The perils of attacking Iran

[Dracos]

Speculation is growing in America and around the world that the Bush administration might take military action against Iran in the near future. Thinking through this possibility should go beyond the usual partisan arguments of Washington about Iranian interference in Iraq and the security of Israel.


Taking on Iran would be a first step to a new kind of world war. American analysts are looking upon Iran as a Shia vs. Sunni affair and appear to be much too sanguine about its ability to withstand US air strikes or outright invasion. They seem to think that it has sufficient internal cohesion to withstand such stress because of its 6,000-year civilization. That is far from the truth.


Iran does not have enough experience as a modern State to live through a US military onslaught and reemerge as a unified and strong law-abiding democracy. The likelier outcome is prolonged internal civil war with a fair possibility of the outcomes suggested below. Such outcomes of lengthy political and military instability would amount to a debilitating new world war for Americans and Europeans.


The instability in Iran caused by an invasion or even air strikes deep inside its territory would trigger internal conflicts and civil wars within Iran and a spreading ring of countries like flames gobbling up a vast forest. It would be impossible for America or any Western politico-military alliance to restore stability and constructive peace to a single one of those countries because each has latent antagonisms internal to its population.


Each is fertile soil for civil conflicts and weapons are available very easily. None has the political maturity to withstand severe internal stress especially when its neighbors are collapsing into chaos. Punitively bombing those countries to impose surrender and order would worsen the civil wars.
Full Story :http://www.themoderatevoice.com/

[Robson]

1. Iran

Several considerations regarding the Iranian situation.

1/ Our attack on Iraq increased nationalism in Iran and resulted in their election of the conservative more militaristic leadership. Prior to our Iraq attack, they had been trending pro-American.

2/ IMHO Israel's overreaction in Lebanon has created the perceived need for Iran to develop their own nuclear weapons. One objectively could say that Israel has demonstrated an irresponsible hair trigger more than once.

3/ Iranian weapons used against the USA could have been purchased from Iran as a legitimate transaction. Nations sell arms all the time to insurgents...some even give them arms if they meet their agenda such as the USA.

4/ The Iranian arms could be false flag plants by those with an anti-Iranian agenda. Suspects: Sunnis, Israel, Saudis, etc.

5/ Israel possesses nuclear arms is a highly motivating reason and not unexpected rationale for Iran and others to want likewise. It's become much harder in my view to justify why Israel should be permitted to have such arms while other countries in the region are ostracized for wanting the same.

Our Middle East agenda must be clarified. I would suggest it must be driven first by what is best for the people of the USA, and secondarily and also very important, the stability of the Middle East, as we derive much of our energy from that region.

The perceived security of Israel should not even be in the equation as a reason for the USA to enter into another war. Yes we should defend Israel, but not proactively engage others on their behalf. Stability in that region is what is needed to enhance Israel's security. The USA should look at the region as an objective observer and able to mediate from that viewpoint. Unfortunately our one-sided pro-Israel outlook it that region has nullified that ability and our credibility.

[ohioINC]

2. Iran has always been the target

The Neocons want to close China out of the resources in the region.