[Peace-discuss] Iran scare

[Robert Naiman]

While I agree with much in the article, I think the "handicap and
compete for priority" frame is counterproductive.

The authors seem to feel to some degree that efforts to respond to
threats to attack Iran necessarily endanger efforts to end the Iraq
war and the war in Afghanistan.

It ain't so. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Furthermore,
there are important areas of overlap between the concerns. A key
argument of the Cheneyistas for why we have to stay in Iraq is the
"need" to confront Iran. If, on the contrary, the US would engage in
serious diplomacy with Iran, it would greatly facilitate the US GTFO
of Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I worried a bit about using the word, "rational". What I had in mind was
> that this White House neocon cabal would put aside all the arguments against
> an attack, and they are, abundant as they are, in their quest for U.S.
> hegemony , advancing their imperialistic interests. They would put aside any
> anticipated losses, human and material, here and abroad, to achieve U.S.
> dominance by military means. An indication of this mindset is that
> Bush/Cheney maintain belief that they did the right thing in attacking Iraq,
> and considers his actions there a success, with only minor hiccups. One
> might say that there is a certain rationality to these actions, but I
> consider them mad. It is the rationality of a psychopath. --mkb
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> Good point about the current admin's rationality -- goal was permanent
> presence and control of the oil, and that mission is almost accomplished
> (unless the Iraqi leaders refuse to allow any or all of this). Hey, didn't
> congress say -- and Bush agree -- that there would be NO permanent bases? Of
> course that was a couple of years ago, and this is now...
>
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On Wed, 7/16/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iran scare
> To: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 12:57 AM
>
> [1] A lame-duck president has limited resources to compel actions,
> particularly
> military actions, that powerful subordinates oppose.  (Kissinger arranged
> for
> Nixon's military orders to be ignored in his final days.)  Suppose instead
> of
> carrying out an order to attack Iran, flag officers (and/or a defense
> secretary)
> resign -- and say why.  Even the threat of that might deter an attack.
>
> [2] It's not clear which candidate an Iran attack would help (as they well
> know).  Note the new ABC/WP poll that already puts McCain ahead of Obama as
> CINC. An attack might lower rather than raise that percentage. OTOH Obama
> has
> always approved of an attack on Iran under certain circumstances.
>
> [3] This administration has throughout its history been quite rational -- in
> the
> sense of fitting means to ends -- in pursuit of its vicious goals.  It's
> only
> clear irrationality -- the colossal botch of the occupation -- was the
> almost
> exclusive responsibility of the DOD troika, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith
> ("the
> stupidest fucking guy in the universe," acc. to Gen Franks), and they were
>
> dismissed for it.
>
> But of course prediction in these matters is nearly impossible.  All we can
> do
> is give as good an account as possible of what the current situation is.
> This
> article seems to me to do a better job of that than most.  --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> The only flies in the ointment of this analysis is that 1) Bush is still
>> the Commander in Chief of the armed forces--and they will do his
>> bidding, 2) an election is coming up in which a military adventure could
>> swing the popular vote to McCain, and 3) that rationality is not the
>> main attribute of the Cheney-Bush gang.
>>
>> What may determine what will happen is the assessment by the military
>> and other experts of what Iran can and will do after it is attacked. I
>> don't think this is clear.
>>
>> I believe one should expect the worst, and fight like hell to avert it.
>> In that sense, I don't think this piece is very helpful. --mkb
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:35 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>> [This seems about right.  One might handicap the horses (or parts
>>> thereof) a bit differently, and it might be worthwhile to advert to
>>> the general US policy (shared by both parties), but as far as they go
>>> both the analysis and the exhortation seem generally sound. --CGE]
>>>
>>>     Attack On Iran On The Way? Uh, Maybe Not...
>>>     Jul 15, 2008
>>>     By Bill Fletcher, Jr., and Dennis O'Neil
>>> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A