Sunday, May 21, 2006

Who Could Have Foreseen?

One of the most disasterous (and dangerous) aspects of the current US regime's foreign policy is that no one ever thinks ahead. Nobody ever considers the possible consequences of any move, and no one ever checks with our allies (real or paid-for) to see what they think. Then, when things turn out badly, as they inevitably do, officials get all wide-eyed and proclaim, "Why, who could have imagined...?" Who could have imagined that the Iraqis would be less than thrilled with an invasion and occupation? Who could have foreseen that the failure to put pressure on Israel to engage in meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians would have resulted in an Hamas victory in Palestine? Who could have predicted that after years of bullying and neglect nations in South American would shift to the left and elect populist anti-American leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who threaten and carry out such policies as nationalization of natural gas fields?

And now it is clear that the Emperor is setting us up for another excellent adventure, this time in Iran. Nobody, especially nations in that area, wants the current Iranian government to have nuclear bombs, but a military response to the crisis is not the answer to the problem. Even our friends in the Middle East know what the consequences of a US attack will be. Qatar's Al Sharq suggests a very likely scenario.

America's foolishness threatens to lead the region not only toward more disaster, but toward the disaster of all disasters.

We firmly believe that Iranian success in developing a nuclear bomb would represent a grave and imminent danger, equally to Arabs and Israel, as well as to American and global interests. While Israel believes itself the primary target of a potential Iranian bomb, the reality is that it will not be the only target, because in like manner, the Arab Gulf countries are also possible targets.

Iran is obsessed with dreams of restoring its previous empire, and American foolishness has facilitated for Teheran the two most important steps in this direction:

1) It has transformed Iraq, a country which had been a knife at the throat of the Iranian leadership's dreams, into an Iranian sphere of influence, and;

2) It has given impetus to Teheran's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, which had been kept in check by Iraqi deterrence.

Washington appears to be considering two options, even the sweetest of which is extremely bitter. Either it will direct air and missile strikes at Iran's nuclear reactors in what resembles localized surgery, or it will sweep Iran away militarily and topple its Islamic government. Both of these options holds perils.

The first option would add momentum to ideological movements [read: Islamic anti-Government movements] in countries throughout the region, and Iran would triumph by acting as a champion of demands for equality and citizenship. This would also hasten an Iranian military response, which would target oil wells, refineries, and pipelines, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.

Washington's choice to launch air strikes would encourage Iran to take such actions, because air strikes would represent U.S. admission that it is incapable of invading and occupying Iran and overthrowing its government.
[Emphasis added]

And this is from a country with whom the US has such a cozy relationship that we have military bases there. Is anybody at State listening?

By launching an attack of any kind on Iran, the US will be giving Iran exactly what it wants: justification for a nuclear arsenal for defense purposes. It will also prove what radical groups in the Islamic world have been saying for years: the US is at war with Islam, and current Middle Eastern governments are allowing this.

And the current US regime still has visions of rose petals and candy. In this case, blowback and karma are the same damned thing.


Post a Comment

<< Home