The air attacks against Saddam's military installations, much of which carried out with precision high-tech weapons, were practice for Iran, a desperate jihad instigating OPEC member state, a rogue nation surrounded.
The air attacks against Saddam's military installations, much of which carried out with precision high-tech weapons, were practice for Iran, a desperate jihad instigating OPEC member state, a rogue nation surrounded.
I remember posting along these lines before the invasion of Iraq, expressing concern for the disposition of oil, the lodgment of military basis, the raising up of Iraqi military forces, et cetera and the salutary effects an Americanized Iraq would have on the geopolitics of the region and ultimately for the war against terrorism.
Of course, the administration did not attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq along these lines of real politik but rather cast the war as an extension of democracy once no weapons of mass destruction were acknowledged to have been found. In today's climate, which has only intensified after an invasion of Iraq in which no weapons of mass distraction were found, the administration knows that it has absolutely no chance of carrying the Security Council, the Democrat party, world opinion, or even the Republican Party, if military action against Iran is implicated as a war for oil -and that is a very great pity.
But you are absolutely correct, any military action against Iran motivated by a real need to protect the United States against nuclear action by unbalanced religious fanatics, must also consider the implications for the worldwide distribution of petroleum and a predictable economic collapse should that supply be interdicted.
Despite the transitory poll numbers which currently seem to favor a strike, we all know that support will evaporate as soon as casualties, or prices at the pump, climb.
