Stop Me Before I Vote Again

There's also this report at Al Jazeera, which I saw just this morning, and which references an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post... as well as the front-page hollering wolf in this morning's Post.

What really gets me is that every time Israel starts wiggling its dick at Iran, the US starts acting all apoplectic over the possibility of Israel starting a war in Iran -- when anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the US has had wet dreams about attacking Iran for years. It's not that I'm bugged that the US and Israel are playing Good Cop, Bad Cop over this -- it's what I expect of them -- it's that they're so goddamn' bad at it.

Personally, my hypothetical money is on absolutely nothing happening. Granted, this may not be the best criterion to judge by, but the volume of howling about Iran on the Lefty listervs I belong to has spiked in the past week, and I've always considered the amount of Lefty listserv shrieking about war in Iran -- and the attendant "calls to action" -- to be inversely proportional to the actual likelihood of an attack. Last week, UFPJ crapped in my inbox with a big, steaming heap of call-to-action over Iran which, I'm sure, will bring dozens into the streets.

I tend to agree with Mike Flugennock's observations regarding where he's putting his hypothetical money.

The present reportage sounds much more like disinformation than substance.

Israel's M.O. in every case I can think of is sneak attack, and then either to deny it or to ignore it.

Blabbing it all over the place just doesn't fit the mold.

flug:
"US has had wet dreams about attacking Iran for years"

that is as wrong as possible mike me boy

that is
if by US you mean
official clued in decider circles

to put the wrong of this
in perspective

recall this leftish chatter ?

"US has had wet dreams about attacking russia for years"

that was wrong then..this is wrong now

containment is a policy freely chosen
not simply an imposed half measure
reflecting the momentary "limitations"
on hegemonic power

-
the limits on hegemonic power
are exposed by "counter insurgency-occupations "
like iraq afghanistan and south vietnam
-----
one can look at the difference in uncle's policy moves
between libya last year and syria this year

understand the why's there and you might move in the direction of understanding containment encirclement constriction
and send in the bombers
with
the marines to follow

"sneak attack, and then either to deny it or to ignore it."

yes
and an attack on iran these days
or any days

will not go down as deniable or ignorable
nor the consequences beneficial
to global corporate interests

just why we contain and not topple
has complex roots in particulars obviously
but i'd contend unlike iraq
iran like soviet russia was never a target
for swift action

of course the action necessary to topple soviet russia in say the 50's and 60's
would have been a thousand fold greater

but here is the center of my take

the difficulty of topple is not the sine qua non of containment

example of examples

castro's CUBA !!!!

we morphed from topple to containment
not because the soviets became patrons
but because it became obvious CUBA
was above all else
a useful regional bogey
as soviet russia was in europe and
for a time red china
in south east and east asia

try to take a present "position"
and try to think five moves deep here
and you miss how the game is played
by the grand masters

call it structural intuition

flug you have a lovelty nearly infallable
"tell " here
i need to do it
not simply justice
but high honor :

"I've always considered the amount of Lefty listserv shrieking about war in Iran -- and the attendant "calls to action" -- to be inversely proportional to the actual likelihood of an attack"

wise words comrades wise words

flug knows his lefties

I think Mike is right.

And to offer my own theory, I doubt the U.S. desires a total regime change in Iran and merely wants to get rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, along with his food and gas subsidies for lower-income Iranians. They wouldn't really mind the mullahs still being in charge as they occasionally serve a purpose (any exiled Tudeh Party member will tell you that), not to mention the would-be hipster rulers wouldn't be reliable puppets.

Besides, if the West was truly concerned about anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, demonstrators being shot and the persecution of gays, dissidents and religious minorities, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain would have already been bombed, invaded and occupied several times over.

That should be "total regime change", sorry.

jtg

if the MNC pigeon regime here in the states

"... was truly concerned about anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, demonstrators being shot and the persecution of gays, dissidents and religious minorities, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain would have already been bombed, invaded and occupied several times over. "

good point !