Yes, interesting isn't it, how we seemed to have no problem talking with North Korea, but seem to categorically rule out direct negotiations with Iran? How this positions would do anything BUT give the upper hand towards elements in the Iranian regime that want nukes is beyond me.

Something Conason touched on at the end of his essay; would a strike on Iran help or hinder Republican electioneering this year?

If we bombed Iran (we couldn't occupy it with all the other commitments we have) the instability it would unleash would spill over into Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm sure at the behest of the Iranians... wouldn't it *hurt* Republican prospects this year if the casualty figures started to rise again in Iraq AND oil prices shot through the roof?

I remember someone said a year or so ago that they would not be able to strike Iran within six months of the US election or it would look too obviously like an attempt to influence the election through the 'rally 'round the flag' sentiment. I guess we've moved past *that* worry...

"The "atmosphere of crisis" will provide the October surprise. That will push the independents to Cain, since Obama is lacking defense expertise and skills."

Jesus, that is so depressing. I really hope you're wrong.

"I don't think it would help the Republicans. Consider the likely effect on the price of oil. Only yesterday I saw news that the price of oil had gone up by more than $5/barrel just because the exchanged some hostile words with Iran. Imagine what an actual attack would do."

Yes, truly. 40% of our oil comes out of the Straits of Hormuz, Iran could launch some scuds at one big, slow tanker and literally the ensuing shipwreck would jam the strait shut; tankers have to go through the middle of the strait or risk hull breach. It would be a global economic nightmare.

Some people might entertain the fantasy that the U.S. could invade and seize control of Iran's oil fields. This would require a huge number of troops (which the U.S. doesn't have), and probably wouldn't work anyway because the Iranians have probably rigged everything so they can blow it up on short notice.

Yes again. Iran is several times the size of Iraq and much more mountainous. We can send small teams of spec ops troops in to cause instability but we cannot overthrow the regime, inshallah. Our generals are already saying any additional troops to Afghanistan would have to come out of Iraq. So where would an Iran invasion force supposedly come from? The National Guard that wasn't in New Orleans cleaning up after Katrina? Our already depleted force in Korea?

What are our leaders smoking?

*note to Americans - Canada is that big white thing on the map where the cold fronts come from, and Harper is it's "Prime Minister" - that means "leader".

Thank you for pointing out where your country is. We are drawing up our battle plans and will invade shortly. We might just keep Saskatchewan and Alberta though. For some reason, there is a deficit of "freedom" there.

"@ Diomedes - you are rational and intelligent

The sanguinary demons that run your country are not. I agree with your analysis 100% -- an attack on Iran would be a disaster for the world."

Thanks for the compliment. I'd like to think I'm smart by my family disagrees, and even I agree with my detractors that I'm usually irrational.

I've heard estimates that a physical strike on Iran by either Israel or US would create an immediate spike of $8US/gallon. (We're currently around $4US)

"But then I am sure that you made exactly the same analysis about the attack on Iraq... as did I, and I don't want to underestimate just how crazy and evil these bastards are again."

Yes, that's it. I thought the strike on Iraq -even if the multiple justifications they'd used had actually borne out- was highly irrational. So if they did it then, reason's long flown out the window. Why stop now?

"Rather this attack is about China. China is the real enemy, the Keenisians know this -- all of the trend lines for China are up, whereas all the same trend lines for America are down. It is only by controlling the entire Middle East that America and Israel can hope to maintain global hegemony and avoid Chinese ascendancy."

I'm not sure, since this would require some sort of long-term thinking on the part of my administration. Though I heard an argument recently that part of appeal of bases in Afghanistan was a 'backdoor' into China's softer interior flank. Certainly Washington is formulating some sort of Chinese encirclement, no doubt.

aveutter: Interesting how the US Press has provided almost no coverage of that new Iraqi security agreement where the US guarantees Iraqi security indefinitely...

Sincerely,

Diomedes