Why the U.S won't attack Iran.
It seems that the opinions on that case are very diverging, I had a couple of discussions with many friends of mine, either here in Europe or in North America about what would happen. Some gave some arguments; the PENAC's organisation not hiding its desire to see a new Middle East, the newly founded trademarket in Iran using euros as its anchorpoint. This discussion started a couple of months ago, far before summer even thought of showing up and since that time, my point of view didn't change; They won't attack Iran and it would be neglecting a lot of vital details to think otherwise. Don't get me wrong, Cheeney dreams of suck attack, as do so a couple of the administration's falcons, the point is not their will, it's their capacity and the implications of it:
BUT they are massing an impressive fleet in the Persian GULF!!!!
BUT There will be some aircraft carriers soon joining the force!!!
THese are not good arguments, let me explain why:
First, bringing some ships don't mean that there will be any attack; often, these are just for intimidations and often, excuses to practice some manoeuvres at the same time, making it killing two birds with a single stones.
Second, IF ever the U.S would bomb IRan, they would be most likely to use the Stealth B2 fighter that has an intercontinental capacity, especially if combined with some air supply along the road, which means that they don't have to move a single boat to move or welcome such planes, thus meaning that aircraft carriers are of no purpose for such bombing. Oh, they could lunch tomahawk missiles from the ships, that's true, but once again, the reach of such missiles is far too limited for the targets they would have to reach.
I tell you, such manoeuvres are only to show that they are still a big player in the game and to give the impression that they are self-confident, and maybe, which I am not sure, just an excuse to practice some manoeuvres while intimidating.
Now let's get back to the situation, to the others why they just can't afford a strike on Iran:
1) They couldn't make just some strikes and assuming that every nuclear iranian facilities have been destroyed. TO make sure that such thing is certain, they would have to lunch some ground attack afterward, which they just cannot. Assuming that for some dreamy reasons they could, even then, the puzzle wouldn't be incomplete as it could then be way too possible that before crumbling, they would have switched a part of their arsenal to their fiercest ally, Syria, which would only switch the problem from a place to another. Needless to say, the part about Syria is just to
complexify the "if they could lunch some terrestrial attack."
2) Bombing Iran imply that Syria would lunch the ballroom as well and needless to say, the Us can even less afford to have such heavily equiped and armed country to have as well to deal with Syria at the same time.
3) If Iranian decides to block their oil supply, the price would just explose everything we've seen thus far and the U.S, the country who comsumes between 15 and 25% of the world production just couldn't pay the bill for that and they know it far too well.
4) Look at the situation in Afghanistan: the so called vanquished Talibans still once again control some region of the south and Iraq is at the brink at the civil war, the us troops being unable to secure even only Baghdad. Declaring war in Iran would mean that that the chiites community, the majority in Iraq, who are already getting really angry by the ineffectivness of the Us troops to staunch the bursts of violence, would then turn into another full fledge ennemy in the region as we know how the bounds between chiites in Iraq as well as in Iran are strong. Moqtada Al-Sadr already showed how his army was effective and more than able, just imagine how it'll turn if he would then gain the almost entirely backup of the Chiite community? Do you imagine if someone else in the chiite community would decide to take the arms as well and to raise up his own personnal and armed militia?
5) Condolezza Rice haven'y been able to present a resolution to the U.N concil proposing some military actions against Iran, the other countries refusing to land into such adventure.... Which leads to another series of reasons to think that they won't take any military action in a close future.
The Us gouvernment know that way too well, they cannot afford such thing and they would rather try to change their relations with Iran in the long run rather than getting stuck a little deeper in a mess where they already are engulfed to the nose. Do they want? They masturbate while thinking about it. Can they actually? Plainly no. In a distant future? Doubtful but not impossible.
Here's a few very good articles that talk about a couple of points I've discussed above, of course, I didn't forge my opinion on them but I use them to strenghten my position:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/37888/ an article by Garet Porter
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01312006.html By Andrew Cockburn
BUT they are massing an impressive fleet in the Persian GULF!!!!
BUT There will be some aircraft carriers soon joining the force!!!
THese are not good arguments, let me explain why:
First, bringing some ships don't mean that there will be any attack; often, these are just for intimidations and often, excuses to practice some manoeuvres at the same time, making it killing two birds with a single stones.
Second, IF ever the U.S would bomb IRan, they would be most likely to use the Stealth B2 fighter that has an intercontinental capacity, especially if combined with some air supply along the road, which means that they don't have to move a single boat to move or welcome such planes, thus meaning that aircraft carriers are of no purpose for such bombing. Oh, they could lunch tomahawk missiles from the ships, that's true, but once again, the reach of such missiles is far too limited for the targets they would have to reach.
I tell you, such manoeuvres are only to show that they are still a big player in the game and to give the impression that they are self-confident, and maybe, which I am not sure, just an excuse to practice some manoeuvres while intimidating.
Now let's get back to the situation, to the others why they just can't afford a strike on Iran:
1) They couldn't make just some strikes and assuming that every nuclear iranian facilities have been destroyed. TO make sure that such thing is certain, they would have to lunch some ground attack afterward, which they just cannot. Assuming that for some dreamy reasons they could, even then, the puzzle wouldn't be incomplete as it could then be way too possible that before crumbling, they would have switched a part of their arsenal to their fiercest ally, Syria, which would only switch the problem from a place to another. Needless to say, the part about Syria is just to
complexify the "if they could lunch some terrestrial attack."
2) Bombing Iran imply that Syria would lunch the ballroom as well and needless to say, the Us can even less afford to have such heavily equiped and armed country to have as well to deal with Syria at the same time.
3) If Iranian decides to block their oil supply, the price would just explose everything we've seen thus far and the U.S, the country who comsumes between 15 and 25% of the world production just couldn't pay the bill for that and they know it far too well.
4) Look at the situation in Afghanistan: the so called vanquished Talibans still once again control some region of the south and Iraq is at the brink at the civil war, the us troops being unable to secure even only Baghdad. Declaring war in Iran would mean that that the chiites community, the majority in Iraq, who are already getting really angry by the ineffectivness of the Us troops to staunch the bursts of violence, would then turn into another full fledge ennemy in the region as we know how the bounds between chiites in Iraq as well as in Iran are strong. Moqtada Al-Sadr already showed how his army was effective and more than able, just imagine how it'll turn if he would then gain the almost entirely backup of the Chiite community? Do you imagine if someone else in the chiite community would decide to take the arms as well and to raise up his own personnal and armed militia?
5) Condolezza Rice haven'y been able to present a resolution to the U.N concil proposing some military actions against Iran, the other countries refusing to land into such adventure.... Which leads to another series of reasons to think that they won't take any military action in a close future.
The Us gouvernment know that way too well, they cannot afford such thing and they would rather try to change their relations with Iran in the long run rather than getting stuck a little deeper in a mess where they already are engulfed to the nose. Do they want? They masturbate while thinking about it. Can they actually? Plainly no. In a distant future? Doubtful but not impossible.
Here's a few very good articles that talk about a couple of points I've discussed above, of course, I didn't forge my opinion on them but I use them to strenghten my position:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/37888/ an article by Garet Porter
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01312006.html By Andrew Cockburn
