War with Iran: For A Leader Like Bush, Is There Another Way?

[Coexist]

Time's cover story this week is about the 'Path to Tehran'.



Some thought provoking tidbits from the piece (subscription required)

<snip>
What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

<snip>
On its face, of course, the notion of a war with Iran seems absurd. By any rational measure, the last thing the U.S. can afford is another war. Two unfinished wars--one on Iran's eastern border, the other on its western flank--are daily depleting America's treasury and overworked armed forces. Most of Washington's allies in those adventures have made it clear they will not join another gamble overseas. What's more, the Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 51/2 years in office. For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the Administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition that includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council and is trying to force Tehran to halt its suspicious nuclear ambitions. Even Iran's former President, Mohammed Khatami, was in Washington this month calling for a "dialogue" between the two nations.

<snip>
Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl.--which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.

It would seem that an International Superpower would be smart to make ready every option they are considering, but with our military stretched so thin, we would need whatever friends we have left in the world to back us on this one. Hopefully, we have already learned that we can't bomb people into being our friends.

Already, Chirac has rebuffed us, stating that Iran shouldn't even be referred to the Security Council - so international support will be tenuous at best. "But that's France" you say, "What about the rest or Europe's leaders?" Apparently, they are not participating in the
la la la, I can't hear you tactics of our Administration, and will be sitting at the grown-up's table without us.

So... our allies are tired of our bullshit, but Iran is not exactly popular these days, right?

Well, sometimes its not how many friends you have, but who those friends are - and Iran's friends are dripping with oil.


And their oil revenues can certainly pay to implement all of their grand new ideas. Ideas that must have a lot of big money here in the U.S. in panic mode:

<snip>
The deals include the creation of a joint petrochemical and steel company and a shared firm for the exploration of petroleum.

In addition, Iran and Venezuela are to start building a car plant to produce affordable family cars, designed to appeal to consumers in developing nations.

Our correspondent says there has been plenty of talk by both men of creating a world without the dominance of one single power.

They are not backing down, but gearing up. To take the U.S. on - on THEIR terms.

And, as fate would have it, our President and his advisers have a schoolyard bully mentality. Do any of you see them listening to any voices of reason coming from anywhere in the world. Pondering long term consequences?

Based on their previous actions, they just might decide to 'Screw the $100/barrel oil, the depleted treasury, the gutted military, and the lack of allies' and arrogantly swagger into Iran.

The only way out would be a Democratic Congress cutting off funding for their follies. Can any of you truly see Bush finding another way out of the quicksand he is so willingly throwing our country into?

[sam sarrha]

1. he's not a Leader, he herds people with fear and lies..

[Coexist]

2. they are discussing this right on on CNN (9:22 est)

basing their discussion on the Time article cited above.

[Supersedeas]

8. Peggy Noonan says that people aren't listening and listening doesn't

matter anyways

[TahitiNut]

3. "affordable family cars" ... the Gillette marketing strategy

Give away the razors (at below cost) ... sell the blades. I'm leery when a petrochemical consortium discusses 'affordable' cars ... increasing a dependence on a drug (gasoline).

[Coexist]

4. He is far from perfect, and makes questionable friends,

but Chavez has quite a track record helping the 'less fortunate' so far.

[TahitiNut]

5. Well, I don't join fan clubs.

I agree with and support many of the things Chavez has done and positions he's taken ... but I don't take my agreements and disagreements into some canonization/demonization ceremony. I'm just not usually inclined to anoint the person based on my agreements and disagreements ... except for the demonstrably corrupt and insane (like our current regime).

I find it interesting that so many here are so driven to put people into one of two buckets: Heroes and Villains. There doesn't seem to be much "gray" in these forums. Lou Dobbs is an example. I've yet to see a thread where some bucketeer doesn't label Dobbs and derive some agreement or opposition from that stance. I could care less about such simplistic nonsense.

[Coexist]

6. I am confused

I don't see how my post was canonizing Chavez - I am not a huge supporter of the man or his administration, but I do support some of his initiatives.

I am a wait-and-see-er on Chavez. However, his petroleum makes him a powerful player on the world stage, and his recent red carpet treatment of Iran requires that we sit up and take notice.

The fact that they are publicly announcing initiatives that may hurt our big money causes me concern. Not because I am worried about how these American interests will fare (since they are always trumpeting Free Trade and the capitalist creed), but because they wield a lot of power in the politics in our country and could nudge our leaders into doing something for their good, rather than the good of our nation.

[TahitiNut]

7. It's the "He's far from perfect" comment that triggered my post.

Note: I didn't said you were "canonizing Chavez."

I don't know of any politician that's "perfect" ... and very few that are even close enough for government work. :evilgrin:

Further, I've not seen any global corporate interest that has acted in other than their self-interests recently - and almost always contrary to the larger interests of our nation and working people. The corruption is appalling.

[Coexist]

9. Gotcha'

:thumbsup: