When the Other Side Says, "Bring It On"
The US regime continues to use Iran as a whipping post. Iran, with Syria, is being blamed by the State Department for fomenting the protests generated by the hateful cartoons published and republished in Europe. The US continues to push the UN and IAEA over the nuclear development planned by Iran in a fashion very reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and, once again, the Emperor in Chief referred disparagingly to Iran and its leaders in his recent State of the Union Address, indirectly urging Iranians to overthrow their own elected government.
While an argument can be made that all of this sabre rattling is made primarily for US consumption, the rest of the world, including some of our "allies" have been watching carefully. A recent "open letter" to the US and its neocons recently appeared in the Pakistani newspaper The Pak Tribune. The author is a former fighter pilot for Pakistan.
Dear Neocons,
It is showtime over Iran. You are in a bind of your own making and, boy, am I glad to see it!
Allow me to explain.
Increasing Iranian belligerence vis-à-vis your pressure on Iran's nuclear program indicates that decision time has finally arrived. The words of your spokesman, the President of United States, having earlier included Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in a rush of blood, will not allow you to do nothing. You now must put up or shut up, once and for all.
Let us examine your options.
To start off, you could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. There is no evidence, however, that unilateral sanctions have ever worked. Your country imposed over 80 unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1995 to 2001, and those sanctions cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone. There are few items of international commerce over which your country has a monopoly. Target countries simply buy what they need elsewhere, while big American businesses lose sales to foreign competitors.
The next option involves multilateral sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Multilateral sanctions have a better chance of success, but they are hard to maintain. With China and Russia, Iran's two major trading partners, sitting on the U.N. Security Council, these are unlikely to materialize. ...
Next, you could get Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. There are, however, some deep-seated problems attached to this option too. Based on its known military capabilities, the Israeli Air Force can possibly conduct surgical strikes at the 1000km plus range, but it is incapable of a sustained air campaign against a full range of targets at such a distance. ...
In a nutshell, the option of getting Israel to attack Iranian installations is difficult because the probability of success is low, the risks are high, and reprisals are certain.
Next, you could go it alone in a direct military confrontation.
Remember please that Iran is no Iraq. It is large, populous, rugged, and its nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country, some deep underground. A full-scale invasion would be a too-hot-to-handle venture for you. When one compares Iran to Saddam's Iraq, where you thought you would be greeted as liberators, it's not too difficult to guess the level of ferocity and popularity of a post-invasion Iranian resistance.
That brings us to your final option: a bargain with the Iranians. Here you have really become captives of your own bombast. Bargaining with Iran would mean offering the present regime incentives for disarmament while dropping the mad rhetoric of regime change. However, any overt bargain with Iran will surely be read as a retreat from your much-touted project of democratization and regional transformation.
In short, you are in a bind of your own making and we can see you squirming. [Emphasis added]
I think that summarizes things nicely, even though there was no mention of the fact that regardless of Mr. Rumsfield's assertions to the contrary, the US military is already strained to the breaking point, and absent a draft, cannot possibly take on another war. The Emperor has painted himself, and this nation, into a corner, a very expensive one.
Way to go, George.
While an argument can be made that all of this sabre rattling is made primarily for US consumption, the rest of the world, including some of our "allies" have been watching carefully. A recent "open letter" to the US and its neocons recently appeared in the Pakistani newspaper The Pak Tribune. The author is a former fighter pilot for Pakistan.
Dear Neocons,
It is showtime over Iran. You are in a bind of your own making and, boy, am I glad to see it!
Allow me to explain.
Increasing Iranian belligerence vis-à-vis your pressure on Iran's nuclear program indicates that decision time has finally arrived. The words of your spokesman, the President of United States, having earlier included Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in a rush of blood, will not allow you to do nothing. You now must put up or shut up, once and for all.
Let us examine your options.
To start off, you could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. There is no evidence, however, that unilateral sanctions have ever worked. Your country imposed over 80 unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1995 to 2001, and those sanctions cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone. There are few items of international commerce over which your country has a monopoly. Target countries simply buy what they need elsewhere, while big American businesses lose sales to foreign competitors.
The next option involves multilateral sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Multilateral sanctions have a better chance of success, but they are hard to maintain. With China and Russia, Iran's two major trading partners, sitting on the U.N. Security Council, these are unlikely to materialize. ...
Next, you could get Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. There are, however, some deep-seated problems attached to this option too. Based on its known military capabilities, the Israeli Air Force can possibly conduct surgical strikes at the 1000km plus range, but it is incapable of a sustained air campaign against a full range of targets at such a distance. ...
In a nutshell, the option of getting Israel to attack Iranian installations is difficult because the probability of success is low, the risks are high, and reprisals are certain.
Next, you could go it alone in a direct military confrontation.
Remember please that Iran is no Iraq. It is large, populous, rugged, and its nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country, some deep underground. A full-scale invasion would be a too-hot-to-handle venture for you. When one compares Iran to Saddam's Iraq, where you thought you would be greeted as liberators, it's not too difficult to guess the level of ferocity and popularity of a post-invasion Iranian resistance.
That brings us to your final option: a bargain with the Iranians. Here you have really become captives of your own bombast. Bargaining with Iran would mean offering the present regime incentives for disarmament while dropping the mad rhetoric of regime change. However, any overt bargain with Iran will surely be read as a retreat from your much-touted project of democratization and regional transformation.
In short, you are in a bind of your own making and we can see you squirming. [Emphasis added]
I think that summarizes things nicely, even though there was no mention of the fact that regardless of Mr. Rumsfield's assertions to the contrary, the US military is already strained to the breaking point, and absent a draft, cannot possibly take on another war. The Emperor has painted himself, and this nation, into a corner, a very expensive one.
Way to go, George.
posted by Diane at 8:13 AM
2 Comments:
The point is that either the US seriously plans to invade Iran, a well established rumor/idea for anyone who thinks about what is happening, or it does not plan to invade.
It's hard to imagine the US invading Iran when its forces are lready stretched so thin by Iraq. But that is part of what makes this situation scary: NOTHING CAN SURPRISE US ABOUT WHAT IT MAY DO.
The bottom line is that US Presidential elections are fast approaching and this may lead to a more moderate Republican in office. But that's no guarantee.
It does seem like a bind. But situations like this can slow boil for a long time. Does anyone want Iran to have the bomb? No. Are we willing to invade to prevent it? No.
With 2006 elections on the horizon, I think you can be sure of a bombing attack on Iran. Nothing helps your election chances, like a good war. Although that is not the ultimate reason for the attack. The ultimate goal is always oil. The nuclear excuse is just that, an excuse. America imperialism is on the march. Today is it Iran's turn. Tomorrow it's Venezula. America could not care less about democracy or freedom. For proof of that all anyone has to do is read America's history of involvement in Latin America. We have assassinated democratically elected heads of state. Overthrown democracies with our CIA. Trained and funded death squads, whose atrocities are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. The terrible economic conditions of Latin America has been a direct result of our policies there. Multinational corporations with the help of the CIA steal their resources by installing corrupt dictators who become rich by letting us have what we want. The people never participate in the wealth. Anyone who comes along to try to change the system are branded communists, and are eliminated. Back to Iran. Look at a map. America has Iran completely surrounded. We have military capabilities in every country that borders Iran. There is no other plausible reason for some of these bases, other that attacking Iran. These bases have been established over the last 5 years, with one purpose only. Iran. All talk of a diplomatic solution to Iran is only a smoke screen designed to give the inevitable upcoming war a legitimacy. Nothing will stop it.
Post a Comment
<< Home