Skip to main content

There have been countless diaries over the past two years regarding whether the US or Israel, or US/Israel, will bomb Iran, and if so, when? I am hopeful that this diary does not turn into one of those that have already trod over this very worn field. Instead, this diary assumes that the attack on Iran is going to happen at some point between now and January 20, 2009, and does not concern itself with the details of which of the two states will commence the proceedings.

What I find lacking in any of the reading I have done on the subject is exactly what those hoping for an Iranian attack think will happen to the State of Israel once the Islamic Republic of Iran is bombed. The answer seems rather clear to me, and I do not believe that what I think will happen will be of any benefit to the State of Israel, of for the US.

If any current background on this issue is needed, please look at these two articles today from the UK Telegraph.

Yet another neoconservative band of fools has formed, and there is an excellent diary today on the group that is recommended by those having read it. Briefly, the group appears to have been cobbled together from the Project for a New American Century and other similarly-situated hate groups that believe in the prophetic calling of the United States to spread its Imperialism throughout the Muslim world for the good of the Almighty.

So, perhaps to ask something as pedestrian as what will actually happen in the moments after an attack on Iran is a non-starter. Perhaps to such religious zealots, the answer is unimportant because the Almighty will do what is best for his believers. Not being in the mind-set of those who desire the death and destruction of a country of 28 million people, I can find no immediate answer.

Yet, it seems that the answer to the question is somewhat relevant, no? If not for the neoconservative, then at least for the rest of the world who do not share their distorted and hateful world-view.

If you assume, as I do, that shortly after an attack on Iran, a good portion of Iraq will become a giant red-mist formed from the now dead body parts of American and Iraqi puppet forces; and, Tel Aviv would be bombarded with such force as to kill tens of thousands of people, the question becomes, "Do the neoconservatives actually care for the people of Israel and the American forces in Iraq, or do they only care for the idea of Israel and the idea of an occupied Iraq?"

If the answer is "no", then, I ask them to explain in some detail what they expect to occur after an attack on Iran; or, in the alternative, explain why their ideas--their ideology, rather--is something the rest of the world ought to consider important enough to sacrifice American soldiers in Iraq, and Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv.

Either the neoconservative war-mongers do not care what happens after the attack on Iran, or, what they think will happen is completely different from reality. If the latter, it may be explained by their hyper-religious delusional state--their 'faith' that the Almighty will set it all right.

Or, do the neoconservatives actually believe that an attacked Iran will quietly lie down by their dish once they are scolded with a few hundred bombs and that will be the end of it?

Any of these three options are absurd, but, which one is the one they believe?

Originally posted to james risser on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:16 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They are wrong (10+ / 0-)

    That's my answer to your question. Neo-conservatives believe that attacking Iran is like a father spanking his child. Spanking a child provides discipline and makes that child behave. So in the neo-conservative view, bombing Iran would cause them to behave and make Isreal and US troops in Iraq safer. They are wrong, but I wanted to give you their thought process.

    •  what could be their basis... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maracucho, dancewater, BlueTide, echatwa

      ...for such a thought?

      in the neo-conservative view, bombing Iran would cause them to behave and make Isreal and US troops in Iraq safer


      i cannot believe they are that naive...

      •  that's how they interpret the Reagan doctrine (8+ / 0-)

        of peace through strength.

        Cowering the enemies into submission.  

        And even though this interpretation has been shown to be faulty in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, they have not learned their lesson yet.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:32:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not naive...... (5+ / 0-)

        The only thing that matters to them is profit. Endless wars for endless profit. It does not matter that Isreal will be wiped off the map or that our troops and the people of Iraq will be splattered all over the sand or incinerated in a firey detonation. They do not care if there is a bombing retaliation against our own country and people.

        The "new and improved" PNAC gang are not naive enough to think this will not happen, they just don't give a shit. They are amoral. They should be hunted down and brought to trial for war crimes of the highest order against humanity. But they won't be. These fascists are much smarter than they were after WWll.


        by Maine Atticus on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:44:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good Question: Answer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        james risser, LAMaestra

        I have been surrounded by conservatives for much of my life, especially when I was growing up. I noticed that my conservative friends often made the parable that the United States was like a parent because it was industrialized and the leader of the free world. Countries like Syria and Iran were thought of as naughty children. Conservatives believe that the father is the ruler of the family and have the duty to discipline their children. Thus, the natural extension to their philosophy is that the US must discipline Iran, a naughty child.

