Posted on 04/17/2006 9:11:40 AM PDT by robowombat
An October Surprise?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
President Bush says Iranians are behind the more lethal IEDs, the roadside bombs killing our troops in Iraq. Rumsfeld warns the Iranian Revolutionary Guard may now be in Iraq. Cheney says Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. McCain says, “the military option is on the table.”
And Israel is getting impatient. Writes Yaakov Katz in the March 10 Jerusalem Post, “The United States has until now not done enough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official has told the Jerusalem Post ...”
Katz quotes the senior man directly: “America needs to get its act together. Until now the [Bush] administration has just been talking tough but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take some tough action.” Only one person is quoted by name in Katz’s piece, the hawkish Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. This tells me Mofaz is using Katz to send Bush a message: “Stop dithering and get off your duff on Iran.”
The official wants Bush to impose severe sanctions to shut down Iran’s economy to convince Iranians to get rid of their regime. But if sanctions do not work, bombs away. “This option may be needed but it should only be used as a last resort,” said the “senior official.”
But while Bush is pushing for Security Council sanctions, Russia and China are balking. France, Britain, and Germany may go along with diplomatic and mild economic sanctions, but there is no stomach there for air strikes. Thus, if Iran’s nuclear program is to be dismantled, the Americans will have to go it alone with Stealth and B-2 bomber strikes.
Or Bush will have to answer to the Israeli Defense Ministry.
While there seems no sense of urgency in Washington, the Bush Doctrine and Cheney ultimatum have painted us into a corner. Either Iran’s nuclear program is shut down, or the Bush Doctrine will have been defied by Tehran and Pyongyang, leaving Iraq as the Bush legacy.
All this has led to speculation that this summer or fall, Bush, his options having been exhausted, will order the air strikes.
What would be the benefits of such an October surprise?
Rather than appearing a retreat, Bush’s pullout from Iraq would look like that of a defiant gunfighter backing through the swinging doors of a Tombstone saloon with both guns blazing.
Bush’s rating could soar 20 points. Republicans would rally at the return of the 9/11 president. Democrats would be loath to attack a president who acted forcefully to remove what they themselves say is an intolerable threat. The neocons and Christian Right would hail Bush as the new Churchill. Bush would hold onto both houses in November, costing Democrats their best chance in a decade of recouping power.
What would Hillary do? Nothing but wait and see what the fallout was from Bush’s newest pre-emptive war.
And the risks? Iran could push its Shia allies to attack British and U.S. troops and send Revolutionary Guard “volunteers” in, which could mean a U.S. debacle, unless we responded with more American troops. Tehran could make us pay a price in blood in Afghanistan. Tehran could also send its agents into the emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to attack U.S. installations, setting the Near East ablaze and oil prices soaring to $200 a barrel, plunging the West into recession.
Thus a pre-emptive war on Iran, while a political triumph for the president this fall, could, like the invasion of Iraq, prove a long-term disaster.
To some of us, this would be another unnecessary war. For, according to the New York Times, Iran’s nuclear program is plagued by failures and Tehran could be five or ten years away from mastering the technology even to produce fissile material for one bomb.
According to the Washington Times, Iran’s clerical and political elites want no war with America and are moving to curb the power of President Ahmadinejad. As one Tehran editor told the Washington Times, “if they [the Bushites] keep piling on the pressure, Ahmadinejad will become a national hero. … Let the Iranians deal with him. If you leave him alone he will become a bankrupt politician within a year.”
Cal Coolidge counseled that when you see ten troubles coming up the road, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you.
Bush is the commander in chief, not King George. He has no power to launch U.S. air strikes on Iran, an act of war, unless Congress authorizes war. Before we wake up to an October surprise, Congress should do its duty and Rumsfeld and Rice should appear and make the case for a war some of us believe Iran neither wants nor threatens.
Forget the Feingold Resolution. Undeclared presidential wars are the real stuff of impeachment.
April 10, 2006 Issue
Yawn
Why does Pat dislike Israel? I really want to know. The man is so close to being correct on our illegal immigration problem but when he says anything having to do with Isreal or Jews at all, I just get a slimy feeling.
Is Pat a member of any political party now? He was a Republican, then he became a Reform-party member. What's next? Constitution Party?
Buchanan barf alert.
Good ole Pat...still knows how to spend the facts into a bad conclusion for an Administration he cares not for.
Well, if the Israelis [after all, they are the ones most immediately threatened]were to carpet-nuke Iran, I would be willing to release their Pollard to them.
Pat Buchanan is just a blowhard without a very high IQ..........he needs to just STFU.......
Maybe, Pat is doing this so that he can hit on cindy shehan
...it being Iran's wish to make eliminate all Jews & Isreal from the planet.
Short answer: He's blatantly anti-semitic.
Pat has, for years, tried to dodge this by saying "I'm not anti-semitic." I actually believed him for years. Then I noticed how often I would read an op-ed and be shaking my head thinking, "What anti-semitic BS! This guy really hates the Jews! Who wrote this? Oh. Byline says Pat Buchanan."
He denies it, but the proof is in the pudding.
I read an earlier article by Pat on Free Republic and he wanted the U.S. to restrain Israel from defending itself from being blown to smithereens. He is supposed to be against foreign aid, but he wants the U.S. to have foreign aid to Hamas, for obvious reasons.
"What would be the benefits of such an October surprise?:
How about denuclearizing a country who's leaders constantly talk of destroying Israel and are the world's leader in state sponsored terrorism.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Or Bush will have to answer to the Israeli Defense Ministry.
Repetitive, we all know GWB answers to the Jews and the Amen Corner, the masters of the American ZOG
I think he's angry America didn't get behind his advice to provide aid to Hamas.
See the links in post 18.
Provide aid to Hamas, along with Hizbollah one of the two most active groups in the US.
A cell in Toledo broken up providing Hamas funds and recruiting terrorists to fight in Iraq.
UPDATE: Mystery man in terrorist investigation [Hamas in Toledo]
US freezes assets of organisation linked to Hamas (Name: KindHearts)
Now targeting American Jews.
Palestinian militants threaten to attack Jews abroad
Aid is a small price to pay, I suppose, to keep them in power.
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.