h1

So, Does Bush’s Checklist Include Iran, Or Not?

February 4, 2007

With all the talk of U.S./Iranian strife permeating the airwaves and webpages (especially after Bush’s recent SOTU), I figured I’d put my $.02 in on this subject.  I’ve written about it on other sites before, but I thought I’d add my perspective here after seeing this piece come over the Raw Story feed: Senator Clinton won’t run out use of force to stop ‘pro-terrorist’ Iran.

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” she said. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

“To deny the Holocaust places Iran’s leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists,” she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration’s “pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric.”

“We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,” she added.

I’ll be honest.  I’ve never really understood the whole Holocaust denial thing.  Perhaps the human ego contains a mechanism to allow one to revise history to make the facts fit better in a particular worldview.  That’s why they call it ‘in denial’. Clinton’s right, though, as we cannot just rule out an attack on Iran.  I’m sure Clinton means to keep the option out there as a last resort.  After all, no one is really rooting for another war, are they?

 Well, there are always the warbloggers out there.  Take this piece penned by Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush: America and the Coming War with Syria and Iran.

It is hard to say at this juncture – no two ways about it, a Democrat-controlled Congress does limit President Bush’s ability to act and with Iraq still commanding the majority of Administration efforts, Lebanon might have to stay on the back burner. But war is coming – the United States, sooner or later, will find itself in armed conflict with Syria and Iran: they are making a bid for domination of the middle east, and that is something the United States cannot tolerate, especially as Iran seeks to become a nuclear power.

We should fight them now. In spite of ignorant claims from the liberals, the United States military is not over-extended and is fully capable of destroying the Syrian regime, and nuetralising the Iranian regime. Fighting them now would also be far less costly than fighting them at any later date.

I know, I know, this is just some bloggers viewpoint (like mine).  Mark doesn’t really effect U.S. foreign policy.  It is interesting, however,  to see that the Bushbots are lining up behind it, even though Bush himself (and more recently, Gates) has said that’s not the plan. Maybe the Bushbots and I actually have something in common now, since we’re both unwilling to accept what Bush says at face value, apparently.  Bush says he hopes that the Iran situation can be solved ‘diplomatically‘.  Of course, a crucial step in that direction was taken in 2002, when he referred to Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’.  Yep, diplomacy at it’s finest.

Among others who aren’t ‘buying it’ are Raw Story’s Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane: Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push .

While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

It’s an interesting read.  They even included a timeline.

My conclusion?   By now, everyone knows that Bush cannot be trusted.  For all we know, he’s putting the U.N. colored paint on the spy plane as we speak.  One only needs to look at his reaction to the ISG report with regards to Iran and Syria to see that he’s not really in the mood for ‘diplomacy’. 

Maybe Alexandrovna and Gates are both right.  It’s possible that Iran was part of the plan in the beginning, but the plan changed once it became clear that the first stop on the ‘axis of evil’ tour isn’t going so well.  So, here we sit with in a rather precarious position.    It kinda makes you reflect on how we got to this point.  What happened?

Update: AP- Analysis: Bush’s Iran stance echoes Iraq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: