Is it a prelude to war, a bluff,
or a grasp at straws to scare Tehran?
What it certainly amounts to
is a risky way to conduct diplomacy
It's unwise to up the verbal war of threats
unless he's ready to back up
the talk with force — and he's not
The Gung-Hoists
Right now, it's hard to see where the troops
for a war against Iran would come from
Ramping up national unity and resolve for such
a battering conflict is an even dicier proposition
Many people — political leaders, the U.N. nuclear watchdog,
leaders of other nations — are telling the Bush Regime
to cool the war rhetoric. The administration
ought to listen before it undermines U.S. credibility
America's Fear of Losing Face [Original]Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy this week was a wonderful piece of public diplomacy.The Oil Factor [Original]If there's an upside to high oil prices, it's this: They might make it harder for the Bush administration to go to war against Iran.Is the Political Left a Patsy
Left-wing websites are full of articles predicting the war against Iran. This is playing into the Bush Regime's hands. Hyping the threat of war was supposed to be the task of the right-wing. Yes, they've done their bit. Particulary, the Zionists in Israel and Washington.
in Bush's Propaganda War on Iran?
Then along came the Left, only too ready to escalate the threat. Why have we been dupes? Bush has been using 'games theory' with Iran. Playing 'bluff & bluster'. We have backed him by writing jeremiads about the impending catastrophe.
Leftist writers should have ridiculed Bush's bellicose rhetoric, rather than believing it. Unfortunately, we pounce on a 'good' story. Especially, one that portrays Bush as a madman, out of control.
It's only a game of “chicken". By now most of the mainstream media are proclaiming that the US and Iran are locked into an unavoidable collision course, each saying that it will not back down under any circumstances. We are as responsible for that as the zionists and neocons.
The threat of military strikes against Iran doesn't indicate the likelihood of military action but America's desperation. It seems to have exhausted all its cards and can only hope to scare the Iranians into negotiating.Bush Increases Threatening Talk on Iran [Original]
Is it a prelude to war, a bluff, or a grasp at straws to scare Tehran? What it certainly amounts to is a risky way to conduct diplomacy.
Bush said last week that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead the world into "World War III," but then he retreated and said that isn't a prelude to war. He labeled Iran's military force as a terrorist group, but says that is not a prelude to war.
Still, it all sounds a lot like what happened in the build-up to Iraq. And that was a prelude to war.
It's not wise for the US to up the verbal war of threats unless we're ready to back up the talk with force — and we're not.
Right now, it's hard to see where the troops for a war against Iran would come from. Ramping up national unity and resolve for such a battering conflict is an even dicier proposition.
Many people — political leaders, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, leaders of other nations — are telling the Bush administration to cool the war rhetoric. The administration ought to listen before it undermines U.S. credibility.
The mistakes made in Iraq, unproven claims of weapons of mass destruction, trumped-up justification for a military confrontation that has left the nation divided and much of the world opposed to the United States, are all reasons for stepping back from the brink.
Let's make sure we get this one right. Last week, the administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and banking system, in an attempt to derail Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon.
Economic sanctions against a possible threat are one thing. Saber-rattling from this president is another.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said this week there is no evidence Iran is working to build nuclear weapons.
Others are urging diplomacy, negotiations and time to see how sanctions work, while telling President Bush to basically tone down the confrontational rhetoric and chest pounding.
Those are unsatisfying options, maybe, but they beat tough talk, speculative accusations and inadequate muscle to back it all up.
Yesterday, a barrel of oil fetched almost $94, up $10 in the two weeks since fears of a Turkish invasion of the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq began to take hold.
Everybody understands that if Turkey enters into the war in Iraq on a side that's not exactly the same as America's, there will be untold turmoil and a whole lot of dread.
That's why the price of oil shot up when Turkey began to bluster, and why it would take off toward dizzying heights if the Turks actually crossed the border in a major way.
And that's just Turkey and Kurdistan. Iran is a different story altogether. Believed to have the third-largest reserves of oil in the world, Iran also sits in an oil neighborhood, stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to the Caspian Sea.
If Iranian oil were pulled from or otherwise lost to the world market, and if Iran believed it was in its interest to disrupt oil from southern Iraq (easy) or the Arabian peninsula (harder, but not out of the question) or Azerbaijan (a choice it probably wouldn't make, except that Moscow might be pleased to see the West shut off from Caspian oil) - prices would skyrocket.
Even if global oil traders began to fear that Iran was thinking of such actions, there would be almost no stopping the upward pressure.
Naturally, this is a price that Americans might feel they had to pay - if they believed that war against Iran was necessary to the preservation of American freedom.
But as far as we can tell, no sensible American thinks that way.
Put aside all the other fallout from a war against Iran: Would President Bush really want to saddle the country with the economic devastation that a huge spike in the price of oil would wreak?
A very large number of people might decide the cost wasn't worth the benefit.
It seems to me that after 40 years of working in government, "Backseat," as the intelligence service used to call him, should be wiser.
One shouldn't threaten unless serious about taking action. Idle threats lead to the loss of face, let alone power.
In one sense, America is lucky because few take Cheney seriously. I am sorry to say this, but he reminds me of a bagpipe in that he is full of air and makes lots of horrible noises.
My apologies to the Irish, Scots and Arabs if I insulted their traditional musical instrument.
I understand that he needs to make Israeli supporters happy. If he didn't, neither he nor his boss would be where they are now, in America or Iraq. And I don't even mind all his diatribe, embellishment and dubious analysis.
I do, however, mind statements such as "the United States joins other nations in sending a clear message:
We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," or "our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions."
With all due respect to Backseat, I have a couple of questions. First, what is he talking about when he invokes the international community?
I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. I am inclined to believe there are more countries in the world that sympathize with Iran than with the Bush administration, and when push comes to shove, this administration will find itself alone, accused of committing the exact crimes it is accusing others of committing.
Cheney's house is made of expensive Bohemian crystal, so he needs to be careful not to lob stones. He has much more to lose than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This brings me to another important point — short of military action, what can the United States do to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Bombing Iran in hope of eliminating its nuclear infrastructure is sheer lunacy, and both Iran and the United States know that, so why these unnecessary threats?
I have been a student of international relations for more than a quarter of a century, and the more I try to understand the field, the more confusing it gets.
I am, however, sure about one thing.
The world is made up of states, and these states will always attempt to maximize their power. It is not personal but business, and it would be silly to assume it is personal.
Indeed, Cheney has given Iran the impetus to accelerate its program, and even if it had not been thinking of developing nuclear weapons, it will now.