        To a liberal, this may sound foreign, and finally George Lakoff recognized this analogy. But conservatives have known about this analogy for a long time now.

      •  Because of how well. . . (4+ / 0-)

        it all went in Iraq.

        For personal and general travel news: Notes On Travel

        by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:11:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The NeoConMen believe that with Power comes ... (8+ / 0-)

      ... respect.

      They are ever wrong.

      They believe that using power is more important than how you use power.

      They are ever wrong.

      They believe that with absolute power comes absolute obedience.

      They are ever wrong.

      How many more will the NeoConMen have to torture and kill before they learn that while you can torture and kill your way to riches, you cannot torture and kill your way to security?

      Where on US Form 1040 does it say "I support War Crimes?" or "Use my taxes to kill for ExxonMobilChevronTexaco profits"?

      by Yellow Canary on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:28:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And how much respect... (2+ / 0-)

        The NeoConMen believe that with Power comes ...
        ... respect.

        So how much respect are we earning in Iraq? They must be in deep, deep denial to not recognize that Iraq is the failure of their schemes.

        I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

        by Judge Moonbox on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:32:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ask Billy Kristol (8+ / 0-)

          he'll tell you we are being too soft in Iraq.  The failures come from not using enough power.

          "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

          by duha on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:34:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly, this is true. (3+ / 0-)

            The NeoConMen see the world outside their gated communities as nothing but wayward Nagasakis, whose waywardness has yet to be corrected by Fat Men

            It's somewhat -- and only somewhat -- juvenile, but the entire NeoConMan wet dream is about wrecking havoc on a nuclear-war scale.  They are like boys who just yesterday discovered what their penises can do -- and they are daily engorged for the spasm of nuclear climax.

            The sexual metaphor aside, they are killers, they are dangerous, and -- with NeoConMan Cheney in the White House -- they are armed.

            Where on US Form 1040 does it say "I support War Crimes?" or "Use my taxes to kill for ExxonMobilChevronTexaco profits"?

            by Yellow Canary on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:06:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ah yes, Billy Crystal a neo-con who believes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yellow Canary

            the "Though Love" solves all problems..Bomb, bomb, bob, bomb, bomb Iran is just that Tough Love..Mr. Crystal is the pentultimate warrior and will point to the Japanese..We Amerikans Nuked two Civilian cities..Nagaski and Hiroshima and vaporized, maimed, dismemberd, genetically altered for life about 350,000 mostly innocent men, women, children..But thats OK, because they aint Crystal white nor neo christian..But even after we Nuked the Japanese...They Love us Amerikans now, they love our culture, our movie stars, our way of life..Their former prime Minister was an Elvis Impersonater for gawd's sake..So, how can Crystal and the neos not think that a little Tough love doesnt go a long way..Couple Nukes and Iran will come around..At first they may be All Shook Up, but Gollywood will bring them evul Irans around..Compassionate Conservative converting the Infidels One Nuke At A Time..An unconscious streem of nuthingness about nuthing, I guess..

            "Better a little late, than a little never"..Doctor Julian Winston

            by Johnny Rapture on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:43:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder IF it matters a lot (8+ / 0-)

    what China and Russia will do.
    On the one hand they may assume that an attack on Iran is the closing act of an exceptionally adventurist presidency and not an indication of long term relations with the USA.
    Or they might conclude that the USA has decided to de-stabilize the world.
    A move to crash the US dollar would be an option I suspect.                                                                                        

    •  The evil brilliance of their war with Iraq (6+ / 0-)

      On the one hand [China and Russia] may assume that an attack on Iran is the closing act of an exceptionally adventurist presidency and not an indication of long term relations with the USA.

      But if Bush hits Iran, and Iran hits our troops in Iraq hard, or even if Iraqi Shi'a do it on their own, well now we've got the longed-for generations-spanning war. Revenge & Patriotism hand in hand...

