First post
Hello, world. This is my first blog. However, I wrote something like this last year over at freethought-forum.com in one of their journals, but those are down at the moment. [July 2: they're back up now! viewable to registered members] I'll retrieve the data, bring it over, and then there'll be a little background about me. For now, I just want to catch up in medias res ....
The fact is, naked geopolitical maneuvering seems to be taking place everywhere one looks these days; I just can't ignore it. China is the bigger story, of course, but Iran is frying hot right now, and about to go radioactive. Behind them both sits a very friendly Russia, which I suppose is supporting them both with an eye toward rapid evolution to a truly multipolar global regime. If you can't compete all alone anymore, why not try to help some of the others in second place, right?
So a fellow lefty posted a link over at FF to Scott Ritter's latest major piece about Iran, saying that following the usual U.S. model, war has already begun, before official declaration of hostilities. I've noticed a few commentators (for instance, in Salon's War Room) supposing that war with Iran is impossible, since we're so tied down in Iraq. At this point we ought to remember Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article from January; the war is going to be possible because it won't be an invasion and occupation, but short-lived, simultaneous strikes against multiple nuclear-relevant targets. I suspect the coalition this time would be the U.S., Israel, and whatever miscellaneous countries would sign up on paper only--Poland, Vanuatu, etc. I would dearly love to know the source(s) of Ritter's information.
In any case, it has taken no time at all for Norman Solomon's warning to incarnate: a widely-disseminated Thursday morning AP story on a few 1979 Tehran embassy hostages claiming Iranian President-elect Ahmedinejad was a ringleader/torturer among their captors by the evening had become a serious question for the White House. This is the answer to shills like Scott McClellan who dismiss things like the Downing Street Memos as purely past business, while the Administration is focused on the future: Their relevance is to the present with Iran. The White House would in this case be right, of course, that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability; however, where they would be provably wrong is in their contention that striking Iran would lead to positive regime change. Iran's electorate has already confirmed by a narrow margin a candidate aligned with the retrograde supreme Guardian Council; any military attack will only strengthen the people's support for the conservatives, and give the clerics the excuse to cripple or wipe out nascent Iranian progressive movements.
Russia's support for Iran was thrown into sharp relief for me by this article: Russia wants to build a half-dozen more nuclear reactors for Iran. I think the U.S. can only delay this action, not prevent it; once they're built, Iran will rapidly obtain nuclear capability, and a small but effective pole in opposition to the U.S. empire will be born.
With consequences for world oil! Oh boy, isn't oil a fun story? Even bigger than China. Something else to write about soon.
By the way--Happy Dominion Day. :-) 138 years ago, Canada became half a country.
The fact is, naked geopolitical maneuvering seems to be taking place everywhere one looks these days; I just can't ignore it. China is the bigger story, of course, but Iran is frying hot right now, and about to go radioactive. Behind them both sits a very friendly Russia, which I suppose is supporting them both with an eye toward rapid evolution to a truly multipolar global regime. If you can't compete all alone anymore, why not try to help some of the others in second place, right?
So a fellow lefty posted a link over at FF to Scott Ritter's latest major piece about Iran, saying that following the usual U.S. model, war has already begun, before official declaration of hostilities. I've noticed a few commentators (for instance, in Salon's War Room) supposing that war with Iran is impossible, since we're so tied down in Iraq. At this point we ought to remember Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article from January; the war is going to be possible because it won't be an invasion and occupation, but short-lived, simultaneous strikes against multiple nuclear-relevant targets. I suspect the coalition this time would be the U.S., Israel, and whatever miscellaneous countries would sign up on paper only--Poland, Vanuatu, etc. I would dearly love to know the source(s) of Ritter's information.
In any case, it has taken no time at all for Norman Solomon's warning to incarnate: a widely-disseminated Thursday morning AP story on a few 1979 Tehran embassy hostages claiming Iranian President-elect Ahmedinejad was a ringleader/torturer among their captors by the evening had become a serious question for the White House. This is the answer to shills like Scott McClellan who dismiss things like the Downing Street Memos as purely past business, while the Administration is focused on the future: Their relevance is to the present with Iran. The White House would in this case be right, of course, that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability; however, where they would be provably wrong is in their contention that striking Iran would lead to positive regime change. Iran's electorate has already confirmed by a narrow margin a candidate aligned with the retrograde supreme Guardian Council; any military attack will only strengthen the people's support for the conservatives, and give the clerics the excuse to cripple or wipe out nascent Iranian progressive movements.
Russia's support for Iran was thrown into sharp relief for me by this article: Russia wants to build a half-dozen more nuclear reactors for Iran. I think the U.S. can only delay this action, not prevent it; once they're built, Iran will rapidly obtain nuclear capability, and a small but effective pole in opposition to the U.S. empire will be born.
With consequences for world oil! Oh boy, isn't oil a fun story? Even bigger than China. Something else to write about soon.
By the way--Happy Dominion Day. :-) 138 years ago, Canada became half a country.
posted by Blake at 6:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home