According to Seymour Hersch, writing in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker magazine, we may be on the verge of war with Iran. According to Hersch:
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack...President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
In addition, Hersch writes:
Bush and others in the White House view [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. +óGé¼+ôThat+óGé¼Gäós the name they+óGé¼Gäóre using. They say, +óGé¼-£Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?+óGé¼Gäó+óGé¼-¥
Another world war? Sounds crazy, eh? Another of Bush's paranoid, "end-of-times," apocalyptic fantasies? On the other hand, Iran's President has "challenged the reality of the Holocaust" and also asserted that "Israel must be 'wiped off the map.'" So who knows, maybe this actually COULD lead to nuclear war, at the minimum between Israel - which may have 200 nuclear weapons itself - and Iran. Obviously, that would be a disaster. But would a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program be a good idea, a total fiasco, or what?
Having read numerous articles on this subject, I have mixed feelings. For starters, I'm pretty sure - but not totally convinced - that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Is there any reason a country with the world's second largest natural gas reserves needs a nuclear power program? On the other hand, it IS legal for Iran to have nuclear power, and perhaps the country is worried that its burgeoning population and energy consumption means that it needs nuclear power to free up oil and natural gas for export.
Honestly, I've heard strong arguments in both directions, and I'm not convinced one way or the other. If anything, I lean towards the view that Iran doesn't really "need" nuclear power, but I freely admit I could be wrong.
Now, let's assume Iran really DOES have a nuclear weapons program. Is this truly a threat to world peace? Again, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I definitely don't believe that Iran has the force projection capability to be "another Adolf Hitler." On the other hand, Iran IS led by people with a potentially dangerous view of the world. According to Hersch:
Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government +óGé¼+ôare capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They+óGé¼Gäóre apocalyptic Shiites. If you+óGé¼Gäóre sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they+óGé¼Gäóve got nukes and missiles+óGé¼GÇ¥you+óGé¼Gäóve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there+óGé¼Gäós no reason to back off.+óGé¼-¥
That's scary stuff and shouldn't be brushed aside. Having said that, I find it a bit hard to believe that Iran is another Nazi Germany, either in its worldwide ambitions or in its capabilities. Still, this is not a good situation.
Finally, I'm concerned about the implications - political and economic - of bombing Iran. Would this inflame Shi'ites in Iraq and eastern Saudi Arabia (location of most of that country's oil reserves)? Would Iran "initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah?" Would such attacks "be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates?" And what would happen to the world economy if Iran's 4 million barrels per day of oil were taken off for a prolonged period? According to the Energy Information Administration's "rule of thumb" for oil supply disruptions, losing this amount of oil could lead to an increase in oil prices of $28 per barrel, not counting the "psychology premium" to world oil markets of war in the Middle East.
My estimate, having worked on this stuff for over 15 years, is that we'd go over $100 per barrel and stay there for a while, with potentially serious negative implications for the U.S. and world economy. And, if Iran succeeded, for any significant length of time, in shutting down the strategic Strait of Hormuz - through which flow around 17 million barrels per day of world oil supplies - we could be talking $150 or even $200 per barrel. Who knows. Can you say $6 per gallon gasoline?
Finally, what would the U.S. political implications be of bombing Iran's (supposed) nuclear weapons program? Call me suspicious, but "fool me twice, shame on me" and all. Not to get "tinfoil hat"-ish here, but could Bush and Rove possibly be thinking that war with Iran would boost their party's political prospects leading up to U.S. mid-term elections? Or, do Bush, Cheney et al. honestly believe that Iran's nuclear program must be stopped, regardless of the political ramifications? Could $6 per gallon gasoline actually lead to landslide Democratic victories this November?
My guess is that it a quick, successful series of airstrikes would boost Bush's popularity, at least initially, while a prolonged campaign that led to terrorism and $6 per gallon gasoline could lead to a significant political backlash. But honestly, who the heck knows? This is, frankly, way too complicated and unpredictable to figure out. In the meantime, war with Iran is looking more and more likely, whether you agree with it or not. So, fasten your seatbelts; the next few months could be getting a bit turbulent.
We do not know (nor do the Israelis know) where ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities and research are located. Therefore, there is no guarantee we would take out everything we needed to if we did Shock and Awe 'em. My sources tell me Ahmadinejad is considered a kook inside Iran itself, and there is a distinct likelihood he will be toast in a few months within Iran's power structure, imploding all on his own--- unless we give him a boost by rattling our own saber and/or attacking.
And now Bush has, for his own domestic political reasons, negotiated a nuclear treaty with India that in and of itself blows up the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which has actually done a pretty good job holding down proliferation up until Bush), destabilizing the whole area, upsetting Pakistan and Islamic states in general. Stupid move, all initiated by Bush (India did not ask for it, Bush did)
Once we attack Iran, all bets are off. Iran has some cards to play of its own, not the least of which is its own oil; also, Shia radicals within Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, whose guerrilla attacks would leave our troops and the entire Iraqi population right in the crosshairs--- you think we've got a so-called insurgency now, what do you think would happen if we inflame Iran and all Islam with another attack on yet another Muslim country?
And then there's the undoubted fact that there are very likely darned few allies left who would support us this time around. Let's do China's work for them, also Russia's, also Israel's, eh?
Conclusion: Crusader Bush, delusions of geopolitical grandeur and so on are one hell of a bigger threat to the world and its future than any tin-horn pseudo-Hitler in Teheran. The big threat here is not Iran, but our own foolish, possibly insane, leadership.
Who the hell appointed Bush Pope of all the world?
Hitler sure did a great job of making sure everyone thereafter would assume that every dictator has ambitions of conquering his neighbors, and eventually everybody.
Difference is, Hitler told you to your face that that was his plan.