This is an interesting take on the Bush-Cheney desire for a military confrontation with Iran. Unfortunately I would expect the average American to rally around the flag as usual. Granted some of the usual supporters from small town America and military families are burned out and might not rally as usual, as they alone are paying the price for the Iraq Debacle until the bills come due. Considering the profits to be made with the prospect for electoral success I would not put it past the Bush wing of the GOP to go for it. **************** The Iran Wedge Between the GOP's wave of congressional retirements and its lackluster presidential candidates, the party's prospects are looking dim. But they have one cheerful possibility on the horizon: war with Iran. Paul Starr | October 23, 2007 Now is the season of Republican lethargy and discontent. A wave of retirements is dimming GOP congressional prospects, while the Republican presidential candidates have generated so little excitement that they are running behind the Democrats in fundraising and in the opinion polls. But there is one cheerful possibility on the horizon, and that is war with Iran. Until recently, I had thought that an attack on Iran, besides being strategically reckless for America, would be politically suicidal for the Republican Party. I am still convinced an attack would be reckless for the country, but I am beginning to see how it could work for the GOP. That the Bush administration might launch an airstrike to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities has for some time been the subject of intense speculation. During recent months, however, the administration has increasingly emphasized the claim that Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq. In the Oct. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that instead of targeting nuclear sites, a strike would now focus on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is allegedly responsible for U.S. casualties in Iraq. The attack would then be justified not as counterproliferation, but as counterterrorism. According to Hersh's sources, the president has indicated that he supports such an attack but has yet to issue the order to carry it out. Hersh's only reference to domestic political fallout assumes that an attack would hurt the GOP. He quotes an unnamed former intelligence official as saying that "Cheney et al." are so determined "to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible" that they are ignoring Republican electoral concerns: "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the president." May I say a word in the vice president's defense? I believe that he does care a rat's ass. The whole idea of the attack makes more sense as an attempt to revive the political dynamics that worked so well for the Republicans in 2002 and 2004, when they turned public anxiety about Islamist terrorism to their advantage, while dividing the Democrats and throwing them on the defensive and off their own issues. An attack on Iran could do the same. We can already see how the politics might play out. On Sept. 26, the Senate adopted a resolution presented by Joseph Lieberman and Jon Kyl declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. The vote was 76-22, with Democrats splitting almost exactly down the middle (Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid were among the supporters). The resolution passed only because its sponsors took out two paragraphs approving a military response, but Democrats split over the suspicion that the resolution might be used to justify one. The precipitating occasion for an initial strike against Iran might be a murky episode along the lines of the Tonkin Gulf incident in the Vietnam War. A U.S. attack on Revolutionary Guard facilities would almost certainly not go unanswered. Iran has the capacity to strike back against American targets not only in Iraq, but throughout the world. As Zbigniew Brzezinski told Hersh, "The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand." In the wake of an Iranian response -- imagine a terrorist attack in an American city -- there would be a public clamor for U.S. retaliation. That clamor might then allow an all-out attack against Iran's nuclear sites, which is what I assume Bush and Cheney are really after. Such a sequence of events, while not without political risks to the Republicans, could wreak havoc on the Democrats. If Iran's response took substantial American casualties, it would generate overwhelming pressure to support U.S. retaliation. The crisis might also accentuate public anxieties about a woman as president at a point when Sen. Clinton may have locked up the nomination. And if the GOP's cards really fall into place, a third-party anti-war presidential campaign might allow the Republican candidate to win in 2008 with only a plurality of the vote. Unless the Democratic nominee handles the crisis brilliantly, it could radically change prospects for the election. To be sure, an American attack could boomerang. It might strengthen the Iranian regime by generating a nationalist reaction within the country, cast the regime in a heroic light throughout the Islamic world, unleash a wave of terrorism against the United States, aggravate our difficulties in Iraq, and entangle us in a regional war indefinitely. Some analysts think these risks to both the republic and the Republican Party are so great that George Bush will ultimately decline to order an attack. But the Republicans are playing a very weak hand, and this may be their best gamble to retain power. edit: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_iran_wedge
Look, Iran is a threat. A nuclear Iran is a total disaster for the world -- especially Israel. This Administration knows that if a Democrat takes the White House, that they won't have the balls to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuke. If necessary, Bush has to act while he still can to protect our country. The libs just don't have the balls to do so. But of course leave it to the libs to say something is a failure before it even happens. And to once again turn our military into a political football. Pathetic as usual.
Isn't that something that the Israeli's should deal with? I mean, they are fully capable of taking out a nuclear reactor (see 80's) and they are the one's threatened. We cannot afford to spend the money on another war. Israel's military is fully capable of taking care of the job. We shouldn't always have to play big brother
When people mention the term "boomerang", that's what will happen against the GOP if Bush makes another catastrophic mistake by invading Iran.
