Do not attack Iran

[ls317]

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/04/25/opinion/edzbig.php


WASHINGTON Iran's announcement that it has enriched a minute amount of uranium has unleashed urgent calls for a preventive U.S. air strike by the same sources that earlier urged war on Iraq.

If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be also immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate public hysteria in favor of military action.

But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

1. In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war.

[babylonsister]

1. Ya think? It would be disastrous! nt

[ladjf]

2. I don't think Bush intends to attack Iran. He is more interested in

appearing to be tough and in running up the price of oil. He went into Iraq because he wanted to steal the oil and because it was good politics for his loony base at home. Attacking Iran is another matter. Probably won't happen for a number of reasons. But hey, it's already jacked up the price of oil by another $25 per barrel. Next, he could threaten Venezuela for a year and get another $40 increase. The oil people must have wet dreams thinking about their sweet butt boy george, giving them all of that money. For that matter, Iran and Venezuela owe Bush a lot. His bellicosity is making them far richer than they would have been.