Re: Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation ‘Pro...

[Guest guest]

If he is foolish he will. As I have said before, Iran is teetering on the edge right now. The economy is very weak, the clerics control between a third and half of it and the profits of those industries got straight into their pockets (and they produce poor quality good by virtual slave laborers). Over 50% of the population was born after the 1970s revolution that overthrew the Shah and established the current regime and they chafe under the restrictions and the power of the religious police. There are many other things, such as the international embargo and Iran's status as a world pariah, that add to this.

The Iranian leadership, such as the president, want a war. On the one hand, an attack from a foreign power would unify the people temporarily as such things tend to do. On the other hand, some are also fervent believers that if they provoke a war, the more violent and bloody the better, that they can summon the Hidden Imam who will lead them to world domination by Islam. Now, I'm not sure if some of that isn't a bluff and that they don't have someone set up to climb out of the well and claim to be the Imam to stir up the Shia into a wild war.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

There are many other stories if you do a websearch for Hidden Imam in Iran. Some of them are video and audio clips, some out of Iran itself.

Simply put, attacking Iran will be giving the Iranians exactly what they want. It would fire up Iran and probably spark a wider war, especially if the Hidden Imam climbed out of his well and did a few special effects assisted magic tricks to further inflame Muslims.

What I would do is to send a very quiet envoy to the clerics with a warning. That warning would be that if Iran attacked our ships, we would destroy their oil rigs. Without their oil rigs, their oil production would be cut. Since Iran subsidizes domestic fuels so that gas costs less than $1 per gallon, cutting their production would mean two things. First, it would cut a large part of Iran's income because most of that come from oil exports. Second, it would mean prices would go up and there would be shortages domestically, both of which would cause unrest. Such unrest would probably unseat them from power and put an end to their cushy lifestyles. They would probably rein in their President and his followers.

If they didn't and they attacked one of our ships, cruise missiles would rain down on their oil refineries and distribution pipelines. Yes, I said refineries and not oil rigs. By telling them the targets would be oil rigs, they would have to disburse what defenses they had over the many oil rigs, many of them are out in the sea and vulnerable. But attacking them could lead to environmental problems which would be bad press. So instead, they take defenses away from the relatively fewer and much larger refineries which would cause less environmental damage when destroyed. Hitting pumping and storage centers would exacerbate the fuel crunch.

The only problem is that it would tick off the Russians and Chinese. Well, the Russians could be mollified by the way oil prices would rise and they have lots of oil. We could even pay the Iranian debt for the reactors. The Chinese, we'd just have to point out to them, very quietly and behind the scenes, just what harm a naval blockade would do to their shaky economy. There is of course the problem that the Chinese own so much of our debt, but that is a matter that could be avoiding simply by not attacking Iran first.

Bush probably will try to leave a mess for his successor though, just like his father did. At least his father only got us tied up in a backwater called Somalia in a pointless humanitarian mission. Starting a war with Iran would almost certainly have global consequences.

In a message dated 1/9/2008 12:48:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Let's remember that I predicted Bush would strike militarily at Iran before he left office. I do believe this is a prelude to the event. Whether this incident arrived on a silver platter or whether this was simply a "typical" incident that he leaked to the press is hard to say, but I predict he will eventually respond mercilessly...and with a strike on their nuclear facilities. Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

" Starting a war with Iran would almost certainly have global

consequences. "

There is one argument against that though: I think most European

countries are beginning to get fed up with Islamic extremism,

terrorism, and unrest, and they are annoyed with the efforts they

have put into Afghanistan only to see mixed results.

I think bombing Iran's reactors would be met with token protest and

that is about it.

France is now fed up with its Muslim minority rioting every year or

so. Most European countnries are tired of terrorist attacks and

threats, and they are also tired of the more radical Muslim sects

feigning innocent on the outside as they preach death and destruction

on the inside of their Mosques.

We should listen to Mulims who say the western powers are waging war

against Islam, because Islam IS who they are. They truly believe that

we ARE waging war against Islam because we attack that ethics that

they value most: Martydom and the death of the west.

Tom

Administrator