To work it right the would need a clearly defined casus belli 'outrage' like the Madrid train bombings, but clearly linked to Iran. If the Republicans appear to have initiated the war, I think it would not work. It would also help to do it relatively close to the elections, so that the first flush of military success on CNN & FOX News is still fresh in everybody's mind. If they do it too early and things get bogged down, that won't help. Once you make a fake attack, of course, it becomes a conspiracy and I don't think the military is particularly inclined to conspire into getting us into a war with Iran at this point, which might make it an unworkable idea for the Republicans, if they are inclined to this sort of thing.
ROFL ROFL ROFL Glynch, looks like you're busted for originally hiding your source of this article. "The American Prospect - Liberal Intelligence". Did I read that correctly? Liberal intelligence? Quite possibly the truest definition of oxymoron. I'm not sure what's funnier....glynch trying to sneak in as credible some garbage from this leftie rag, or these n00bz (likely glynch aliases...) that are supporting him and calling other people names.
I think the Russians would look at a US attack on Iran as a direct attack on their national interests. They also remember Afghanistan. Not the Afghanistan of today, but of the 1980's, when we supplied Stinger missiles to the fighters against Soviet occupation, a body blow that tipped the balance against them. If a US/Iran War were to drag on, you can bet that Russia will be suppying Iran with every possible modern weapon capable of being transported easily. In my opinion. Wait for the next President to deal with Iran. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Holding Hands with an Idiot.
Suppose we attack Iran and then they retaliate thru terrorist attacks that killed tens of thousands of Americans on US soil. Do you think the US public will rally behind the flag and bomb Iran back to Stone Age or they will start a coup to depose the Bush Admin? I think the former is much more likely. Also. what are the damages do to the Bush Admin for such an attack? I think none but it obviously gives them more political capital, their defense industry friends more money and makes Israel happy. Why should they care about the Americans died in such an attack? Isn't nearly 4000 Americans died in Iraq already?
I think you are wrong. The utter disgust about Iraq is much greater than you think. If we attack Iran and they retaliated with "terrorist attacks that killed tens of thousands of Americans on US soil", the whole false premise about us being safer for acting preemptively will be exposed. I can't think of anything that would anger the American people more against Bush and the GOP than your scenario. If it was theoretically possible for a coupe to happen in the U.S, you just gave the blueprint.
You may have missed it, but they actually have already done this pre-emptively. Russia sold advanced anti-aircraft weapons to Syria and Iran, supposedly they have already been deployed around Iranian nuclear sites, but the Israeli attack got through before they were set up for it.
Ari Fleischer’s Freedom’s Watch Involved In ‘Marketing Sessions’ To ‘Sell’ Iran War In September, the New York Times reported that the White House front group Freedom’s Watch, led by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, was considering a “national advertising campaign” to make the case for war with Iran, claiming that “Iran poses a direct threat” to U.S. security. Previously, Freedom’s Watch doled out $15 million to flack for the Iraq escalation. While 63 percent of Americans oppose to military action in Iran, Freedom’s Watch apparently believes it can coax the public into another war. Laura Rozen reports that Freedom’s Watch is involved in test-marketing “language” to sell war with Iran. Laura Sonnemark, an attendee of the sessions, describes her experience: While the focus group was commissioned by another organization, Freedom’s Watch reportedly “shared information” produced by the session. In the next step of their PR campaign, the Freedom’s Watch announced a redesigned website yesterday, complete with a new blog, “guest posts by prominent conservative figures,” and ways for visitors to be “heard directly by their members of Congress.” In an e-mail blast to supporters today, President Bradley Blakeman states, “our efforts have just begun.” These attempts to sell war with Iran smack of the White House’s efforts to sell the Iraq war. In August 2002, Karl Rove chaired the White House Iraq Group, whose mission was to “develop a strategy for publicizing the White House’s assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.” At the same time, Fleischer was propagating these false assertions to the public. As a founding member of Freedom’s Watch, it is no surprise Fleischer is importing his White House propaganda tactics for war with Iran. http://thinkprogress.org/
interesting theory but if the republicans successfully started a war against iran, we could probably expect a similar outcome to the iraq war. except this time, russia and china will be supplying iran w/ arms. this would truly deal a blow to the long term viability of the republican party. a more realistic approach would be to let the democrats take over in the next election and just regroup. and then when things dont go as perfectly... the republicans can jump in and say "SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
i dont think this is a republican vs. democrat issue. hillary is making all kinds of war mongering comments about iran too. she is even saying bush isnt being hawkish enough.
a side note from the possibility of an iran war... what the heck is the republican party thinking... it seems like a large chunk of senators and congressmen are deciding to retire (Lott is retiring too). i know that most of the seats are in staunch republican states but there are some seats that will be challenged. the democrats seem poised for large gains in the next election. the presidency and a larger majority in both houses. it doesnt seem very wise to open up more seats for relection. for america this is not good bc we need balance. we saw what happened when the republicans were given all the power. now the democrats may inherit all the power. not good...
