Unfortunately, I told you so.
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who was responsible for early stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, tells us how the White House is preparing to charge into Iran as its next battle in the war on terror.
Hersh's article details the administration's gutting of the CIA in order to make the military more able to operate in a clandestine manner, which is much more to the liking of Rumsfield, Cheney, et al.
What they are doing is conducting "reconassaince" missions into Iran in order to find nuclear-related targets for a planned bombing, which could happen as early as this summer.
Emboldened by his election victory -- which Bush thinks was an approving referendum on his handling of Iraq -- the President wants to fight more "pre-emptive" wars. Even today, he warned Iran for trying to obtain longer-range weapons -- might we be in the early stages of a run-up to an Iranian conflict, much like we were prior to Iraq?
Proving once again that you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks, those in the administration are convinced that an attack on Iran would embolden dissidents who would overthrow the hardline government. The Bushies just don't understand what us weak-kneed liberals seem to understand: they just don't like us, period. If they have the choice between a Muslin hardliner they don't like and an invading American force, they'll stick with the status quo. Did we learn anything from Iraq?
It shouldn't have to be said, but since us progressives are accused of loving terrorists, here it is: I have no love for those in charge of Iran, just like I had no love for Saddam Hussein.
When this war on terror first began in the days after 9/11, we were told it would be a long battle that would not always produce clear objectives and results. Even as they were saying that, those in power were ignoring their own words and going after tangible enemies. But who is more dangerous: those who have a country, or those who have no geographically identifiable target for retaliation (a la Osama bin Laden)? Which would you rather your neighbor have: an ill-tempered doberman pinscher in his yard surrounded by a 10-foot fence, or an ill-tempered doberman pinscher running free?
The war in Iraq is a quagmire with no identifiable end. A war in Iran could make that one look like our invasion of Haiti in the 1990s. If Iran has any nuclear capabilities, it will likely lob whatever it's got at Israel (since it certainly doesn't have the ability to reach us). From there, the dominoes could fall fast; Israel would launch an all-out war with Iran, one which we would no doubt fight alongside (or even for) them. Such an occurrence could cause other Islamic nations to rise up to fight against Israel (any Israeli-Iranian war would require Israel to at least use the air space of other Middle Eastern nations). But it gets worse. None other than Cold War foe Russia is a staunch Iranian defender, as the Russians are building a $1 billions nuclear reactor there -- an investment they might be willing to protect militarily.
What you've got there is a recipe for World War III.
Had we used this same theory of pre-emption with Cuba in the 1960s, instead of the chosen path of containment, would any of us be alive today to debate this?
That the Bushies would be doing this is really no surprise -- they've proven there is no end to their hubris/stupidity. But at some point, surely to goodness the American people will have had enough.
But will it be too late?
No comments:
Post a Comment