JABbering Stooge

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

About that Iran thing...

I know that everyone else in the left-wing portion of the blogosphere has weighed in on the coming nuclear holocaust in Iran.

For instance, the fine folks at Sadly, No! reposted an excellent assessment of the situation entitled Is your entire country on crack?.

Crooks and Liars posted a video of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter soundly debunking the rationale for nuking Iran.

But Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon had the best post title on the subject: Someone tell the Bircher President that Iran's not flouridating their water.

Sidebar: Incidentally, it appears that Amanda's first viewing of "Dr. Strangelove" occurred around the same time as my first viewing.

The whole furor, of course, started with AMERICAblog's John Aravosis highlighting a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker stating that Bush was determined to go to war with Iran and that he was going to use nuclear (as opposed to nukyular) weapons.

But perhaps most telling of all is a briefing paper by the Oxford Research Group entitled Iran: Consequences of a War. Especially chilling is the conclusion, which states:

A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.

Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.

The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.


But be sure to read the whole thing: it is worth a read, and the contents are chilling. Especially in light of the knowledge that Bush certainly won't read it and is determined to start a war, come hell or high water.

All of this is eerily similar to the runup to Operation Iraqi Liberation (and yes, the use of "liberation" instead of "freedom" is intentional). In both cases, The Most Holy George W. Christ has demonstrated an obsessive desire - one that brooks no dissent - to attack a Middle Eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11. In both cases, he has already determined - without even bothering to try - that diplomacy simply will not work and action needs to be taken 45 days ago, even as he protests that military action is an absolute last resort. In both cases, he is cherry-picking intelligence to justify military action.

In light of all this, I find I need to consult with a certain Vorlon Ambassador:

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!