What will happen if Bush does indeed attack Iran?

[kentuck]

Will the nation unite behind him? Will he be further ostracised around the world? Will that be the start of WWIII? Will there be an oil embargo against the US? Will his Party desert him almost in entirety? Will there be more calls for impeachment? What should be done before it happens?

[TheDebbieDee]

1. We'll have 130,000 Americans troops......

trapped between hostile Al-Queda and Sunni/Shia extremists to the west and hostile Iranians to the north and east.

And NO! The nation will not unite behind him!

[mmonk]

2. Who knows?

I have no faith in the American people anymore.

[indepat]

9. Sadly, your lack of faith has a rock-solid foundation for it should seem obvious tens of millions

love their extreme politics far more than their country.

[seabeyond]

3. he will be unleashing humas on the u.s. a terrorist org that has not messed

with the u.s. will now be in their sites.

[acmavm]

4. We'll bring the whole Mideast down on our military. The only ally we'll

have will be Israel.

You saw from this summer that Israel is not the invincible power they were during the 1967 6-Day war.

Eventually they will have to use nukes.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Russia and China will do... something

Is that the neocon's intent? A final showdown?
or are they just trying to grab all the oil land they can?

[Warpy]

16. Neocons? They're delusional enough to believe they can

pull off a full scale war with Iran.

The people we need to watch out for are the Dominionists, the Reconstructionists, and the other rapture addled screwballs. They will be the main support for this thing and nobody's got the guts to cross them.

[scarletwoman]

6. They have a 3-step plan:

(1) Attack Iran.

(2) Something.

(3) Profit!

sw

[Swamp Rat]

8. LOLOLOL!!!

[scarletwoman]

11. I can't take credit, I got it from one of the blogs I frequent, I just can't remember which.

For a long time now, the "3-Part Plan" has been a running gag line for any number of horrible hair-brained atrocities over the past few years, committed by public and private entities alike.

I just wish I could remember which blog so I could cite it properly.

And, btw, happy to see you as always!

sw
:hi:

[Clevenger]

10. Good one. n/t

[MGD]

7. Our taxes will go up as will the national debt and the Iranians will get their ass kicked...again..

We've already attacked them once back in 1988 and none of the apocalyptic predictions suggested in this thread came to pass. We pretty much just kicked their ass and went home.
Operation Praying Mantis:
http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/vid-prayingmantis.shtml

[Selatius]

15. That was because Iran was embroiled with Iraq in war.

By 1988, Iran was completely exhausted. That was almost 20 years ago, and they are in better shape now than in 1988.

We will wipe out the Iranian airforce probably within the first 24 hours, and their radar networks will go down in days. Their mobile surface-to-air missile launchers will probably be more difficult to deal with but will not be impossible to deal with. The rest will be struck with cruise missiles.

The biggest issue is the economic impact of a bombing campaign against Iran. If we strike Iran, will China protect its billions invested in Iranian oilfields by selling a portion of the US debt to hit the US dollar to send a warning message? How high will gas prices go? Will that slam the US economy? If so, how bad will it be? What would be the combined effect of China selling US debt and 5 dollars/gallon of gas have on the US economy? Those questions are the biggest ones.

[MGD]

17. I have drawn basically the same exact conclusions as you regarding the combat aspects

As far as the gas prices go, we can withstand it if we have to. Obviously, one of our strategic goals would have to be bringing Iran to the negotiation table as quickly as possible and bringing them there in no condition to negotiate anything.
China could dump their dollars and that would weaken the U.S. dollar but that isn't necessarily the end of the US economy. As you probably know, there are actually benefits to a weak dollar. I think China would be hesitant to take any kind of action that would hurt their American export market; what's more, the fact remains, this is primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation in the middle east. I'm not sure if China wants to be seen as the country that openly supported Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons by openly attacking our economy while we attempt to enforce the will of the UN.

[Selatius]

18. The benefits to a weak dollar mainly help US manufacturing, but that's long-term

The short-term "correction" that would follow would wreak a lot of havoc. If China sold 15%, just 15% of its US Dollar holdings, we would feel it. We would feel it because other nations may adopt a herd mentality and sell off a portion of their holdings too in order to shield themselves from Dollar depreciation. When China moves, everybody watches. Goods made with foreign labor would inflate in price on the shelves, perhaps by the hour. Since the US economy is a net importer of goods, goods made with foreign labor, it will suffer.

