99% chance of attack on Iran

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
99% chance of attack on Iran
26
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 11:49pm
99% chance of attack on Iran 30/08/2004 11:28 - (SA)

Amman - A prominent Jordanian journalist on Monday expected the United States or Israel to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iran in September or October with a view to enhancing President George Bush's re-election chances.

"A pre-emptive strike is coming 99% either in September or October before the US presidential elections early in November," said Fahd Fanek in an article in the daily Al-Rai.

"If the United States decides to carry out the strike, the timing will be before the elections so as Bush guarantees his re-election. If Israel launches the attack, it will do that for the avowed aim of ensuring Bush will be the next president," added Fanek, an economics expert and respected newspaper columnist.

Fanek contended that Iran "was well aware of this and, accordingly, it was heating up the war language with the Americans".

"What Moqtada al-Sadr did in Iraq could be part of an Iranian plan designed to foil any American blueprint to proceed eastward," he said, alluding to the recent bloody confrontation between al-Sadr's militias and the US troops at the holy town of Najaf. - dpa

Edited by Andrea Botha

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 09-19-2004 - 11:59pm
And attacking Iran will ensure Bush's re-election how?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 12:25am
By ensuring he's a "wartime" president. Just as he tried to do in Iraq.


"The country's at war!!! You can't vote him out now!!!!"

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 11:43am
It is possible however that enough people may wake up and realize we are already spending more then we can afford on this war, and adding that one could make it alot worse. Top that off I think if we keep adding more wars with the mid east countries, we could easily set more countries against us, and not to mention, some think all these wars could lead to a world war. This may sound all right to some war loving people, but it doesn't sound all that appealing to me.

Venus

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 12:43pm
"It is possible however that enough people may wake up and realize we are already spending more then we can afford on this war, and adding that one could make it alot worse."

I agree. It amazes me to hear how passionate they are in defense of, and in their belief in this war, but not quite passionate enough to actually pay for it, they are sticking our kids and grandkids with the bill for it. Of course this has been SOP for them now for over 20 years, spend now and stick the kids with the bill. I think they call it "personal responsibility". They're big believers in it. For everyone else.

"Top that off I think if we keep adding more wars with the mid east countries, we could easily set more countries against us, and not to mention, some think all these wars could lead to a world war."

Probably one of the biggest dangers is that what you describe could touch off such outrage in the Muslim world as to topple governments, with the biggest danger being Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, and they also have a rather shaky government. A radical, nuclear armed Pakistan is not a very attractive scenario, and is also one I would doubt our government has taken into account, given their short sitedness.

Another problem is that Iran has an extensive missle arsenal. An attack by either us or Israel might result in a missle attack on either Israel or our bases in Kuwait or elsewhere.

My guess is that if this is going to happen they will let Israel do it and figure it will blow over the way the Israeli attack on Iraq in 1981 did. Iran is not Iraq, the attack on Iraq blew over because, given that Iraq was a secular society, it was seen as an attack on Saddam and Iraq itself. An attack on Iran would be seen as more of an attack on Islam itself and would be more dangerous.

"some think all these wars could lead to a world war. This may sound all right to some war loving people, but it doesn't sound all that appealing to me."

This country doesn't have the manpower of the treasure to continue to engage in endless war. The rising price of oil may very well lead to a recession next year, it did twice in the 70s. Given the escalating cost of the Iraqi war, factor a recession on top of that, and we may be looking at yearly deficits that approach a trillion dollars. At some point the rest of the world is going to either tire of or become unable to finance our debt.

Quite a domestic situation we are preparing for our kids and grandkids. But, let's talk REAL issues. We need ever increasing constitutional amendments to outlaw things we just don't think people ought to be doing!

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 2:20pm
My husband said this a few weeks back (he's more right wing than I....he said it rather happily). I thought he was crazy. I thought starting yet another war before the election would be political suicide. But I suppose like Iraq, what's done will be done and then if Bush doesn't get in the "winner" will be left holding the bag.

Maybe it does make sense after all. No one likes to change horses in the middle of a race. If the timing for invading Iran comes before the election and Bush is re-elected I suppose that might be considered a brilliant tactical move (unless they also rush into this one without fully planning it out in order to fit it in before the election). As far as it being a moral one...well then even I will be surprised at how low this administration can sink.

I do not know how the rest of the world will view this move (currently many nations are looking at Iran with some dread and realizing that something might have to be done about it). However, if the timing is such that it becomes a campaign strategy I fear that the US may lose ALL of it's allies...well maybe not Israel....though truthfully, I think that the US might give a green light to Israel to go in before the election (along with some sort of behind the scenes assurances). It will look better that way.

Move over folks....here comes the Jihad! I suppose it's no accident that it was a right wing fundamentalist christian president that will bring it about.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 2:25pm
<>

I agree, posted that in my reply before I read yours.

<>

I don't know....maybe it does (hopefully it does). It would be a shame if this is what drags America down in the end.

I suppose the reign of all super powers have to come to an end at some point...

Egypt, Greece, Rome, Britain, America etc...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 2:37pm
Seeing how well things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is not one of the wisest moves Bush can make. They are having to keep the military on longer tours in Iraq becuaes they do not have enough people, so where are they going to come up with people they are going to need in Iran? Or are they just going to bomb them and think that will be enough? I guess Bush has not insulted enough people with the first 2 countries he invaded. But the real question is who are we really protecting ourselves or Israel? Looks like the making of WW III....
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 6:46pm
If so many nations are looking at Iran with such dread, I suggest they form a coalition and go take care of it....
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 6:58pm
"Seeing how well things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is not one of the wisest moves Bush can make. They are having to keep the military on longer tours in Iraq becuaes they do not have enough people, so where are they going to come up with people they are going to need in Iran?"

Good Question. They will pull some from Europe, and they wil also continue using the Reserves and National Guard. I believe enlistment in the Reserves has been down for about 20 months, I'll see if I can find the info, this certainly won't help.

"Or are they just going to bomb them and think that will be enough?"

Yes. They think that all they need to do is take out the nuclear facilites, like Israel did in Iraq in 1981. I suppose if we believe the garbage that's been pouring out of Republican National Headquarters for 4 years, once we bomb Iran they will instantly become a democracy. Mission Accomplished.

"I guess Bush has not insulted enough people with the first 2 countries he invaded. But the real question is who are we really protecting ourselves or Israel? Looks like the making of WW III...."

Expect a big offensive if they win the election, an attempt to retake the cities in Iraq, it will most likely be bloody and they will probably ship in more troops in order to do it, although they're denying it now. The fact that they are waiting until after the election means every serviceman killed in Iraq is giving his life for the reelection of George Bush.


dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Mon, 09-20-2004 - 7:19pm
"Expect a big offensive if they win the election, an attempt to retake the cities in Iraq, "

I have already heard reports in the media about another offensive in Faluja (sp) coming to gain some control, before the elections.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages