Postby Rspaight » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:03 pm
The rhetoric is about exactly where we were in the summer of 2002. Hyping the threat, getting people scared, seeding the hysteria in the media, insisting that military force is a last resort and that saying we're going to do it is "speculation," etc., etc.. All exactly the same.
Bush is determined to do "something" about Iran before he leaves office. Nothing Iran does will stop him from considering them a threat. I'd say the odds are definitely favoring bombing nuke facilities. The big question: will he bomb conventionally and settle for hindering Iran's progress, or go nuclear to try to knock out the whole program?
A ground war seems unlikely, since the military is overwhelmed already. But if he thinks Iran will meekly accept bombing, I think he's mistaken. If he bombs Iran, Iraq and Lebanon will erupt, and Israel will be under siege in a way that makes the current situation look like a bridge tournament. (Iran's best buddies: Iraqi Shiites, Hezbollah, and Hamas.)
And if we won't nuke Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, Israel just might.
It will be interesting to see if the administration even bothers to seek a force authorization resolution from Congress, or just starts bombing.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney