Is the Roll-Out Sputtering?


from Scott Horton's blog at Harper's:

my sense this week is that the roll-out for attacks on Iran has, to the great distraction of its sponsors, not gained the sort of traction that they envisaged for it. I am therefore pulling back on the prospects for the Cheney air war on Iran before the end of the Bush presidency, putting this again at a break-even proposition. Here are some of the points for the pushback.

In short, Horton raises three points: the red state heartland would not fair well under $7 oil, Admiral Fallon's speech as the center piece of the military pushback, and apparently, the Israeli's are backing off from the necessity of war with Iran.


LJ November 13, 2007 - 2:51pm

quiet Bill November 13, 2007 - 3:04pm

I hope I lose.

I did inhale.

Don November 13, 2007 - 6:21pm

Iran is a second front on the war on Iraq, trying to divide people's attention.

It is keeping the permanent presence in Iraq that is the primary objective of neo-con foreign policy, one shared by most of the major presidential aspirants.

Stirling Newberry November 14, 2007 - 9:40am

to see the Israelis backing off. What changed?

adrena November 14, 2007 - 9:44am

the term "the Israelis" has any substantive meaning. There are so many factions and parties in Israel. This is the statement that is most suspect in this post. My guess, at most, the voices for diplomacy are now becoming stronger--they used to be assigned to the left.

LJ November 14, 2007 - 10:43am

Comment viewing options

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