10 February 2007

Springtime for GWB in Tehran?

"I don't know how many times the president, secretary Rice and I have
had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
- US Secretary of defense Robert Gates.


Well then, Mr. Gates, it would be nice to have some explanation for the way you are deploying massive naval reources in the Persian Gulf and vicinity. The view from Europe seems to be that by April the US will be in a position to attack Iran by sea. Read this report in The Guardian which highlights the role that neo-conservative ideologues at the American Enterprise Institute are having in the build-up. Having already orchestrated one fiasco in the region, the neo-cons seem to have learned nothing. And, even if the administation has "no intention of attacking Iran," their bellicose actions open the door to all sorts of eventualities. As Paul Rogers argues in this article over at Open Democracy the deployment of massive naval resources to the region increases the possibility of what he calls "accidental war" in various ways. Perhaps the administration and its ideological cheerleaders need to recall that, rather than leading to peace, democracy, and security, their best laid plans in the Middle East have generated mayhem and civil war and reduced the security of the U.S.. This set of events is reminding me why I felt that Gates replacing Runsfeld barely was a move in the right direction.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad to hear it.
When their President makes public speeches recommending "wiping Israel off the map", and their society is one of the most backward and barbaric in the world implicated in terrorism, add the fact of their nuclear interests and I'm glad the US has the power to oppose it and dominate the situation if they wish, while barely raising a sweat.

Iran is the problem, not the steps taken against them BECAUSE they are a problem.

10 February, 2007 19:36  
Blogger Jim Johnson said...

So, countries are fair game because their presidents are bellicose idiots? ... or because they are implicated in terrorism and torture? Sounds like you might want to check your reasoning friend.

Iran is a problem. Their government is anathema. Which steps ought to be taken becasue of those things probably do not involve cruise missle attacks. And, who ought to take whatever steps are warrented is, of course, a question you neglect too. Unilateralism has worked especially well for us in the past few years.

And if you think we can dominate the situation while barely breaking a sweat try looking at Baghdad or Kabul. Try recalling Vietnam. Just because we can over-run Grenada you should not be so foolishly neglectful of history lessons.

10 February, 2007 20:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Countries deserve a military response when they shout at people threateningly, yes are implicated in a worldwide terrorism problem, have a culture based on an historically belligerent and totalitarian ideology, and are dangerously close to developing nuclear weaponry.

The success or otherwise of military aggression is another matter; doing nothing is equally not an option with such a mad-dog regime.

Friend, check your own reasoning. Methinks, you are somewhat brainwashed with a post 1960s, peacenik liberalism predicated on the idea that the whole human race is lovely and worthy and no one should ever condemn any part of it.

The post 9/11 world is clearly not like that, and Iran is one of the major post 9/11 problems.

11 February, 2007 11:31  
Blogger Stan B. said...

Kill 'em all! Every last one(especially the non Christian ones who already "are suspected" of having the bomb- and don't even give us mangos in return)!!!

11 February, 2007 12:58  
Blogger Jim Johnson said...

So ...

"Countries deserve a military response when they shout at people threateningly, yes are implicated in a worldwide terrorism problem, have a culture based on an historically belligerent and totalitarian ideology, and are dangerously close to developing nuclear weaponry."

What part of that leaves out the US? Ask Guatemalans or Chileans or Vietnamese ...

The post 9/11 world is different mostly because BushCo have done NOTHING to secure the "homeland", they have been off marching around blindly wasting lives and resources.

I actually don't think the whole human race is lovely, charming or whatever you said. I think that much of it is reprehensible. What I DOn't think is that our invading Iran is vaguely a good idea. It will not accomplish anything beyond expanding the quagmire we already have created in the region, pssing off more people who will then be recruitable as terrorists and supporters. That is the primary "benefit" of BushCo's foreign policy in the region to date. And that is not a pinko speaking it is the combined intrelligence agency report paid for with your tax dollars.

11 February, 2007 13:48  
Blogger Jim Johnson said...

Stan, As always, you are right on point! Jim

11 February, 2007 13:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home