Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Tue

16

Jan

2007

Death Watch in the Persian Gulf and Washington
Tuesday, 16 January 2007 20:45
by Dave Lindorff

Watching the slow-motion march to war against Iran is a bit like watching a terminal cancer patient in a hospice. We know how it's going to end. We know it's going to be tragic and ugly. But we are powerless to stop it.

There is a difference of course.

For the cancer patient, there really is no alternative.

For us, there is an alternative to the catastrophe which President Bush and his regent, Dick Cheney, are preparing for us all.

We could rise up as a nation and demand that our elected representatives pass a Boland-type amendment banning any use of the military in Iraq. We could demand that a resolution be passed revoking the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq. We could demand the revocation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force which the president has improperly cited as giving him extra-Constitutional powers. And we could demand that Congress tell the president and vice president that if they attack Iran without explicit congressional authorization they will both be immediately impeached.

The votes could be there for such an action, as even some Republicans are clearly opposed to this insanity, but the courage to call the president’s hand and lay down the cards is not.

And so the horrible march to disaster continues.

The cynicism of this administration is beyond belief. We have the supposedly "straight talking" defense secretary Robert Gates telling Congress that there is no plan "at the moment" to attack Iran--even as he sends two aircraft carrier battle groups into the Persian Gulf and stockpiles Patriot anti-missile batteries in the region (of what use are carriers and anti-missile rockets in a counter-insurgency in Iraq?). We have the president authorizing a blatantly illegal and clearly provocative attack on an Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq, and violating international law by arresting six people in that raid.

Let's be clear. An attack on Iran, which poses no immediate or imminent threat to the United States, would be the most heinous of international war crimes--a "crime against peace" violating the UN Charter and the Nuremburg Charter. It would also be a strategic disaster that would dwarf even the president’s collassal strategic blunder in invading Iraq.

There are no more troops left to fight in Iran, so all the U.S. could hope to do would be to bomb that country. But bombing that country would do nothing to stop Iran from retaliating in myriad ways that could bring the U.S. to its knees.

Take sappers. Iraq, which has a sophisticated and well-equipped espionage apparatus, could set out on a campaign of sabatoge, blowing up U.S. chemical plants, petrochemical refining and storage facilities, and power plants. Since these are all known to be on the target list of U.S. bombers in Iran, Iran would be well within its rights retaliating in kind inside U.S. borders. If the U.S. were to follow its usual criminal practice of also attacking Iraqi hospitals and other civilian targets, Iraqis could and likely would follow suit. I wouldn't be surprised, given how long the administration has been talking about attacking Iran, if its military strategists hadn’t already smuggled bombs into place in shipping containers, ready to blow if we attack.

Feeling safer?

Iran has other options too, to hurt us. The Shia militias in Iraq, which have largely ignored U.S. forces unless harassed, are tight with the Iranians, having received shelter and support from Iran during Hussein's brutal rule, and sharing, as they do, a common religion. If Iran comes under attack, it is hard to believe that the Iraqi militias will now turn their substantial firepower on outnumbered US forces in Iraq.

When you think of it, attacking Iran would be a wonderful way of doing what the U.S. claims it has been wanting to do for several years now: uniting the Sunni and Shia forces in Iraq and ending their fratricidal conflict. The only problem is that they will be joining hands the better to attack U.S. troops! How clever this administration is!

And then there's the economic costs of an Iran War. Here Iran really has to do nothing, though it could make things all the worse by using one of its high-tech anti-ship missiles to sink an American naval vessel or even just a civilian tanker in the gulf. Even without such an action, an invasion of Iran would lead to a shutdown of oil coming from the Persian Gulf. That's one quarter of all the oil supplies in the world. Even if Iran never fires a missile, the insurance industry will make it financially impossible for any ship-owner to sail into the gulf.

So forget $80/barrel oil. Crude oil would quickly soar past $100 a barrel, past $160 a barrel, probably. Some analysts have even talked of $200 a barrel. No matter—after $100 a barrel, the world economy would grind to a halt. And the American trade deficit would go through the roof. We're not talking slowdown here,; we’re talking global depression.