If China had its way, we would not be contemplating a war with Iran, but if we go ahead and do this, China will hurt big-time as Iranian oilfields, oil tankers, and oil rigs will probably come under some level of attack, especially the oil rigs. Because Iran is rapidly becoming China's biggest seller of crude, China will not sit on its hands while its biggest source of oil is disrupted.

Furthermore, of all the UN resolutions in effect now, none call for military action against Iran, so if the US attacks Iran, it is likely the world won't frown negatively on China for retaliating to protect its interests in Iran. If anything, China would likely appear as the one trying to contain the US. Selling off US Debt will, to be sure, hurt China, but if they sell some of their holdings of US Debt, it is likely because they realize the cost to China will not be as heavy as it is for the US. At the end of the day, those factories in China will still be in China, while all ours are virtually gone.

[MGD]

20. I don't disagree with any of this

but I don't necessarily care and I'm definitely not afraid. The American economy can weather anything the Chinese or the Iranians can muster. Speaking strictly from an American perspective without involving any of our domestic politics in the thought process, I think it behooves us to do everything under the sun to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. We may suffer in the short term from whatever China decides it wants to do about it but the long term costs of inaction are potentially much worse. just MHO though.

"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
Friedrich Nietzsche

[Selatius]

21. You should care, it's your job on the line if the economy is struck during the possible war.

Many of us could find ourselves laid off in the economic turmoil, and we would still have those bills due at the end of the month. On top of that, if OPEC nations embargo the US until a cease-fire is negotiated, we would suffer even worse. The economic fallout could be between nothing to something comparable to 1929, and we should not tempt fate to see just how big the impact really is. We should not tempt fate.

To be honest, if Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons, I say let them. What should we do with Pakistan and India and North Korea as well? Stop them? With what? Mutual Assured Destruction would be in effect. If both sides possess nukes, the cost of war would be so high that nobody would be willing to fight a war. That seems to be a good thing. It was when it was the USA v. the USSR.

[MGD]

22. My job isn't going anywhere. I am fortunate in that aspect.

"The economic fallout could be between nothing to something comparable to 1929"
What would be the fallout if Iran and Israel turned the middle-east into a nuclear war zone? What would be the fallout if America were pushed out of the middle east by the Chinese? What would be the fallout if we just started allowing every rogue nation on the planet to obtain nuclear weapons? What would the fallout have been if the world folowed Chamberlain instead of Churchill prior to WW2? I say we bomb them into an unconditional surrender and take our chances. Whatever suffering we endure in the short term can be made up for in the final treaty. Diplomacy has failed. This is our only option. Not a popular sentiment around here I know but there it is.

"We should not tempt fate."
Neither should China as they will most certainly share in our fate.

"To be honest, if Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons, I say let them. What should we do with Pakistan and India and North Korea as well?"
I have heard others say as much but I have to disagree. Iran is, for one thing, a different bird entirely. The middle-east is itself also a totally different bird than Korea or Pakistan or India. The last word is yours if you want it as I have to go now.

[Selatius]

24. Your position is, in my view, going to destroy the US if followed.

I say we bomb them into an unconditional surrender and take our chances. Whatever suffering we endure in the short term can be made up for in the final treaty. Diplomacy has failed. This is our only option. Not a popular sentiment around here I know but there it is.

It is this kind of reasoning that led the nations of Europe into the First World War.

Neither should China as they will most certainly share in our fate.

We would both fall down, but when China gets back up, they would have the factories we gave to them.

I have heard others say as much but I have to disagree. Iran is, for one thing, a different bird entirely. The middle-east is itself also a totally different bird than Korea or Pakistan or India.

I am telling you a bombing campaign against Iran is going to make us lose Iraq as well as the rest of the world. It's obvious to me now where you stand on the issues. I cannot stand with you there. With that said, I will not speak further here, as it's obvious a gulf separates us on what to do with Iran, and there is likely to be no agreement.

[MGD]

25. I lied. that isn't the final word

"It is this kind of reasoning that led the nations of Europe into the First World War."
Actually, it is your kind of reasoning that would have allowed the nazis to conquer the entire world.

