| Monday, April 10, 2006 |
| As for Ahmadinejad... |
 ...he's going to the World Cup. ... possibly in a track suit. Could this be the man President Bush is sort of denying he's planning to blow up with tactical nukes in a Messianic bid for regime change? What, me worry?
On a more serious note, Bush's semi-denials aside, it really is time for Americans to get serious about the possibility of our going to war with Iran. Remember former Iraq WMD inspector Scott Ritter? He said back in February that a war with Iran is coming, whether we like it or not:
"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.
Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."
"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.
Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
The only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, "It's a partisan issue." He said the problem is one party government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans. Yes, but if Scott Ritter knows that, don't you think the president knows it too?
Wouldn't it be more likely that an attack on Iran, should it happen, would be launched in the early fall, after the summer lull (and after Americans have gotten used to super-high summertime gas prices, since they'll go even farther aloft if we attack one of the world's largest oil producing nations) but before the midterm elections? The Bushies might be calculating that they can get two for the price of one: Bush and the neocons' dream of hitting Tehran and possibly toppling its mullaocracy, and sky-high approval ratings for the reinvigorated commander in chief (along with a re-neutered press corps and a Congress -- Republican and Democrat -- put firmly back in its place).
After all, we'll be "at war" again, and we all know you're not supposed to criticize the commander in chief during a time of war. And you'll need to reelect a Republican Congress to make sure we don't "cut and run" from Iran, right? And about that domestic spying? Well, there could be American double agents talking by phone or AOL instant messager with Iran-Qaida. You know the drill...
So if there is going to be an attack on Iran, I'd bet September or October would be just the time to "launch the product." Don't you?
Previous:
Tags: Iran, Neocons, Bush, Foreign Policy, Bush administration, Nukes, Nuclear, War, Seymour Hersh |
posted by JReid @ 3:55 PM   |
|
|
|
|
