve realized the fallout of a preemptive nuclear strike would likely be the expulsion or murder of every American in the Muslim world, attacks and riots at every American embassy in the western world, and the conceivable destruction of American democracy as citizens, military officers, and politicians rose against the president.

    I say this with as much sobriety and seriousness as I can muster because I believe it to be no joke. If Bush nuked Iran, our nation would be destroyed from without and within. It’s impossible to underestimate the gravity of its implications. What would I do first - move out of NY or…or… what?

    It’s hard to think about this possibility without coup d’etat coming to mind.


  11. ChosenOne Says :

    Why do y’all hate freedom?

     

    Bukko, I’m glad you’ve “defected” to another country.  America doesn’t need losers like you.  Unfortunatley, Austrailia and it’s GREAT people are now stuck with your ass. 


  12. PhiloTBG Says :

    Sadly, No! has a great piece up on the thought of invading Iraq. This part is key (it’s written by a Canadian guest poster Den Vandron):

    Think about that. Iran is 70 million people, an area five times the size of Iraq, not disemboweled by 12 years of sanctions and air raids. On the other side of the coin, America’s ground army is busted and tied down in Iraq. There’s no troops to throw at a major Iranian military force, so you have to hope that bombing will do the trick. The occupation forces in Iraq are in occupation and not territorial defense mode. And Iraq is 65% Shiites who are probably not going to be happy that you’re blowing up their brother Shiites. Meanwhile, the straight of Hormuz is so narrow that sinking one supertanker will block it indefinitely, and Iran borders the straight on three sides. Block Hormuz and any naval groups inside the Persian Gulf are trapped there. Any naval groups outside the Persian Gulf are trapped outside. Forget about any oil coming out of the Persian Gulf from Iraq, Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Think about what that does to the price of oil, and to the world economy. Think about what that does to dependent countries like Japan, India, China and Europe.

    In short its so appallingly stupid and colossally risky, that I can see why your idiots in charge might consider using nuclear weapons. But throw a few nukes around and see how the rest of the world reacts? Every dirt-wad country is going to be mortgaging the Presidential palace to get its own nuclear deterrent from Pakistan or North Korea. How do you feel about the Indonesian Bomb, the Malaysian Bomb, the Thai Bomb, the Myanmar Bomb, the Algerian Bomb, the Saudi Bomb, the Egyptian Bomb, the Brazilian Bomb, the Argentine Bomb, the Venezuelan Bomb, the Cuban Bomb, the Japanese Bomb, the Canadian frigging Bomb. You are no longer trustworthy. North Korea, always borderline psychotic is going to be mondo difficult to deal with. You’ve just guaranteed yourself a full fledged nuclear arms race, balls to the wall with both Russia and China, and quite possibly Europe.


  13. FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Iran Nuclear Watch: White House Dampens Talk of Iran Military Strike Says :

    […] Bring It On […]


  14. AMERICAN FUTURE - Trying to make sense of a world in turmoil » Hersh Strikes Again Says :

    […] Some see Karl Rove’s hands at work in preparation for this year’s elections: (1) Bring It On! (”Bush is expecting us to unite in total support of him for dropping the biggest nukes in history on Iran, and also expecting the Iranian people to rise up and support him for nuking their country. Can he possibly believe this? He doesn’t give a shit. Playing the only card in the deck, slaughtering brown people, creating more chaos, birthing more terrorists; he doesn’t give a shit. All he’s trying to do is avoid the perp walk.”), (2) Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying (”An attack on Iran would politically rescue Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans from the disaster in Iraq. The actual attack does not have to occur before the elections, in fact it is better politically that the attack take place after the elections. The drumbeat to war and the tension and fear it will generate for the public is much more useful as a political tool than the war itself.”), and (3) The Carpetbagger Report (”Is the threat of war Bush’s new campaign strategy for the midterm cycle? . . . How do Democrats approach the political element of this national security debate?”). […]


  15. Miz BoheMia Says :

    My husband is an avid reader of liberal Iranian writers, writers who are jailed, tortured or killed left and right by the regime for leaking out the truth.  Nukes are just 2 years away, at the most, in Iran, not 8-10…

    The Iranian people will do anything to rid themselves of the regime but not without help.

    I cannot stand Bush.  The thought of a nuclear war and nuclear fallout is beyond horrible.  But I am afraid Bush has painted us into a corner.

    As for the Arab world, there is NO love lost between Iranians and Arabs.  Yes, the Shiites in Iraq will probably make a big stink out of it but that is it I think.  Iranians are not Arabs.  Iranians hate being mistaken for Arabs.  Iranians DO NOT like Arabs.  Prejudiced?  Perhaps, but true.  And Arabs are not too fond of Iranians.

    Something does need to be done but how?  I don’t know…


  16. prozacula Says :

    eh, ‘chosen one’ just wants to ruffle feathers.

    no room for dissent in your tiny little world, eh ‘chosen one’?  sounds like your pen name reflects your fucked up ideology.  you, and all the rest of your sad ilk believe you were chosen by god or some such shit.  your god doesn’t exist.
     



Leave a Reply

Note: if you are typing html tags into the comment area manually (i.e. not using the editor) please use the "toggle html source" option above.


Welsh Rabbit Recipe
Jet Bath Tub
Water Consulting
Designer Furniture
Personal Loan Brokers







Fish.Travel