Iran: The Issue is Bush


Let's go over the Iran issue, and Democrat leadership spinelessness on this, one more time, from a different angle.

The issue is Bush. Bush can't be trusted to have the power to use tac nukes on Iran, or go to war with Iran in any fashion. It's just that simple. If it were Clinton, that'd be another matter (either Clinton, though I trust Bill more). But this is Bush. What does it take for politicians to understand that this man has to be restrained from unilateral use of military power?

Bush is, pardon the language, a fuck up.

He needs the keys taken away from him, before he totals the family car - again.

Presidential contenders - or any other politicians - who don't understand this, or do understand it and refuse to act on it out of political consideration, are failing their country and the US's troops, in an extremely significant way. If Bush launches a serious strike on Iran (ALL options) and Iran decides to consider it a real war, then you are going to lose a LOT of troops. The US will be reminiscing about the days when it lost less than a thousand a year.

More After the Jump

The arms control wonks - the ones who aren't in the CIA and having political appointees breathing down their necks, do not think that Iran is close to nukes. The estimates are at 5 to 10 years.

This is not a crisis. It does not need to be dealt with by this administration. It can wait for the next one.

Therefore it should wait for the next one, because this administration couldn't run a boy scout jamboree, let alone another war. They're already losing two wars. Do we really want to make it three?


Ian Welsh January 24, 2007 - 3:17pm
( categories: Analysis )

Ian:

I appreciate you having a very wise finger on the Middle East pulse.

The hard-line neocons and international financiers who control them still hold to the illusion that Western power will defeat and subjugate Islam through military, economic, and religious means. Such folly.

In hypocritically unraveling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and secular Ba'athist/Sunni dictatorship in Iraq, as well as supporting Israel and only one side in Palestinian politics, the West is in very large part responsible for not only uniting all of Islam in jihad, while at the same time destroying the mechanisms and alliances preventing, or at least restricting, the inevitable bloody conflicts that again are erupting among the many factions of Islam, such as Sunni against Shi'ite.

I have resisted the widespread speculation that Bush is clinically insane. I have believed that the neocons have so far gotten everything they wanted, especially the total destruction of the Iraqi nation, the destabilization of the Middle East, and the weakening of the United States as a Democratic nation to further the advance of globalization.

There is evidence that, no matter what, Bush will attack Iran. I am doubtful that he will invade on the ground, however, even though troops will be shifted to the Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran to try slow down incursion from them. I do believe that Israel and the US will attack Iran in a massive air assault involving nuclear weapons which will in turn disintegrate quickly into a cataclysmic, pan-Islamic counter-attack against the West. This will reach American soil.

Perhaps all this will not happen, but I no longer believe we will stop it. Even though the Democratic Party has a majority, they do note have the two-thirds majority that can negate the neocons, nor will they impeach, dreaming that when they gain the White House in 2008, they will assume the unfettered power of the executive that Bush will leave them.

Please, Ian. Tell me I'm wrong.

ddjango January 25, 2007 - 2:22pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.