Iran War Links

6:29 am isn’t the most fruitful time for another lengthy post about the war on Iran, so instead, I’m doing a link post.

First, the Commissar has a beautiful piece of snark about the American allegations that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents. “Bush to Bomb Washington,” his mock headline exclaims. Stephen has the courage to say what I didn’t dare: the US is supplying the insurgents via its criminal incompetence, so why not bomb Washington?

On top of that, Saudi Arabia is promising to arm the Sunni insurgents if the US withdraws. Ostensibly it wants to “prevent them being massacred by Shia militias,” but as always, “prevent us from being massacred by group Y” is code for “massacre group Y.”

Brock of Battlepanda notes that the standoff is increasing oil prices, which funnels money into the coffers of the Iranian government. Since much of Ahmadinejad’s weakness comes from his inability to make good on any of his economic promises, it follows that the saber-rattling alone strengthens the regime.

Publius of Obsidian Wings, which I should really start reading and add to my blogroll, writes about how procedure isn’t enough. Clinton’s response to Bush’s latest attempt to bomb a random third-world country is to demand that he submit to Congressional authorization. Publius reminds everyone that the Democrats said the same thing in 2002, and then rubber-stamped the Iraq attack.

If Publius plays good cop with Clinton, Avedon plays bad cop. Blunt and hard-hitting as always, she says,

The reason Clinton is getting the emphasis wrong is that she’s trying to be really macho about Iran and doesn’t dare say that there are worse things than Iran getting nuclear power, and one of those things would be using military force against Iran. And she apparently does not understand that nothing makes Iran want nuclear power like the constant belligerence from the United States against Iran. So just shut up about Iran and tell Bush flat out that he can’t go there.

Kenneth Baer says on TPMCafe that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are right to engage in waffling rhetoric about keeping all options on the table because that’s what the experts recommend. Ezra retorts by showing that Baer is just wrong. While Baer’s article is filled with his own speculations, Ezra sticks to quoting the experts, who are far less pro-war than Baer says they are.

Dan Froomkin shows how in the absence of concrete evidence Iran is supplying Shi’a extremists, Bush is resorting to florid demagogy.

9 Responses to Iran War Links

  1. SLC says:

    Re Iran

    Attached is a link to an OpEd which I am sure will not be to the liking of Mr. Levy.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359870829&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  2. SLC, that actually is to my liking, as it reveals yet another parallel with the run-up to the Iraq clusterfuck. Namely, that you have the right wing noise machine bleating inanely about imminence of the confrontation already, so as to make it seem that the conflict was entirely the fault of the target of our attack (“Saddaam won’t disarm” in Iraq, “The mullahs are becomming so radical that they’ll attack Americans” from this Caroline Glick person). Other than that, the column is really just the standard neocon “WAR NOW PLEASE!” nonsense that we’ve gotten use to up here, and thus pretty ignorable.

    (On the other hand, it is nice to see that the Israeli right is going into the same damage control over the North Korean deal as the neocons up here are scrambling to throw together. Every act of negotiation is preemptively a repeat of Munich in the eyes of some people, no matter if it has had any chance to demonstrate it’s effectiveness or not. I can see the hysteria on the part of the neocons, however, seeing as though any success of negotiation will further give the lie to excuses for U.S. belligerance and exacerbate the aready prevailent perception that U.S. only negotiates with those regimes that already have nukes, a big problem for non-proliferation efforts already.)

  3. SLC says:

    Re DiPietro

    If the talking heads on Scarborough Country are right, Iran is going to be attacked regardless of what Congress or anybody else thinks.

  4. If the talking heads on Scarborough Country are right, Iran is going to be attacked regardless of what Congress or anybody else thinks.

    I don’t know who these talking heads are specifically, but they’re probably right. Bush is looking for a back-door into Iran, probably some vent with which to blackmail congress into giving him what he wants, and with our troops in a vulnerable position just to the West of where he wants to attack he’ll no doubt find it.

  5. Al says:

    President Ahmadinejad’s views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com

  6. Alon Levy says:

    Ausblog, are you branching to pro-war apologetics?

  7. Ran Halprin says:

    I don’t know if war is the answer, I do know we have a serious problem that Europe is ignoring:

    http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: