Tick…
Spengler, the Asia Times Cassandra writes:
Iran is dying a slow demographic death, I have shown in earlier essays, and the rapid exhaustion of its oil-exporting capacity threatens to plunge the country into profound crisis during the next five years. That is why I believe that Iran will roll the dice on nuclear-arms acquisition, choosing flight forward rather than surrender to Western demands. If a united West (with at least the tacit support of Russia) puts a knife to Tehran’s throat, however, it is still possible that someone like Rafsanjani might emerge as Iran’s Mikhail Gorbachev, and give up the country’s nuclear ambitions. asia times
He cites a number of signs pointing to war, or at least serious bombardment, of Iran.
At this point, with the loony left in the US in full spate on Iraq – suggesting a four star general is betraying his nation is not winning any converts – Bush has little to lose. And, hey, would he care at this instant in his remarkably feckless Presidency?
There is little doubt that a combined strike of Israeli and American air power could destroy a good deal of the Iranian nuclear capacity. And a well targeted attack on the single gasoline refinery Iran has could devastate its economy.
And then what.
If Iraq has proven one thing it is that the “and then what” question needs to be answered before you embark on the easy part, namely full scale air and possibly land war.
It is just possible that the Iranian middle classes would be delighted to be liberated from their current Islamic overlords; but that is a relatively small fraction of the Iranian population and, out in the thousands of villages and small towns, the lure of the authority of an Islamic state run by certified Shi’ite clerics seems to remain strong.
It is possible that the americans have learned the key lesson of Iraq and actually have a plan in case the flowers for the invading troops turn out to be IEDs. If this was any but the Bush administration I would be sure of it.
But I am not. And that way lies disaster.