Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rattling the Cage: Bush won't bomb Iran
Jerusalem Post ^ | November 14, 2007 | Larry Derfner

Posted on 11/15/2007 5:54:33 PM PST by america4vr

I don't think President Bush is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, not before the presidential election next November 4, and not between then and the day he leaves office the following January 20, either.

As reckless as he is, I don't think he's that reckless. He wouldn't make a move that could set off WMD missile wars, invasions, coups, Islamic revolutions and whatnot all over the Middle East, then just fly back to the ranch and let somebody else clean up the mess. If Bush was at the beginning of his term, he might do it, but not with time running out, and not when he's heading into the sixth year of two Middle Eastern wars he can't win and can't quit. And that was the situation before this month's state of emergency in Pakistan reminded everyone that Iran isn't the only country where Islamic fanatics could get the Bomb; Pakistan already has it, and the Taliban is that country's rising power.

Bush has to ask himself: What effect would a US attack on Iran do to the situation in Pakistan? Would it strengthen the Taliban even more, would it bring them closer to taking over a nuclear-armed country of 160 million people?


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bombiran; bravosierra; bush; iran; israel; nuclear; shiites; tehran; terrorists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
Gives one great pause to stop and think. All this bravado about bombing Iran makes for a good read but ultimately must face the sort of reality check discussed in this article. The consequences unleashed in a bomb Iran scenario are simply too horrific to contemplate or risk. If Iraq turned out to be close to a worst case scenario, Iran riskier than that.

What are the arlternatives? MAD Mutual Assured Destruction as the strategic cornerstone of survival during the Cold War seems to have those with the greatest to lose with an Iranian nuclear capacity, specifically Israel, to consider just such an option in face of the prospect let loose as described.

Despite the mullahs proclivity for sending others to die a martyr's death they themselves are not so willing or ready to die. MAD is thought not to be effective with a terrorist-jihadist mentality as Iran but it is the individual, oppressed, poor or disillusioned that have been blowing themselves that having a better life just as the mad mullahs are privileged to enjoy would have them less inclined to die as martyrs.themselves.

1 posted on 11/15/2007 5:54:34 PM PST by america4vr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Amazing.

Almost every single sentence is exactly backwards wrong.

If we fail to disarm them, it causes prolif in the region. Are Sunni Saudis really going to say cool— the Shia revolution has nukes now.

The author suffers from BDS.


2 posted on 11/15/2007 5:58:20 PM PST by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
As reckless as he is

Seeing that Bush gave the U.N. 19 FREAKING months or so to deal with the dead idiot, Saddam, I would have to wonder how long must we wait so that we are not tagged with the word "reckless" by any members of the liberal press?

3 posted on 11/15/2007 5:59:54 PM PST by John123 ("What good fortune for the governments that the people do not think" -- Adolf Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
A capability that won’t be used (and the enemy knows it) is not a deterrent. It is a waste of resources. There appears to be no logical solution to problems when one is dealing with fanatics except to smash them into the ground lest our grandchildren curse our names.
4 posted on 11/15/2007 6:00:26 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Isreal might.


5 posted on 11/15/2007 6:00:57 PM PST by Melinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
As reckless as he is ...

Sorry, that’s where I get off.

6 posted on 11/15/2007 6:01:08 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: america4vr
The consequences unleashed in a bomb Iran scenario are simply too horrific to contemplate or risk.

Actions have consequences. So does inaction.

How, exactly, do you rate the consequences of a nuclear Iran?

Those bear consideration, as well.

8 posted on 11/15/2007 6:04:41 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Hey...what did Germany do to the United States leading up to WWII? Didn’t stop us then.


9 posted on 11/15/2007 6:07:49 PM PST by Harpo Speaks (Honk! Honk! Honk! Either it's foggy out, or make that a dozen hard boiled eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: america4vr
If Iraq turned out to be close to a worst case scenario,

Do you really consider 3,900 deaths in a 4 year war a worst case scenario? If so, I wonder how you would classify WWII or the Civil War?

10 posted on 11/15/2007 6:08:09 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harpo Speaks
Hey...what did Germany do to the United States leading up to WWII? Didn’t stop us then.

They declared war on us. And no, it didn't stop us from returning the favor.

11 posted on 11/15/2007 6:19:31 PM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

MAD isn’t an alternative. I think the author may be right. I don’t think Israel will allow Iran to go nuclear, so it’s important America be prepared for the retaliation directed at us worldwide after an Israeli strike.


12 posted on 11/15/2007 6:22:51 PM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

I don’t think we’ll bomb Iran not because it’s a bad idea. I just think the administration is too busy with Iraq, AF and Pakistan right now. There’s just not enough minds to think of Iran. We might have some covert operations into Iran to test their reactions and gather more data.


13 posted on 11/15/2007 6:26:04 PM PST by Romneyfor President2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

People don’t realize this at all. Immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor Hitler unilaterally declared war on the US, an inexplicable act considered one of his greatest blunders. Some say he did it out of the agreement he had with Japan that stated to go to each other’s aid against another country. Still, Hitler could have very wisely remained neutral.


14 posted on 11/15/2007 6:27:36 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Particularly given his obvious willingness to betray an ally, Russia. I doubt he considered the cost, things were going pretty well at the time. Enemies have often mistaken the essentially peaceful personna of America for lack of courage and will.


15 posted on 11/15/2007 6:32:53 PM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Should also have noted that from a German perspective the idea that America, confronting a Japanese enemy in the pacific, might well come to terms rather than confronting the Reich militarily. The idea that America should have confronted and defeated the Japanese aggressor before turning to Europe was a rational one, and would have given the Reich several years of breathing space.


16 posted on 11/15/2007 6:35:43 PM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
We might have some covert operations into Iran to test their reactions and gather more data.

Some, the operative word. John Bolton has made the case that had we aggressively aided the Iranian opposition, covertly and overtly, we might be well on the way to solving the problem.

Covertly, that's nasty, a nation that frets about waterboarding simply won't do it.

17 posted on 11/15/2007 6:38:21 PM PST by SJackson (every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, none to make him afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Israel preparing for nuclear Teheran (Olmert prepared to accept Iranian nukes?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926328/posts


18 posted on 11/15/2007 6:40:13 PM PST by itsahoot (Gingrich: "We don't have a peace process. We have a surrender process." (Duncan Hunter gets it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Hitler was known to play cowboys and Indians as a child. He admired America for what they did to the native American Indian, taking away their land the way they did. Not surprising from someone who made no secret of Germany’s need for Lebensraum, plans to usurp lands to the east to expand the Third Reich’s living space.


19 posted on 11/15/2007 6:42:00 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

You’re right, of course...I was hoping that since his grasp of current events was so shaky, his knowledge of the past was even worse. So let’s phrase the question another way — on December 6, 1941 would the United States have been justified in going to war against Germany?

My answer would be yes — the very foundations of freedom were being attacked all across the globe, and - -despite what the isolationists argued — we had a stake in that fight.

The same thing is happening with worldwide jihad. Iran has been at war against the United States since 1979. As a key propagator of jihad — along with a well-known program for nuclear weapons — it seems like we should strike when appropriate. We aren’t obligated to fight every bad nation in the world, but when it’s in our interest to do so, it’s better to hit them first before they can hit us back with nukes.


20 posted on 11/15/2007 6:47:48 PM PST by Harpo Speaks (Honk! Honk! Honk! Either it's foggy out, or make that a dozen hard boiled eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson