Murdoch Rag Laying Ground for an Attack on Iran?

[ContraCommando]

They’re not yet advocating a military strike, not in so many words (not yet - more of a “wink wink, nod nod” to all of the fundies), but I get the feeling that somehow, through fear mongering and asserting baseless hypotheticals, that they’re laying the groundwork for something else…just like they did with Iraq.



The End of Deterrence - A nuclear Iran will change everything

By S. Enders Wimbush
The Weekly Standard January 12, 2007

“……Iran will insist on a free hand to develop its "peaceful" nuclear power. One can almost hear the inevitable claims by those seeking to justify the president's giving ground on this issue. A nuclear Iran can be "managed" or deterred, we will hear; moreover, this is a good trade-off for extricating America from Iraq. President Bush should not be taken in. He must reject even the hint of compromise.

Iran is fast building its position as the Middle East's political and military hegemon, a position that will be largely unchallengeable once it acquires nuclear weapons.

A nuclear Iran will change all of the critical strategic dynamics of this volatile region in ways that threaten the interests of virtually everyone else….

Nuclear weapons will empower strategies of coercion, intimidation, and denial that go far beyond purely military considerations. Acquiring the bomb as an icon of state power will enhance the legitimacy of Iran's mullahs and make it harder for disgruntled Iranians to oust them. With nuclear weapons, Iran will have gained the ability to deter any direct American threats, as well as the leverage to keep the United States at a distance and to discourage it from helping Iran's regional opponents. Would the United States be in Iraq if Saddam had had a few nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them on target to much of Europe and all of Israel? Would it even have gone to war in 1991 to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression? Unlikely. Yet Iran is rapidly acquiring just such a capability…..Iran will become a billboard advertising nuclear weapons as the logical asymmetric weapon of choice for nations that wish to confront the United States…..

Iran, with its well known support of Hezbollah, is a particularly good candidate to proliferate nuclear capabilities beyond the control of any state as a way to extend the coercive reach of its own nuclear politics….

Iran's leadership has spoken of its willingness--in their words--to "martyr" the entire Iranian nation, and it has even expressed the desirability of doing so as a way to accelerate an inevitable, apocalyptic collision between Islam and the West that will result in Islam's final worldwide triumph. Wiping Israel off the map--one of Iran's frequently expressed strategic objectives--even if it results in an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran, may be viewed as an acceptable trade-off.”
-------------------------------
The freep response:

What constitutes deterrence in this world?
1. Give military aid to the dissident elements in Iran. Let Iran have their own personal Iraq and Vietnam experience and a decapitating conventional strike against their legislative body. All the important guys will be there.
2. If that fails low yield nuclear bunker busters launched by Israel, if they have the will to survive, will be considered deterrence.

Deterrence only works when nations believe you will destroy them.
We should provoke...and I do mean PROVOKE...Iran into a real military confrontation. Then, we should use all/any military means to destroy them.
This would do more for US security than ANY and all other actions combined.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1767275/posts

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Notice how freepers think they are generals giving orders...it's so stupid

As for the weekly standard. Everyone by now knows it is really Neocon magazine. The editor, Kristol is the head con.

[HuffleClaw]

2. meeep

wow, that really is sickening.