All this is clear,.

But it is also clear that the Congress doesn't have the guts and principle to halt this march to madness.

And so we just continue to watch the patient die.
More from this author:
BREAKING NEWS: Eisenhower Carrier Group Sails for Iran Theater (24174 Hits)
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings...
U.S. Military Has Killed Up to 238,000 Iraqi Civilians (11556 Hits)
A just-released study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, published in the current issue of the prestigious British medical journal The...
Bush's Middle East Strategy, and Presidency, Lie in Ruins as Republicans Scurry Away (9933 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff Well, so much for Iraqi “sovereignty.” So much too for "staying the course" and for "fighting the terrorists...
Time for Truth and Consequences (9099 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff The Bush administration, losing the war in Iraq, has come with a "new" strategy: setting a timetable for Iraq's...
Let's March in January! An Impeachment Call to Action (11301 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, barring some incredible act of criminal cynicism such as the...
Related Articles:
A Journey Through The Mind Of Contemporary Conservatism: Clutching Our Values Aboard The Death Train (10571 Hits)
Day-to-day life within an empire consists of the deceitful leading the disengaged. Although when the artifice shielding a nation’s populace from...
Catapulting the Propaganda with the Washington Post (12288 Hits)
by Chris Floyd The ever persipacious Angry Arab, As'ad AbuKhalil, plucks out the hidden (or not-so-hidden) propaganda in a passing...
The Washington Post's War Against Social Security - Editorializing while reporting (8882 Hits)
By Seth Sandronsky Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post reporter has a problem with Social Security. She writes: "the...
Pale Fire and London Fog: Illuminating Outliers in the Death of Alexander Litvinenko (8623 Hits)
by Chris Floyd This is an updated version of the piece that appeared yesterday at Truthout.org. I. The Baron and the Billionaire ...
Pale Fire and London Fog: Illuminating Outliers in the Death of Alexander Litvinenko (8117 Hits)
by Chris Floyd I. The Baron and the Billionaire Everyone knows that Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko was killed by...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

a guest said:

0
...
Excellent. Nice. Superb.

I hope we invade Iran. Let us be gutsy about this.

It might take this much to distill into our conciousness of who we really are; which might make us change into a more humane form of the ogre that we really are, were and otherwise will be into the Last Day.

 
January 17, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
To a guest: : Quote: Excellent, nice, suburb.
It's always sad to hear things like this. Christianity has allowed the views of those who clearly relish the concept of, "Kill everyone in the whole wide world!" To somehow enter into their faith.

These are the elements that, if ever proved wrong, would seek universal genocide as their last act. This, in my opinion isn't reasonable or sane.

Just as "terrorists" defile Islam by their actions so America/UK leaders, "Wearing their Christian convictions from both sleeves", enforce aggression in a way that is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Jesus Christ according to scripture.

Religious conviction is a belief. If we suppose that we have freedom of speech then it follows that we have freedom of thought. This means that our beliefs are voluntary decided by ourselves either collectively or individually.

To subscribe to a view that includes the destruction of the (Majority) of others who don't hold this conviction might be a comfortable armchair of irresponsibility but we need to get real about the problems that the whole human population faces.

Communications have quantumly increased due to advances in technology. Suddenly, all the cultures are communicating with each other. We need to evolve personally to prevent clashes.

Religious tolerance is the only happy ending. We need to recognize that others hold differing beliefs and that our right to cherish our view is based on the freedom of other cultures to do the same.
 
January 25, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Congress has the message.
Last November the voters clearly spelled out their intent by rejecting the
Republican party in both Houses of Congress. The message is clear we have authorized Congress to end the insanity of the Administration in the Middle East and bring the troops home now . . . if Congress fails to carry out the mandate from the electorate . . . our only hope is the military will stand down and refuse to carry out any orders to attack one more country that poses no serious threat to this nation.
 
February 04, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top