Pessoptimism on Iran: two perspectives
The variables that are not mentioned below are of course Israel, the Israel lobby and Russian and Chinese investment in Iran, amongst others. More explorations later on these. For now, just two snippets:
Ken Silverstein, Commentary on Iran Forum, Harpers (16 Feb):
The Bush Administration is definitely drawing up contingency plans for a military strike against Iran, but that doesn’t mean the plans will be carried out. As Frank Anderson, another former CIA official, noted on day two, “the barriers to action are formidable.” The barriers include: President Bush’s abysmal polling numbers; strong opposition to military action from parts of the Pentagon; lack of international support for a strike, even from America’s core allies; and, most importantly of all, the ongoing disaster in Iraq—the barrier that defines the other barriers. I agree with Anderson, who pointed out that, while we’re “locked and loaded” for an attack, with “the President politically constrained, that makes me bet against it, but the spread isn’t big.”
I don’t think the decision has been made to launch a strike against Tehran, and it’s not too late for public opinion to influence what comes next.
BBC, US Plans to Attack Iran (19th Feb):
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
I too think they will finally not go in. The stakes are too high!
Let’s hope good sense will prevail over imperial hubris. :|