Bombs That Would Backfire - By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon

[im10ashus]

From The NY Times
By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon

White House spokesmen have played down press reports that the Pentagon has accelerated planning to bomb Iran. We would like to believe that the administration is not intent on starting another war, because a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been. A brief look at history shows why.

Reports by the journalist Seymour Hersh and others suggest that the United States is contemplating bombing a dozen or more nuclear sites, many of them buried, around Iran. In the event, scores of air bases, radar installations and land missiles would also be hit to suppress air defenses. Navy bases and coastal missile sites would be struck to prevent Iranian retaliation against the American fleet and Persian Gulf shipping. Iran’s long-range missile installations could also be targets of the initial American air campaign.

These contingencies seem familiar to us because we faced a similar situation as National Security Council staff members in the mid-1990’s. American frustrations with Iran were growing, and in early 1996 the House speaker, Newt Gingrich, publicly called for the overthrow of the Iranian government. He and the C.I.A. put together an $18 million package to undertake it.

The Iranian legislature responded with a $20 million initiative for its intelligence organizations to counter American influence in the region. Iranian agents began casing American embassies and other targets around the world. In June 1996, the Qods Force, the covert-action arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arranged the bombing of an apartment building used by our Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans.

cont'd...

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/04/16/bombs-that-would-backfire/

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. It is apparent, Bush is a madman

Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control.

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was “no war plan on my desk” despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.


Seems a lot of people are coming forward to try to stop them this time. I just hope we can.

[im10ashus]

2. They are all madmen in this administration.

And Ahmadinejad is mad too. They are all using the element of hate to incite Armageddon. It's disturbing to say the least.

[MUAD_DIB]

4. Do the Iranians have a defcon system?

It would seem somewhat logical that they aren't just sittting ontheir hands, and that they wouldn't be idle.

My bet would be that they keeping an eye out for the US.


This isn't like Iraq that had been effed up for ten years prior to an invasion.

[annabanana]

5. So how would bombing Iran serve American interests?

It would not. It would however, enrich the oil interests.

[FloridaPat]

7. How bombing would serve US interests - the price of oil would

skyrocket. Oil is sold in dollars and the Iranian oil bourse would never happen. Because oil is sold in dollars, more dollars would be used to keep the oil flowing, thereby keeping the US economy going. We need billions everyday to come into the US to keep our economy afloat. High oil prices make that easy.

[babylonsister]

3. When Richard Clarke speaks, I listen. Thanks. nt

[im10ashus]

9. You are welcome.

I believe that if these madmen-in-charge had their own God tell them what they are doing is wrong, they still wouldn't listen.

[H2O Man]

6. I just got home

with my morning newspapers. That is one of the first articles I plan to read.

[im10ashus]

8. There's a good editorial called "A Bad Leak"

For those of you without the print copy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[H2O Man]

10. It is good.

It fudges the truth a little on the Judith Miller involvement. But it is still good.

[im10ashus]

11. Interesting that they still pseudo-protect her.

Pride goes before the fall?

:-)

[H2O Man]

12. I think that they

have conflicted feelings about that chapter in the paper's history. Miller was an active participant in the WHIG's efforts to lie to the country to make people too afraid to be capable of rational decison-making. Her role in the Plame scandal is far greater than just having dined with Scooter.