If youve been keeping up with the news, it will come as no surprise that Iran is the Bush Administrations next victim. There is no legitimate reason to attack Iran, but theyve never let that stop them before.
If you look past the Bush Administration, the neoconservatives, and their media stooges, you will find that most people dont think America starting another war is a good ideaespecially against Iran.
Analysts fear a military strike would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. --The Progress Report, April 10, 2006
A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of western Gulf States being involved as well.
Their report concludes: A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be. (Prior to the Iraq War, they predicted that Saddams regime would be easily beaten, but Iraq would become a hotbed of insurgency.)
After [running numerous high-level war-gaming sessions], I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work. --Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades, quoted in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2004.
the president of the United States does not have a military option. He can say he has a military option; he does not have a military option. --Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), MSNBC, 3/19/06
No one seriously believes that Bush can order an invasion of Iran because he has already squandered too much of his military resources on his twin quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the plan is to bomb some 450 sites across Iran. Then, according to the same masterminds who started the Iraq War, the Iranian people will see the error of their ways, overthrow their Islamic government, and become a bastion of American-style democracyjust like in Iraq.
Just in case bombing Iran doesnt sound crazy enough for you; how about nuking Iran?
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheneys office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. --former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, a, The American Conservative, 8/1/05
The beauty of the Cheney plan is that Iran doesnt even have to be involved in the terrorist attack. If the Bush Administration cant come up with any better excuse, they can use their new expanded definition of terrorism to attack Iran if someone sneaks into a Bush rally wearing a NO WAR FOR OIL tee-shirt.
According to Giraldi: Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doingthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackbut no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections
[A military strike] would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years. --Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, quoted in Foreign Policy, 3/27/06
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).