Sabre Rattling in the Persian Gulf

Zeemax #28,

Very true. Same goes for the Hindu/Muslim divide - there isn`t one and some people
seem to think there is. Kya karein...

#27 by SR

You just broke some injun hearts .. who keep spewing taunts about the shia/sunni divide when there`s none. The Israelis know that, but these injuns don`t.

:~)

``The masses of the Arab - indeed the entire Muslim world, both Sunnis and Shiites, will rally around Iran. The Sunni heads of state, who are embracing Israel now in secret, will run away in panic. We shall be left alone to face the revenge that will come sooner or later. Will we be able to rely on the heirs of Bush, who may be less reckless and more inclined to listen to world public opinion, which will inevitably blame us for this whole adventure?``

These are the words of a patriotic Jewish citizen of Israel, an original Aliyah, a member of the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and a contemporary of Ben Gurion. To read his complete article about the dangers of the coming war with Iran, Click here

...SR

bjkumar:

I hope you are right.

If one dispassionately assesses the Iraq war, it has failed on all counts. There were no wmds; the experiment with democracy has produced awful schism in the Iraqi society; and there is no reduction in terrorism. In fact, it has significantly increased. I think it`s time for the U.S. to pull the plug on war and to give a chance to peaceful negotiations.

I like your logic on Iranian nuclearization also. If the Middle East were free of nuclear weapons then there could be a strong argument for stopping Iran going nuclear. Two of its neighboring countries, India and Pakistan, are nuclear and Israel, a Middle Eastern country, is nuclear too. But then as I noted in my earlier post, there is no logic in politics.

Too much power is a double-edged sword. The U.S. should be careful how it handles its power. So far, power has done U.S. no good.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Dr. Gill, from all indications, GWB respects the will of his nation and he is mindful of and only works within the mandate given to him. Therefore, in my view, last November’s election results obviate any Iran-attack scenario, short of another 9/11-like event. Whatever be the President’s own feelings on this issue, his hands are tied by the US Congress – which always reflects the will of the electorate. The Iranians and others know it too and are trying to take advantage of it – the welfare of the population(s) concerned is of no concern to anybody, unfortunately.

I have now become quite pessimistic about Iraq remaining united as one country. Perhaps it never was one country in spirit and was held together through the sheer force of dictatorship anyway.

I am also pessimistic that a nuclear-armed Iran can be prevented – perhaps it has been a certainty the day Pakistan exploded its own – just like India developing that capability was a given ever since China did it.

#23 by zeemax on February 20, 2007 11:55am PT


if you care about your islamic brothers living and dying, what`re you doing leading a life of a paki in the UK...go on..do what your wife did...

.....and malik99 ...

Don`t worry about hamidm2. He`s not concerned about anyone living or dying ... but just the two-car garage (or is it three?)

#21 by malik99

Actually .. I`m scared that a lot more americans will die. Those 19-20 year olds who never knew what the fkk it was all about ...

hamidm # 10 ``i would be happy to pay an extra 1% this april 15th if we can get rid of the ayatollahs and other bearded vermin that threaten civilization``

Iraq war has so far cost nearly $3000 to every american citizen. While this may not be much to hamidm, it is a lot for majority of americans - 40 million of whom live below poverty line. Also, the cost of loss of lives, 3100 dead american soldiers so far, is something that will surely never figure into hamidm`s 1% on april 15th. That is something only impoverished americans will have to work out.

author writes ``After the experience with the Iraq war and the cooked-up evidence pertaining to the weapons of mass destruction for which Iraq was invaded, the American public has become wary of the administration`s intentions in the Middle East. It does not have stomach for another war``

Actually American public does have stomach for another war. And another. And another.

Anyone remembers Gulf of Tonkin lie? It was the manufactured incident in 1964 whereby American government lied that its ships were attacked by North Vietnamese and used that incident to escalate genocide of Vietnamese. One would think that that incident which resulted in the deaths of nearly 50,000 Americans until eventual American withdrawal would have made American public wary of their government for the next 100 years. But unfortunately, when the US government decided it wanted to attack Iraq, it successfully fooled American public once again.

So I would say that if the US government some day really decides to attack Iran, it would create ample circumstances and accompanying propaganda such that by the time it actually launches its missiles, majority of Americans would be supporting it.

Lets have a moment of silence for 3100 dead American soldiers. It was the deaths of these soldiers, and not the 650,000 dead Iraqis, that resulted in American public to rethink their government - however temporary this rethinking maybe.

#18

Yep read that as Seymour Hersh :~)

#17 by zeemax

Is that Seymour Hersh or is this guy a different one?

#15 by freethinker

What your friend said is the Samuel Hersh scenario. He`s been saying this since a couple of years based on his inside knowledge of the Bush administration. According to him, the Lebanon attack was a part of the move towards Iran.

However, the plan `A` went wrong on several counts such as Hizbullah could not be destroyed, Iran could not be drawn into the Lebanon war, and Iraq could not be stabilized. So it`s plan `B` in effect now i.e. allegations of Iran supplying explosive materials to Iraqi resistance. Also, another bogeyman in the form of Al-Quds Force has been created alongside Al-Qaida which doesn`t seem to work in case of Shia Iran, therefore a `Shia` Al-Qaida is now born.

You may find Samuel Hersh`s interview from January 2005 interesting.

Political predictions are at best risky. Unlike scientific predictions which are logical, political predictions are many a time devoid of any logic. People making such predictions are influenced by their personal biases and wishful thinking.

A couple of months back, I was at a friend’s house for a social call. As it happens frequently, we were in a political discussion after a few social pleasantries. It started when my friend said without any rhyme or reason that President Bush was going to invade Iran. I thought such an event very unlikely particularly when the people had given a majority to the Democrats (who were clamoring for pulling the troops out of Iraq) both in the House and the Senate (although it’s only nominal). I had said the Democrats wouldn’t approve any such action. We argued for some time and then changed the topic.

This was at the time when George Bush had not yet implicated Iran for her support of the Shiites in Iraq. My friend’s reasoning was simple. He said George Bush would attack Iran and try to annihilate its nuclear capability before leaving the White House.

True enough, Bush came out in the public with his accusation of Iran after only a few days. The possibility of attack on Iran which seemed unlikely at that time is now hovering on the horizon. Howsoever illogical such an action may be, it cannot be ruled out.

In a perceptive article (Guardian Unlimited, February 19, 2007), Gary Younge wrote, “George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality…he stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal.

And so we watch the administration’s plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they had to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.”

So, the unlikely might still actually happen.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 15

Well, may be the war in iraq is NOT a ``setback`` as people claim... as far as Bush is concerned, he taught the bedouins a lesson in general and saddam in particular... he neutralized another potential arab ``strongman`` who could have proved to be a larger threat down the road... sure things didn`t work out entirely as per the plan... but hey, war is messy and un-predictable, right?... I mean - why would sunnis and shias butcher each other like hyenas, instead of working together to build a nation, they are all muslims, right?... Bush rescued the country from iron grips of a mad dictator and handed it over to the people ... it ain`t his fault if iraqis are too dumb to realize the ``gift`` he gave them... :)

Anycase - now iraq is done, more or less.... why not take care of iran?... Iranians are spoiling for a fight anyway... right?... Yet another mideast madman has publicly threatened to wipe israel off the map, right?... so where is the problem?... :)

speaking of iran, pakis are 4 on 4 now...heard the iranians summoned the paki ambassador after the bomb blasts in iran...so now pakiland has spread islamic terrorism to iran, afghanistan, india and china...