Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
from the dKos thread as to why they would go to war with Iran:

:: ::

Amongst the theories:

  • oil players thriving on high prices. An attack on Iran guarantees skyrocketing prices, however it turns out. Even the current drumbeat of threats and tensions nicely supports prices;

  • they care more than they should as Americans for the situation of Israel. I understand Israelis feeling threatened by Iran (I disagree that it's a real threat, but I understand not wanting to take the chance when you're on the first row), but how much this concern should drive US policy is worth asking;

  • they are bullies and anybody that stickes out needs to be brought down to its proper position. Iran, the Iran of the 1979 embassy hostages humiliation, is the ultimate assault to the goal of this administration not to tolerate any opposition:

  • more than anything, this administration is run by people who genuinely think that force (and favorable balance of power) can solve everything - that's how they function, and they cannot imagine that anybody else would function differently. So they see Iran as a potential threat, and are dealing with it the only way they know.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 11:20:40 AM EST

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 11:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
God knows, the Iranian government has "poured oil" on that fire (sorry), but it seems radiantly clear that we are in Iraq, and we aint leaving, and the whole plan stands or falls on Iran now.

Is oil theft at the point of a gun an illustration of a viable strategy to allocate natural resources? The Neocons have gambled it all on the answer being yes. All strategy will be subordinate to and applicable to the validation of this strategy, therefore.

What does this suggest for the future, vis. the inevitable need to "allocate" (steal) the rest of the galaxy of soon-to-be-scarce stuff?

Granted, history suggests that in the end, only an intensely totalitarian state can manage an empire,first, (read Hannah Arendt, Chalmers Johnson)and that even that "management" will have an endpoint that is not too hard to discern, since most of the same problems tend to recur.

Still, ---they choose to delete this equation from their math.
A truly postmodern sort of world there.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 02:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...what in recent US foreign policy could be considered beneficial to Israel (or indeed anyone in the Middle East)? And I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. Sure, on the surface, I could see why taking out your enemies would be considered beneficial, but the devil you know... Is Israel safer with Iraq in its current state than with Iraq and a neutered Saddam? And as far as Iran goes, are we to assume that the Ayatollahs are suicidal maniacs? Seems to me they've been in charge of the country a bit too long to be suicidal, at least...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 12:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Beneficial to the vision of Israel that is held by their friends.

The view that the effect of those policies is to preclude the development of a stable Israel that has a long-term future is not one available to them ...

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 12:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the US attacks Iran, there will be a lot of rockets fired unto northern Israel. Israel has shown complete tactical ineptitude in its last exchange with Hezbollah. Wonder if that has changed.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Oct 25th, 2007 at 12:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see why the oil companies would prefer high oil prices. If the price of crude rises then the retail price rises, but that doesn't mean that their profit increases. Their profit is tied to their acceptable return on investment.  
by asdf on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 04:15:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That depends on what the "oil companies"/"Big Oil" refer to. Are they:

a) pumping up crude and selling it
b) buying crude and refining it
c) buying refined fuels and selling it wholesale
d) buying wholesale and selling at the pumps
e) something else

Or rather what combinations of the above are they? This is in no way a rethorical question, I do not know the structure of the oil market.

Companies that does A profits from higher prices (as long as it is not their pumps offline), B-D can profit if they can pass on price hikes and then some.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Oct 26th, 2007 at 12:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6

Occasional Series