      And Russia and China remember the PNAC-stated goal which has Iran go down before taking on, well, Russia and China.

      No, the neoCons are trying to drive the ship-of-state over that waterfall, so the course will be set no matter who the Commander is.

      I'd agree with you that crashing the dollar would be the logical pre-emptive strike on the part of the Chinese. And our deeply-sincere friends, the Saudis will gladly dump plunging dollars once the Chinese act. I'd expect the smart move for both would be buying up every real, solid, thing America has with America dollars while they can.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:10:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Best answer in the thread so far - IMHO (6+ / 0-)

        The 'Cons are true believers in the PNAC agenda for world domination. History has shown they aren't going to give any real consideration to the blowback from their actions. It's nearly as simple as just adhering to the plans they have laid out for a decade or more and thus far events have fallen into place reasonably well for them.

        In their black hearts they think they are doing the right thing by involving us in the generational war that they have openly advocated, and as R. Perle has been quoted as saying, that "our grandchildren will sing great songs about us".

        White House Officials - "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

        by truong son traveler on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:33:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Going after China? (0+ / 0-)

        Well, I don't know. What would this be then?

        •  That would be a propaganda display of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, Rusty Pipes

          friendship, and maybe some money to be, some useful contacts, made back and forth.

          The current leader of China, I forget his name, took office with an Asia-wide television broadcast, right before the Attack on Iraq. He talked about the coming war as the 1st step in a US plan for global hegemony, with the last step being China. (It's actually Russia and China, in no particular order)

          Apparently, he had read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" written by a bunch of NeoCons who later played a role in starting the Iraq War. And who are now promoting war with Iran.

          "RAD" was subsequently adopted as the Bush 2000 Campaign's national security strategy paper. It explicitly called for wars with Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia, to establish the "New American Century." An Uber-America as it were.

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:50:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Attack is scheduled for Thankgiving week... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....the European press (particularly the German and Scandinavian presses) are reporting that the United States will unleash c. 12,000 bombs on Iran the third to fourth week of November.

    These same presses were 100% correct about the timing of the invasion of Iraq SIX months before it happened  --even months before Bush was still disingenuously denying there were any plans to invade Iraq.  

    The planned attack is said to be quite "comprehensive " and will undoubtedly consist of a great deal of destruction of Iranian infrastructure.  

  •  Iranian Syrian Mutual Defence Pact (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, rmx2630, Jim P, james risser

    This is a thing that a lot of bloggers and MSM people are ignoring.

    Ewen MacAskill in Beirut and Duncan Campbell
    Thursday February 17, 2005
    The Guardian

    Iran and Syria heightened tension across the Middle East and directly confronted the Bush administration yesterday by declaring they had formed a mutual self-defence pact to confront the "threats" now facing them.

    The move, which took the Foreign Office by surprise, was announced after a meeting in Tehran between the Iranian vice-president, Mohammed Reza Aref, and the Syrian prime minister, Naji al-Otari.

    "At this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges," said Mr Otari.

    Iran and Syria combined can field TWO MILLION ground troops.

    -4.75 -7.54 "OK, joke's over. Put back the Constitution!"

    by Ferrofluid on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:45:56 PM PDT

    •  And our entire military arrangements (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      are designed to beat mass concentrations. So I figure that would be the goal. As stated.

      Total destablization of the mideast. How does that enhance anyone's security? Our leaders are insane.

      This is huge news. Thanks for posting it.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:14:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NeoCons live in a master-slave world of their (3+ / 0-)

    own, where no servant or agent dare challenges them, where they tell each other they are genuises, and that the highest morality starts with unfettered ruthlessness in the pursuit of power.

    They imagine that all one need do is beat the shit out of someone and they will ever-after comply with your wishes. Unaware they are moral imbecils, ill-informed of the real world, mistaking their fear for courage... well, great people have to be willing to sacrifice large parts of humanity for the confirmation of their own far-sighted genius.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:54:58 PM PDT

  •  Their century is over (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Asak, Eiron, james risser, echatwa

    Bush has nailed the coffin shut.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothing new to say---New Speedway Boogie (Grateful Dead)

    by jhecht on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:56:58 PM PDT

  •  Same thing that happened (0+ / 0-)

    after the recator in Osirak was bombed.  Lots of hot air in the UN and not much else.

