US to attack Iran soon?
This has been bouncing around for about a month now, since Porter Goss's visit to Turkey(Dec. 12) where he met with Prime Minister Erdogan and also their intel chiefs. It has been alleged that he discussed possible military action against Iran in the near term.
The head of the CIA should be talking about possible actions with Iran's neighbors, and that in itself doesn't mean that an attack is imminent. However, Goss is making a pretty big show of this, going to Saudi, Pakistan, Jordan and Oman as well and making similar statements.
My gut tells me that this is just posturing, trying to get the message through to the Iranians that we are ready to strike in order to force them into accepting the current Russian enrichment offer. But I don't know.
I think such a strike against Iran at this time is pretty unlikely for three reasons. 1) The US, and Bush's presidency, is hanging by a thread in Iraq right now, and the meager hopes for a peaceful resolution would certainly be scuppered by creating a rift with the Iranians. 2) From what I've read, and I am not an expert on this, the likelihood is quite small of being able to significantly disable the Iranian nuclear program as it is now disbursed throughout the country and fortified in underground bunkers. 3) Iran has become one of China's main sources for oil, and in the US's current overextended geopolitical state, I would think that a political conflict with China could be a greater strategic loss.
The only really pro argument I can muster for immediate airstrikes would be if the Israelis were quietly threatening to really do it, not just talk about it for domestic political reasons.
I don't know, but since it's bouncing around and seemingly gaining some credence, so, I thought I'd throw it out for opinions.
The head of the CIA should be talking about possible actions with Iran's neighbors, and that in itself doesn't mean that an attack is imminent. However, Goss is making a pretty big show of this, going to Saudi, Pakistan, Jordan and Oman as well and making similar statements.
My gut tells me that this is just posturing, trying to get the message through to the Iranians that we are ready to strike in order to force them into accepting the current Russian enrichment offer. But I don't know.
I think such a strike against Iran at this time is pretty unlikely for three reasons. 1) The US, and Bush's presidency, is hanging by a thread in Iraq right now, and the meager hopes for a peaceful resolution would certainly be scuppered by creating a rift with the Iranians. 2) From what I've read, and I am not an expert on this, the likelihood is quite small of being able to significantly disable the Iranian nuclear program as it is now disbursed throughout the country and fortified in underground bunkers. 3) Iran has become one of China's main sources for oil, and in the US's current overextended geopolitical state, I would think that a political conflict with China could be a greater strategic loss.
The only really pro argument I can muster for immediate airstrikes would be if the Israelis were quietly threatening to really do it, not just talk about it for domestic political reasons.
I don't know, but since it's bouncing around and seemingly gaining some credence, so, I thought I'd throw it out for opinions.
posted by mikevotes at
9:26 PM
5 Comments:
I think that U.S. is just testing the waters right now. Being an Iranian myself, this issue hits really close to home for me.
On one hand I really want to get rid of this mentally backwards regime rulling IRAN and in that sense a good and well planned strile from any country does not seem like such a bad idea. On the other hand I dont want any human casualties and I am also concerned about the heavy economic payback that such an action might have for the Iranian people.
I guess we'll wait and see what happens.
http://www.persianyouth.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/peykan
By
ASHKAN, at 10:52 PM
I meant "Strike" not "Strile" . lol
By
ASHKAN, at 10:55 PM
Iran, and then Canada!
By
Neil Shakespeare, at 11:28 PM
I would think that a political conflict with China could be a greater strategic loss.
Not to mention a well-armed, inventive insurgency at our rear as we storm accross the border. Now where were those figures on the number of Iraqi's killed in the Iran/Iraq war?
By
Anonymous, at 2:08 AM
Well, of course it would be stupid, but then, so was invading Iraq, not to mention ignoring all of our allies and professional diplomats to do so. Torturing people is stupid, paying columnists and hiring gigolos is stupid, leaking the identity of a covert operative is stupid, lots of things this administration does are stupid.
There are a lot of reasons not to do this, you're right. But over at my place I lay out a few reasons, like say, something to talk about at the State of the Union, that the crazies just might do it.
By
Anonymous, at 7:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home