by LondonYank on Daily Kos
Unless Bushco takes Iran, it cannot hold Iraq
and this may be what is driving some of the craziness. Bush now knows that Allawi can never rule Iraq without a couple hundred thousand US troops to back him up because the Iraqis hate him as much as they hate the American occupiers - and don't really distinguish between the two.
Iran will be highly motivated to install a friendly government in its neighbour once the Americans go home (if they ever do). As a result, regime change in Iran is a neo-con priority precisely because it is such a disaster in Iraq.
Feeding into this - for the conspiracy theorists among us - is that whole business about Chalabi being an Iranian spy and perhaps promoting the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam as a complex Iranian intelligence plot. Many of the "sources" traced back for the pre-war intelligence are either Iranian or have Iranian connections. If true that the neo-cons were played for fools by the mullahs, they are going to be plenty sore about this.
So What Exactly Can The (by mattman)
Neocons do if they were played by the mullahs?
Seeing as they are not nearly as smart as my ficus plant, couldn't
have been hard for them anyway.
So what can they do? Stamp their little feet in fury and hold
their breath til they turn blue?
I just don't see what moves they have now
It's double or quits, and these guys don't ever (by LondonYank)
believe that they are going to lose. You have to remind yourself that
these people can convince themselves and each other of the most outlandish
impossibilities if they really, really want something to be true.
They really, really wanted to believe that Iraq was going to be a
cakewalk and that Chalabi would be peacefully running it as their proxy
after a mere six months of administrative clean-up.
They really, really want to believe now that Iran will fold easily
under the superiority of our air force and continuous bombardment, and
that the rest of the world will be too cowardly to do anything but
applaud politely after the fact.
They don't reckon human lives of Americans, Iraqis or Iranians into any
of their equations, so don't even bother say, "yeah, but . . .",
because it doesn't count (not like Israelis).
I worry.. (by dariag)
That only your final statement... They don't reckon human lives of
Americans, Iraqis or Iranians into any of their equations, so don't even bother say, "yeah, but . . .", because it doesn't count (not like Israelis).
... is accurate. Seriously.
I know it's counterintuitive but I don't
think they ever believed things would magically resolve themselves
quickly in Iraq - quite the reverse, in fact - and what they do
believe in is the value of more war and accelerated chaos.. that eventually
it is the best way to achieve their goal of democratizing the entire
region. But I doubt they are surprised at what has happened in
Iraq and doubt they are afraid of it spilling over into Iran..
Same as it ever was (by dariag)
Bring democracy tobomb the shit out of the offending country.
These people want chaos and more war.
To keep on top of this, if something's brewing.. I read Josh Marshall
(who you probably know) at www.talkingpointsmemo.com, and Laura Rozen
at www.warandpiece.com - she just ran an entry on the NYT article that
says an "Iranian opposition group" has "proof" that Iran is working on
a nuclear program. This group was on State's terrorist organization
More background collected at dKos (Doug
Feith's office connected to these "Iranian dissidents"):
Israeli spy/Doug Feith scandal
John Bolton at large!
US Protecting Terrorists?
By the incomparable Soj, on theoria's Liberal Street Fight blog