  •  I will have to say, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maracucho, james risser

    I don't see large-scale conventional attacks on Israel being the result, because the Jordanians and the Egyptians have peace treaties that I think they would hesitate to break (not that they ultimately wouldn't, with enough provocation, but they'd hesitate), and the Syrians are aware that the Israelis have them outgunned in air and missile power.

    An increase in terrorism and guerrilla warfare? Yes, I could see that.

    Socialism: Aspirin for your social-welfare headaches. (Use in moderation.)

    by Shaviv on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:21:52 PM PDT

  •  New Yorker (6+ / 0-)

    Seymour M. Hersh was on CNN's Late Edition about his article in th New Yorker in which he plausibly describes a change of target,

    Previously the rhetoric had been againt a supposed nuclear weapons program. After the lies about Iraqi WMD it loos like the world has told him "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." or more likely "F**k off Chimpey, you aint playing that again". Now the highly efficient and accurate US intelligence community have discovered Cheney's black propaganda sources have invented Iranian weapons being provided wholesale for the Iraqi Shia.

    A flashpoint will be provided by the siting of one of those outposts the British and Americans have been building within spitting distance of the border.No doubt we will learn "units of the evolutionary Guard have been seen transporting arms towards the border so they have been interdicted"

    This is where Hersh's article suggests that the targets have changed from the "nuclear weapons" sites to the Revolutionary Guard barracks, installations etc.

    At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, "Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives." The former intelligence official added, "There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."

    In his CNN interview Hersch also suggested that there would be limited ground attacks by special forces units.

    I actually think the Ayatollahs will restrain an all out retaliation but will close the Straights of Hormuz on the excuse they are hitting back at the Gulf states who support the USA by allowing bases to be sited there and against the USA economically.

    That is likely to send oil heading towards £200/bbl and get Bush really mad (already is) and then maybe we get into Shock and Awe II followed by oil at £300/bbl!

  •  Don't widen a misguided war (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Rusty Pipes, james risser
    1. First note that there are many career military who oppose attacking Iran. If a number of them refuse to carry out orders to attack Iran, the whole thing will collapse.
    1. The important rule is never to underestimate the enemy or Iran (I don’t regard Iran as enemies but Cheney and Podhoretz do). If attacked by the Western behemoth, Iran might well lay low for a time, block the straits of Hormuz and authorize Hezbollah terrorism within the US. I don’t see a direct attack on Israel.  Years from now, yes, but maybe attack the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia first.
    1. The reason to oppose this inanity is not because we know what the Iranians will do, but because it is wrong. We have no right to bomb Iran. We had no right to invade Iraq; we had no right to partition it or to tell Iraqis what to do with their oil. Bush is a war criminal. When Our Congress (Nancy, Harry & Rahm) funds continuing killing rather than lose face and admit that we’ve made a mess, they and we assume partial responsibility. Our children will pay for these crimes.
    1. Seems to me that Drgrishka1 is giving us that same old song- all you have to do is fire a few shots and Muslims (blacks, American Indians) will give up. The first rule is never to underestimate your designated enemies- better not to attack if you are not attacked, because nobody can control the dogs of war.
    •  very well said! (0+ / 0-)

      ...thank you for stopping in.

      but, i don't agree with all of your points.

      1. getting three dozen pilots to fly at 20,000 feet and push a few buttons here and a few there does not seem that much of a chore.
      1. i don't know what your reason for iran to 'lay low' would be.
      1. completely agree, but, i am interested in knowing for those who do not see it as 'wrong' believe the outcome will be.
      1. exactly.
      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        getting three dozen pilots to fly at 20,000 feet and push a few buttons here and a few there does not seem that much of a chore.

        But, doesn't Iran have an air force?

        •  that comment... (0+ / 0-)

          ...had to do with the first person saying he or she thought it would be difficult to find americans to bomb iran.

          i don't understand your comment.

