Display:
The aim of attacking Iran (and overthrowing the regime if possible) has always been an integral part of the Cheney/Bush agenda, imo. The build-up on the nuclear question seemed to be heading that way when the intelligence estimate that Iran had ceased working towards nuclear weapons put the kibosh on it. That was no doubt a blow struck by military/intelligence interests that see an Iranian adventure as utter folly.

Those interests are still there. No doubt Cheney dreams nightly of working things round to a strike before the end of the mandate, both for Great Game reasons and for reasons of domestic political control. But the Washington power structure is split, and it's by no means sure the war-freaks will get their way.

One last act of madness? It can't be ruled out.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:59:55 AM EST
I like this interpretation---particularly since I propounded this theory several times.
But --crap. The things I like tend to be wrong.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I surely owe you for your lights on this matter, giP! Though my view, from our first discussions on Iran here, has always been that Cheney would attack Iran if he could, that it was part of the agenda that began, not with Afghanistan, but with Iraq.

Currently, as you know, the Iraq War has not been won (to Israel's benefit), but lost (to Iran's). 'Nuff to make a man mad...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I still go with the idea that George is working backwards through a list of perceived historical slights or insults given by other countries to the USA on a piece of paper with a crayon and his tongue sticking out of the corner of his mouth. So Iraq was last, before that was Iran, before that was VietnaM, then Cuba then North Korea

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dick more than George, imo, and Rummy and some other ole boys who were around in the '70s.

In the case of Iran, not as much a "perceived historical slight" as a humiliation that led to a pullback of American territorial influence in an area vital to the supply of sand and camels, as we all know. The overthrow of the Shah put the US on the back foot (ie Saudi A) for a couple of decades. Backing Saddam to beat Iran in the '80s didn't work, and then Saddam was left over as a damn nuisance holding the central spot needed to threaten Iran. So first stop Saddam, next stop Iran. With Syria for Israel to take out.

But the best-laid plans...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series