The Attack on Iran -- or not -- post your prediction

[Bucky]

Poll question: The Attack on Iran -- or not -- post your prediction

After waiting 18 months for the imminent surprise invasion of Iran (the previously inerrant Scott Ritter first predicted it was a sure thing about to happen in April 2005), I'm getting a little impatient for this long overdue October surprise. Mr Rove, you're really letting me down here. After weeks of assurance from my DU compadres that an invasion of Iran (more recently downgraded to an airstrike on Iran) was certainly the Bushies' October Surprise and that they were going to break precedent by starting a new war before the election rather than just after the election as Bushes have always done in the past, I'm wondering where my war is.

Do you think hitting Iran is still their October, or perhaps early November, surprise? If not, tell us when (or whether and whither) you think it's gonna happen.

[katinmn]

1. I think they would like to provoke Iran to attack the Eisenhower.

That's why they sent it there Oct. 5. The Eisenhower made a stop in Naples on Oct. 21. No offical word on where they are now. I pray the neocons aren't that desperate and I have my fingers crossed for the 6500 souls aboard the Eisenhower.

[Bucky]

3. Iran's played a very smart game of geopolitics. Doubt they'd blow it now.

Pretend you're in charge of Iranian national security and it's January 2000. What are your four biggest national security threats?
1- Al-Qaeda-connected Talibanis controlling Afghanistan on your east
2- Your longtime nemisis, Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi Ba'athist Party on your west
3- The ongoing American-Saudi alliance causing trouble in your region--particularly the modernizing appeal that American pop culture has on your 20-somethings
4- The western-friendly pro-liberalization movements among your younger people

In the next ten years you know these problems are only going to get worse. But what can you do about it? Well, in a perfect world, if God were truly on your side, then your #3 enemy (America) would suddenly take out your #1 and #2 enemies (the Taliban and Saddam) in a way that politically discredits the Americans and gives your rowdy impatient youngsters a reason to rally 'round the flag and want to reject western values. Better yet, American destruction of your enemies would strengthen your influence among your fellow Shiites in Iraq's energy-rich south.

Icing on the cake would be if this all happened in a way that strenthened ties to Russian technology aid and Chinese energy markets AND left American too militarily tied down to present any security threat to your homeland.

My conspiracy theorist friends at DU always tell me to ask "who benefits?" when fishing about for suspects. Yet I hear the main beneficiaries of Mr Bush's geobungling ever get named.

[yurbud]

2. only restraints: military, CIA, and elite loss of faith in Bush

the last means Bush won't get the slavish press support he did before, and the loss of the other two could mean a revolution if he ignores there strong opposition and attacks Iran anyway.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. A very dicey proposition.

Even the morons in the Pentagon and White House realize the potential catastrophe that could occur if they dared to attack Iran.

1. An attack before the midterms would be obviously a case a political expediency and would risk not having public support. Though videos of buildings blowing up with no apparent casualties, flag waving, grim looking generals in fatigues, pious looking politicians, flag waving, erecting bogeymen, flag waving, choruses of "support our troops", flag waving, some trilling of "God Bless America", and, of course some flag waving, usually works.

2. A violent response from Iran. Probably against our forces in Iraq.

3. An overwhelming response from the Muslim world of sheer hatred for the U.S. and even more violence.

4. Condemnation by the rest of the world, with very few exceptions.

5. The inability to militarily, economically, politically, carry on a real war against Iran and multiple "terrorist" organizations inspired into action by such an attack.

6. The very real possibility of "friendly" governments in the region being overthrown by their own people.


Just to name a few.

[Bucky]

7. Exactly: "Just to name a few" is understatement.

It really bothers me when I point out how reckless and self destructive an attack on Iran would be and some DUers respond with "They never worry about the consequences; just like they didn't in Iraq". That's not a logical or sustainable argument. They clearly do worry about consequences which is why they built up a huge (albeit dishonest) case against Iraq before that invasion. They've tried nothing like that type of demonization against Iran. In 2001 they may have glibly fantasized about regime change in Tehran. But the five years since have taught them literally a world about the limitations of their power. Their preference now is to scare us, rather than to bomb them.

[Glib Acumen]

5. Gradualism

Iran will not be attacked within ten years. Simulated war games are used to bring rationality to the war planning. I speculate that small, weak countries will be attacked first. Large, strong countries, like Iran, will not be attacked until the American Empire is enlarged by taking over weak countries. The simulations prevent the USA from repeating the mistakes of the Japanese who moved too fast to take over the world. By using "gradualism", the USA wants to succeed where the Japanese failed.

[Lindsey]

6. I can't imagine with things goind so badly in Iraq

that they would attack Iran. People are already so pissed off about the current war. The stupidity of this tactic defies reason but then look who we're dealing with....so in essence....who knows?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Have to agree with you.

The ruling junta's amazing record of shortsightedness is downright incredible. Not to mention sheer incompetence and utter stupidity.

[0rganism]

9. Other - used to think it would happen in June, now not so sure

Iran backpedaled hard on the oil bourse they had planned to open in March, so the economic motives aren't as clear anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some terrorist attacks scheduled for the next two weeks that get traced back to Iran, but I don't think another invasion is where the pukes want to be right before the election. If it would have been a net positive, it would have happened in the 1st week of October -- too late in the game to take advantage of it properly, as it is now. It would only give voters more fuel for the "need of congressional oversight" angle.

So, look for it in late November or early December, if the Dems don't take both houses. Either way, gas goes back to $3/gal by New Years Day.

[Altean Wanderer]

10. It's not going to happen soon

If it does so, it will be Israel, not the US. However, since we'd have to give Israel the green light to fly over US controlled airspace on their way, we'd effectively be perceived as complicit.

[dkofos]

11. Iran won't attack us first, but the same people that gave us 9/11

(and I don't mean Al-Qaeda) will make it look like they did.

I'm sure they have a couple of anti ship missles locked and loaded.

[LunaC]

12. Yup

And the time of tension, danger and "surprises" will arise after the election and last until January (when the new Congress is sworn in) and * still has power.