          •  If the other side has an air force too, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            james risser

            ...then an attack is no longer a simple matter of flying at 20,000 feet and pushing a few buttons. You actually have to engage enemy planes, who will try to shoot you down.
            We're so used to having vastly superior firepower, including a virtually unchallenged air presence, that it seems like an easy job.  But that's because the last few wars have been fought against people without air power.
            Now, I doubt you'll see fighter pilots just refuse to do it; but if they did, they would definitely be difficult to replace.  

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, james risser

    There's a certain serenity that Neocons exhibit. They are utterly convinced that their ideology will produce the predicted results -- if not now, soon; if not soon, then eventually.  They are openly disdainful of "reality-based" folks, who are seen as those who lack the strength of will to slog straight ahead.  If you march right off a cliff, keep marching, and don't bother me with whines about "gravity" (it's just a theory, after all);  somehow things will get better before you come to a sudden stop.  There is nothing more clean, orderly, and perfect than an elegant theory (assuming you ignore the rabble-rousers with their "but what if" questions).

  •  There's a lot of oil in Iran, and most of it lies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes, james risser

    very close to it's border with Iraq. THAT is the sole reason Bush wants to bomb Iran and decimate it's entire military. (If they merely wanted to destroy it's nuclear works, as they claim, they would not have to destroy their entire military to do so) They have long been working on a plan to annex part of Iran and use the physical makeup of western Iran (a range of mountains) to isolate the area.

    •  that is probably true... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but, that does not tell me what iran will do in retaliation of a strike against it to the occupation forces in eastern iraq, or to israel...

      •  It appears to me (0+ / 0-)

        that Iran will be abandoned by it's allies unless they do as North Korea has done by allowing us to dictate to them. It is now up to Iran to stop this war by surrendering to a vastly more superior power. They have been given an ultimatum by the American Empire, and China and Russia are pretty much giants sloths compared to the monster-gorilla USA. Neither is ready to do World War III. The great power we built to defend against "Communist aggressors" is now being wielded by Capitalist aggressors.    

  •  It depends on how they attack Iran... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    james risser guess is that they will go "surgical", and if they do, Iran will have a decision to make: immolate itself by attacking Israel, or sit there and take it.

    I have no idea what will happen. With neocons, the first question you must ask is this: How does this improve their political situation. That's the question that motivates every single decision, including decisions that may affect the existence of a nation. Does it help them politically to attack Iran in some way? That's the question. It's all about power.

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:51:54 PM PDT

    •  People don't always act rationally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      james risser

      And Iran can probably do a lot of damage to Israel, even if they lost.  It's dangerous to assume that your enemy would be too cowed to fight back.  Very, very dangerous.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:24:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was no such assumption in my comment.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...just a statment of alternatives that Iran would face: retaliate or not. Very, very wrong reading of my comment.

        "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

        by Bensdad on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:04:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They are delusional (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    james risser

    They actually think we can take Iran with no problems.  This is after a weak country like Iraq has turned into a quagmire.  They are highly overconfident in our military power, and that is the simple truth.  If we attacked Iran it will be a disaster all around.  

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:19:52 PM PDT

  •  James, I actually agree with most of this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brittain33, james risser

    I think, like Saddam in '91, Iran would only send conventional rockets my way, and therefore I don't agree that "tens of thousands" would be killed, but your basic premise:

    Do the neoconservatives actually care for the people of Israel and the American forces in Iraq, or do they only care for the idea of Israel and the idea of an occupied Iraq?

    is how I would sum up the Republican support for Israel as well.

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

    by dfb1968 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:43:41 PM PDT

  •  Israeli hardliners (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sofia, james risser

    who support an attack on Iran (which they would have preferred take place before the attack on Iraq), are most concerned about Iran's current support for Hezbollah and long-term prospects of getting a nuclear weapon.  Even if the IAEA can guarantee that Iran is not developing nukes, Israel would still be concerned about Iran and Hezbollah.

    Israeli hardliners may think that its 200+ nukes are a sufficient deterrent from attack by Iran or any other state.  It may hope that if Iran is destabilized or "chastened" enough by an attack, it will stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.  On the other hand, it may find itself under attack from Hezbollah if Iran is attacked and we may have the kind of regional conflagration that Hagee and his CUFI friends are hoping for.

    "Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I've wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped."

    by Rusty Pipes on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:05:54 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site