Guardian UK: How Bush would gain from war with Iran (mid-term elections)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

How Bush would gain from war with Iran

The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved

Dan Plesch
Monday August 15, 2005
The Guardian

President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.

The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.

Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.

The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1549335,00.html

[Greeby]

1. I'm sorry

But if the American people fall for this shit again, they really are, as Malloy puts it, dumber than dog droppings :eyes:

[KoKo]

4. If oil and gas prices stay up then the "people" will be told it's all part

of the war on terror and by continuing to "stabilize" the Middle East, by reducing the nuclear threat, our oil supply will be secure and we can continue to fight the terrorists who are evil people determined to bring America to it's knees by not supplying us with the oil and gas we Americans need to heat and cool our homes and get to our places of business. Somehow the gas prices will be worked into the WMD threat and this is how they might play it.

I don't think we will buy it again...but who knows. :shrug:

[endarkenment]

2. bang a drum

lets get the party going. Clock is ticking on that 06 campaign. They want the 60 seats in the senate so that there will be no possibility of political opposition.

[earthside]

3. It Is REAL!

This is a well written article ... and frankly, I think it is real.

People who will lie to attack a nation that was not a threat to us -- Iraq, will obviously have no problem starting another war.

And what Plesch writes here is probably true ... there is enough U.S. firepower to attack Iran. It is not a question of having enough troops, it is how much bombing Bush is willing to order.

The remaining question is when will Bush take this step? What poll number is the trigger? If Bush's approval rating gets into the 30s, is that going to start the next war?

[flpoljunkie]

5. UK Independent reports IAEA rebuts claim Iran trying to make nuclear bomb!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article...

UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to make A-bomb

By Anne Penketh

Published: 14 August 2005

The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining a warning of possible military action from President George Bush.

However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years. But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.

The resumption of uranium conversion at the plant last week caused an international crisis and prompted Britain, France and Germany, which have been attempting to find a negotiated solution to the dispute, to call the emergency IAEA meeting. In its resolution concluding the meeting, the board also asked Dr ElBaradei to report back by 3 September. Hardliners on the board - including Britain, the United States and Canada - had hoped that Dr ElBaradei's next report would be sufficiently damning to increase the pressure on Iran.

However those hopes will be dashed by the revelation about the IAEA analysis of the particles from Pakistan, which will remove any chance of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council. But the IAEA is not closing the book on its investigation of Iran's possible weapons programme. A team of IAEA experts arrived in Iran on Friday to pursue other outstanding issues, but they are unlikely to be resolved by the time Dr ElBaradei reports to the board.

more...

[Telly Savalas]

6. Conjecture. Conjecture. Conjecture.

No evidence is given anywhere in this article to support the notion that war in Iran will help the GOP in the midterm elections. It is simply asserted. (This assertion, by the way, comes in the same paragraph that suggests that an aging Dick Cheney will be Bush's successor.)

As far as the capability for an assault goes, nobody can deny that the U.S. has the capacity to drop some bombs on Iran. This article however says nothing to the issue of the U.S. actually invading the country, like many DUers claim to be inevitable. Hell, the article doesn't even address the question of whether the U.S. is prepared to handle Iranian retaliation that an aerial assault might provoke.

Furthermore it's a pretty specious argument that oil prices wouldn't go up. The article claims that Iran's oil is headed for China. So are we to believe that if the Iranian tap is turned off to China, that other oil producers wouldn't divert some of their sales there and jack up the prices?