Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Dread and Iran

Talking Points Memo, highlights a recent article from the AP. It doesn't sound good:
Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.

The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.

I also agree, whole heartedly, with the analysis provided by Josh Marshall:

I've always viewed the fears that the White House would try expand the war into Iran with a mix of deep skepticism, fascination and latent foreboding. Logically, it makes no sense on any number of counts. But the last half dozen years has taught us all that that's simply not a significant obstacle. There are any number of ridiculous gambits I was sure these guys wouldn't try before they did try them.

Again, the 'sensible' interpretation of what's happening right now is that the administration is trying to regain control of the situation in Iraq. And to further that aim they're rattling their sabres at Iran to get them to back off and stop making trouble. That's the sensible explanation. But we're not dealing with sensible people. And much more important, the folks who are running this show are simply too stupid to be trusted to execute such a delicate and perilous feint.

There is no good reason for us to engage militarily with Iran. As much as I dislike the leadership in Iran, going up against them now does nothing for the US. We cannot sustain an area that large, we cannot afford the financial cost and we cannot isolate ourselves any further on the world stage.

Knowing all of this won't change Bush's mind.

6 comments:

Disco said...

This is really sickening. This is really the hypermasculine morality to a n'th degree. However, usually it's between individuals, not between countries. "I am tough, I will beat your ass if you fuck with me."

I agree that I'm not wild about Iran either, but they do have a point that they are allowed to have peaceful nuclear power because they are signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, unlike India, who we are giving technology too.

It may sound drastic, but little Iranian Leader would never have been elected if not for Bush, who heightened fear in the public and allowed the extremists to overtake the reformists.

Broca said...

You're absolutely right about how Ahmadinejad came into power. The hyper-militant/jingoistic ideology of this administration is largely responsible for the change in leadership. Unfortunately, this isn't a topic that is much talked about. Yet, it is a global phenomenon. If you look at the shift in leadership throughout the world, you find a dramatic increase in anti-American governments* (e.g. Spain, Bolivia, Ecuador,
South Korea).

*By that, I mean the governments are vocal opponents of American interests- rather than openly hostile to American interests.

Disco said...

Did you call customer support, or do you have applecare?

Broca said...

The ipod was given to me by my brother in law- which he found on the side of the road in Cambridge. So I don't think I am covered by any plans.

Packaging services companies in Pune said...

nice posting..........its always great reading such posts, this post is good in regards of both knowledge as well as information.

Unknown said...

The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need!
Online Advertisement
India Classified Ads
Indian manufacturers
Business Directory
Sell Used Cars
Buy Sell Free Classifieds
Post Sell Ads
second hand car in chennai
Buy Sell Free Classifiedst
Ads For Sale
Classified Yellow Pagest
Free Advertising
video classifieds