"We would both fall down, but when China gets back up, they would have the factories we gave to them."
A.) There's no guarantee that either of us will fall down.
B.) factories can easily be rebuilt and, as such, I don't have a problem with fundamentally altering our relationship with China in the manner we have described.
C.) China is not as strong as you think. If they fall down, they will fall down much harder than we do and they know it.

"I am telling you a bombing campaign against Iran is going to make us lose Iraq as well as the rest of the world."
That is an opinion, not a fact. My counter-opinion is that a nuclear powered Iran will be a far greater loss than whatever we may lose in Iraq. Let us not forget that Bill Clinton gave North Korea the reactors which enabled Kim Jong Il to acquire the bomb. Are we now to be the party that gave the bomb to Mahmoud Ahmedinijihad too? I would hope not.

"It's obvious to me now where you stand on the issues."
As it is to me with you.

"with that said, I will not speak further here, as it's obvious a gulf separates us on what to do with Iran, and there is likely to be no agreement."

You have offered appeasement as an option. You clearly indicated that fear is the basis of your appeasement. I truly hope that the Democratic party doesn't adopt this neo-Chamberlain doctrine. Regardless, you are correct that there is not likely to be any agreement between us as I have no intention of changing my position on this so long as Iran remains intransigent.

[Selatius]

27. The last time I checked, Iran is years away from the bomb.

Actually, my kind of reasoning would've prevented the Nazis from ever assuming power because it would've removed the chaos that resulted from the First World War, the kind of chaos Nazis needed to gain power, and a whole lot fewer people would've died as a result of the stupidity that sucked Europe into WWI, the kind of stupidity from militarists who were too eager to resort to the military option back in the summer of 1914 before exhausting all peaceful remedies. Neville Chamberlain was blind to the Nazi build-up in arms, but only a fool would advocate not stockpiling one's own weapons in face of such facts, and that's what Chamberlain represented, and even I am not that blind.

I believe we would both (China and the US) take a hit if Bush goes all the way. 5 dollars/gallon would hurt the entire world economy, but what would hurt worse is the US attacking China's interests in Iran.

Let us not forget that Bill Clinton gave North Korea the reactors which enabled Kim Jong Il to acquire the bomb.

Let us also not forget that those were light-water reactors totally unsuitable to making weapons grade plutonium and that North Korea already possessed graphite-moderated reactors which are better suited to making weapons grade plutonium. The light-water reactors were meant to replace their graphite-moderated reactors. I don't know where you got your information from.

You have offered appeasement as an option. You clearly indicated that fear is the basis of your appeasement. I truly hope that the Democratic party doesn't adopt this neo-Chamberlain doctrine. Regardless, you are correct that there is not likely to be any agreement between us as I have no intention of changing my position on this so long as Iran remains intransigent.

Your calculations are different than mine. Mine say the cost of a bombing campaign will have greater consequences than benefits. You concluded differently. That's not appeasement. That is just more opinion. Appeasement would be me calculating that we would gain more from a military strike than lose yet opting not to strike anyway. That is the definition of fear-based judgment, and fear is not what I based my judgment on.

If Iran had the bomb, I doubt it would do anything in light of the fact that Israel likely has several hundred warheads, and if Iran had dozens of them, any such exchange would result in mutual assured destruction. Iran's leaders talk big, but like Kim Jong-Il, I doubt they'd be prepared to commit suicide since their game, like Kim's, is to hold onto power, not jeopardize it and certainly not die holding it. That is why I elected not to use military force.

[Toucano]

30. Diplomacy has not failed. It has not even been tried.

The position of the United States has been that Iran must cease it's uranium enrichment plans BEFORE direct talks are held. Direct talks about their uranium enrichment plans.

Obviously, requiring Iran to yield their objective before you discuss their objective is unacceptable to them. The talks are contingent upon them giving up the leverage and forcing them to come to the table from a weaker position. Absurd.

[earthlover]

12. It would appear....

to any sane person, that when we have difficulty staffing the Iraq War, it would be insane to invade Iran.

Unfortunately, we do not have a sane person in the White House.

What would happen if Bush invades Iran? People will die needlessly. Our military will be hard pressed to keep up.

