Comments on: Hold Me Tight, Iran

By: DLS

DLS — Fri, 23 May 2008 00:57:45 +0000

Chris: The neo-cons who felt something like that way (you have mischaracterized and even misreprented them) have, in the aftermath of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq, largely become silent and invisible, skulking into the background to the point where they largely have disappeared. Nobody seriously believes any attack on Iran will be favored or rashly sought (nobody sane, that is). Everyone is aware of the likely short-term consequences, which alone are bad -- Hormuz and oil disruption, attacks on other nations' oil infrastructures and oil disruption, even preemptively to force the developed world to consider sparing Iran's, missile and air strikes by Iran on US-Western and Iraqi-sympathetic-to-us targets in Iraq, the likelihood of terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world at the same time, and so on.

I am avoiding pretense. I am realistic. It goes for you and your side, too.

2006 spelled the end of neo-con conceit, at least in its application by Washington. We cannot leave abruptly, and cannot permit oil to fall into the hands of terrorists or Iraq's government (often the same thing). But we've failed to "win the peace" at the end of the war, didn't even send enough troops initially to seal the borders as well as pacify the unruly. This is going to be a mess and hopefully a Dem admin won't make it worse by being naive worse, or appealing to the naive (or worse, sometimes -- "US is evil") who elects that admin in large numbers this November.

Meet the new Iran (and Cuba), same as the old so far and in the near term after a new administration takes office and the USA is "new." Iraq won't be.

* * *

"to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran"

I kept quiet to see if anyone else noticed this possibility, but as nobody else has said anything: Doesn't anyone else suspect this may be on the minds of Israelis and may be one reason for peace talks (now that a subdued Syria after losing its illicit reactor might reconsider some of its misbehavior)?

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:23:00 +0000

Well, don't pretend like there aren't a lot of powerful people who feel that way.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:40:12 +0000

I'm not advocating either thing. Nor is it I who make up fictitious paranoia charges (a pathetic “comeback” if it even merits the term “comeback” with obvious contempt attached). [sigh]

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:32:04 +0000

I'm not the one consistently advocating we attack new countries and abridge our own freedoms in the name of protection from the Uber-Terrorists. Spare us *your* paranoia.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:30:38 +0000

[yawn] It's the evil, big, bad Bush's fault. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Spare us the "invasion" paranoia! Did Syria's illicit nuclear weapons activity and support for terrorist vermin possibly have anything to do with poisoned relations with the USA? (Not to the ignorant or to those with uglier motives moving them.)

And Castro doesn't deserve to be a celebrity subjected to sympathy because of the (predictlably) evil Yanqui neo-colonialist-imperialist monster under your bed.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:26:11 +0000

You read my mind Jeb. After I read your second paragraph, my mind immediately jumped to Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Union.

While the strengthening of ties between Iran and Syria are likely due to incompetence, it could help neocon efforts to push for invasion of one or both of those countries. After all, our government was more able to effectively demonize Cuba after they were forced into the arms of the Soviet Union than before.