Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The U.S. will not attack Iran in the next twelve months:
Okay, that was a provocative lead. But, given that the Iraqi Study Group
is planning some sort of exit from Iraq which involves cooperation from states in the area, wouldn't a strike on Iran totally destroy any proposals by James Baker III?
Have you learned nothing? You are imputing rational judgement where, heretofore, no such rationality exists.
Pure power politics trumps all. If it is deemed essential to hold power, all the rational arguments for not attacking will fall to the wayside.
What makes you think Bush will pay even scant attention to anything Baker has to say? Bush has made it clear that he will "stay the course" until Iraq becomes the next president's problem. He has also said repeatedly he will never negotiate with Iran.
So tell us again what makes you think we won't be attacking Iran?
My bet: Attack on Iran on the 22nd or 23rd of October 2006 (i.e. the next moonless night). All ships will be in place by the 21st (coincidence?).
If that does not happen and the Dems do not gain majority, the attack will be started post-election in either November or December.
This will be a navy/airforce operation with the army not directly involved (no risking ground troops apart from special forces).
It will be claimed to be authorized by the "9/11 resolution" as part of the GWOT, thereby not needing a placet by congress. It will be justified with North Korea and the need to stop Iran from imitating Kim's success.
The Bush style would be to start military action a day or two after the election is over.
Oh, and don't get excited about the Baker report. Last time I checked, Bush was still commander in chief and if James Baker offers him two or more choices that he doesn't like, Bush will simply ignore Baker.