Instead of losing one war, we lose two....

[mainegreen]

13. Hopefully the CIA will finally get fed up with him and....

wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

(Yes I think the CIA kills people. No, I don't think they really kill presidents.)

[Saboburns]

14. I'm sure the CIA is already fed up with him.

But I highly doubt they'd put a hit on Bush.

[Rex]

19. Then we as a species are doomed.

Stick a fork in us. If that happens, America will be remembered as an Empire and not a Republic.

[KoKo]

23. Matthews Sunday Panel (including Andrea Mitchell, Rather and Sullivan

seemed to feel Americans would be "very unhappy" given the mood of the "people." :shrug:

Bush/Cheney Crime Family & Neo-Cons have never cared what the "people" thought about anything, though. So, they will do it. I think we are being prepared. And, when they don't cover our "Anti Iraq Protests" (still) it would seem that an "unhappy people" is just not important to anyone.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

26. We will become much more aware

of the Totalitarian state that we have let "our" Gov't thrust upon us.

[dysfunctional press]

28. they'll probably just shoot him or put him in jail...

BUT- if he uses nukes or our armed forces to attack iran- it could be extremely problematic, to say the least. (just make sure that your gas tank is FULL at all times)

[truth2power]

29. What will happen? Go to this article on Smirking Chimp...

Ten Problems with Bush's Latest Iraq Plan

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/4653

Now...scroll down to the comments section. Here is the comment by macsporan (7th one down):

This is lenghty, but it's a superb analysis, IMO. Please note the last two paragraphs. comments?

Number 11

Where are the troops going to come from?

A few days ago I read that the Pentagon has only got 9,000 soldiers at the very most.

Some will come from Afghanistan, which is tantamount to handing the country back to the Taliban.

Some can be found by extending tours of duty or sending others back early.

Watch out for rising desertion, refusal to fight and other signs of demoralisation.

Some can come from Europe, Japan and Korea, but not many.

That cupboard was bare long ago. Given the unpopularity of the US it is fairly unlikely that departing troops will be allowed to return and the US will lose its military stake in some of the fairest portions of the planet in exchange for a transient balm to the ego of a sociopathic President.

Most folk in uniform and rear-echelon johnnies, supply clerks, mechanics, cooks and bottlewashers.

It will take a fair while to cull them and knock them into shape as combat troops and they will bitterly resent the process. Canada will beckon.

The barrel has been scraped all the way down to the wood.

Most of the troops Bush plans to send either don't exist or cannot be mobilised in a timely manner.

It appears that Bush has decided on a final act of folly--he will declare war on the Shiite militia who are numerous, well-armed and well dug in to Baghdad itself and all along the US Expeditionary Force's supply lines to Kuwait.

Hello Stalingrad, and the joys of costly block by block streetfighting. Say hello to a massacre of Iraqi civilians on a scale not yet seen.

Not only that if the Shiite majority in the country rebels against the US with Iranian support the trap could spring shut on the whole US Expeditionary force.

If they fail to guard their exposed supply lines they could well be cut off and destroyed a la Stalingrad; if they redeploy to guard their supply lines they can make no further attacks and become helpless pinned-down targets to be overwhelmed piece by piece in a series of Dien Bien Phus, ground to powder by unceasing guerilla skirmishing or suffer a catastrophic collapse of morale, necessitating immediate withdrawal.

The expense in blood and treasure will boggle the mind.

An outright military defeat, to match the political defeat that is already history, is well within sight.

Perhaps this experience will teach the American people that it is not so good to follow malevolent, brain-damaged psychopaths into grandiose, ill-planned and wretchedly-executed crusades in Eurasia.

What the Iraqi people will learn from it is anyone's guess, but it is safe to suppose that love and trust of the United States government, democracy and Western values will not be among them.

_______

Investigate, Impeach, Imprison.

macsporan | Jan 12 2007 - 3:47am |

login or register to post comments | email this comment

NOTE: IS IT AGAINST THE RULES TO POST SOMEONE'S COMMENT IN IT'S ENTIRETY? IF SO, GIVE ME A HEAD'S UP AND I'LL EDIT. OR MODS CAN EDIT IF MY TIME EXPIRES.