From the Guardian, “Barack Obama spoke at the White House last night, denouncing North Korea’s action as “a blatant violation of international law”. He said North Korea “will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons”.”
If only he would say the same about a much more deserving target, Israel.

Posted by: otiwa ogede | May 26 2009 9:55 utc | 3

I must also add that the very idea that the Israelis would launch or succeed in a strike against Iran without US foreknowledge and support is preposterous, and we shouldn’t entertain the notion.
This is the US game, to get into a war with Iran with “clean hands” , i.e, either to “protect an ally”,Israel, or “in self defense” after an Iranian retaliatory strike.

Posted by: otiwa ogede | May 26 2009 10:13 utc | 5

There are rumours that Obama has agreed to back Israelis stance on Iran in exchange for dismantelling settlements in the west bank.

Posted by: Anthony | May 26 2009 10:39 utc | 7

Joseph
“Iran will be attacked on Bush’s watch” was a pretty consistent refrain too – it never happened, for a slew of very obvious reasons, and was never likely to happen; this was in spite of the fact that there were a fair few principals in the administration who were quite eager to pursue the matter to an explosive conclusion.
Isreal has been threatening to bomb Iran since the mid-1990’s, but they’re never going to actually do it as it is above their pay-grade, and their planning is premised on the US doing it for them – hence the endless propagandising barrages aimed at US elite opinion, mind games, psych-outs and temper tantrums.
In general, the notion that Israel can engineer a strike that then drags an unwitting US in to a broader conflict is largely meritless. Either the US is in for the pound or it’s not – and the US military has been consistently and explicitly messaging since 2005 that it is not.

Posted by: dan | May 26 2009 11:48 utc | 9

And here’s an internal report sent to me confidentially by a very high-powered think-tank whose name I am not permitted to reveal, which shows what Israel is up against:
26 May 2009
Britain, Hamas and Hizbullah
There are indications of some flexibility in British policy towards Hamas and Hizbullah. On 21 May the Foreign Secretary David Miliband made a speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (text at
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=Speech
<http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=18130489&id=18130489 ) in which he called for “a coalition of consent” between the West and the Muslim world. “When it comes to Hamas,” he said “no one disputes that they won the most seats. We are not claiming that their election was ‘illegitimate’. We are saying the failure to embrace a political process towards a two-state solution makes normal political relations impossible.”
On 24 May he went a bit further in an interview with the Saudi owned
newspaper al-Hayat. This interview has received widespread comment in the region and elsewhere. No English text appears to be available, e.g. on the FCO website or the al-Hayat English-language website. Perhaps as a result it has been misrepresented. For example, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, visiting Damascus on 24 May, was asked to comment on what the questioner described as Miliband’s declaration that “it is time to end Hamas’s isolation and to resume dialogue.” Lavrov replied “I can say that it
is better late than never. This should have been done much earlier, back in 2006, when Hamas won in the elections that were recognized as democratic, free and fair. But for reasons of political bias the leadership of western countries did not recognize the Hamas government. It was then that the causes of the crisis arose that we continue to watch around the Gaza Strip.
I am convinced that in any conflict it is necessary to involve, rather than isolate all influential parties. This holds for Hamas and for Hezbollah and for Syria.”
We circulate below our own translation of Miliband’s interview (the Arabic text is available at
http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/19872 ).
Miliband to al-Hayat: Hamas is not Al Qa’ida: we urge armed groups to
repudiate violence
Saturday 24 May 2009, Kamil al-Tawil
The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband set out in an interview with al-Hayat the objectives of his new plan for cooperation with the Islamic world which he launched last Thursday at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. He said that he wanted really to address the groups which use violence, to call on them to repudiate it and enter the political process.
Miliband expressed regrets for the errors which had been committed following the attacks of the Al Qaeda organisation in the United States on 11 September 2001. He said that measures taken to combat terrorism had been judged on the basis that they were against Islam. He said that he had been wrong when he spoke about the Islamic world on the basis that it consisted of moderates and extremists, adding that the Islamic world was too large to be encompassed by this division.
He said that another mistake made by the West was to place the Islamic groups which had national objectives within the same framework as Al Qaeda with its world Islamic programme. He explained that the Taliban movement for example was considered as like Al Qaeda, although it was really a number of groups of Pashtun tribes on the Afghan/Pakistan border with purely local aims, whereas Al Qaeda had its world Islamic programme. He said that the Hamas movement in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon could both also be
placed within the framework of groups which had a national aim, as he had stated in his speech at Oxford University. He explained, “although there are things in the Hamas constitution which raise question marks about the limits within which its aspirations are contained, it is clear that Hamas is not the same thing as Al Qaeda.”
On Hizbullah he said “our position was always and up to 2005, the date of the assassination of (former prime minister Rafiq) al-Hariri, that we engage in dialogue with Members of Parliament of Hizbullah, and that ceased after the assassination of al-Hariri. The military wing of Hizbullah remains described as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom.but we agreed to resume talking to Hizbullah Members of Parliament, partly because Hizbullah has a minister in the Lebanese government which is committed to the Arab
peace operation. The result was a single meeting which took place between us and Hizbullah attended by our ambassador at one meeting at which a Hizbullah Member of Parliament was present. The outcome now is that Hizbullah is insisting that at any meeting which takes place with us they should photograph our ambassador, and we refuse to allow the photograph to become part of the election campaign in Lebanon. Therefore meetings will not take place. The Lebanese are the ones to decide on their elections and we will not allow ourselves to intervene in them.
He adds “I want to say to those groups which have militias: stop armed action and commit to political activity. We want people to be respected because of their opinions in the framework of political activity. You can not be half in the framework of political activity and the ballot box, and half outside it with a gun in your hand.”
Miliband acknowledges that the question of Iraq was one of the points of misunderstanding between the Arab world and the Western world but he declares without hesitation “We have said that the peace building operation in Iraq did not proceed as it was supposed to. But I don’t want to look backwards, rather to look to the future. In order to look to the future I must be aware of history. That is what I tried to reflect in my speech. But if we allow ourselves to remain stuck in the past we will achieve nothing.”

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 12:29 utc | 11

If Israel would launch some small attack on Iran, Iran might well, with some justification, retaliate against U.S. interests. This would then trigger an all out attack by the U.S. on Iran. Some action against the just opened French base in Abu Dhabi might even drag in the Europeans.
Helena fears that some people in the Obama administration and Congress would welcome such a chain of events. She urges to stop the still ongoing secret U.S. campaign against Iran and to start real direct diplomacy.
As much influence as Israel has on U.S. foreign policy, especially Middle Eastern Foreign Policy, I don’t believe they have the kind of influence that would entice the U.S. to fight a war on four fronts. Iran is no Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Such an exercise would surely sink the U.S. for good, if it’s not sunk already. There must be something more that we’re not being told, or to which we’re not privy. Otherwise, such a move would be absolute insanity. Maybe things are as bad as Malooga and I have claimed all along…and the U.S. Plutocracy knows it. Maybe they realize things are about to get very insane with the unraveling of the global ecocomy and such an endeavor will be implemented to keep The Masses in line and induce austerity measures likened to rationing in World War II. It’s the end of the world as we know it and the world as it’s always been since the dawn of civilization With no more frontiers, civilization has no choice but to devour itself.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 26 2009 12:43 utc | 13

Today Netanyahu’s stand on the matter, with an interesting point:

Netanyahu seemed pleased with the results of his US visit, dismissing US criticisms of his plan to expand settlements as “a disagreement between good friends,” and insisting that he had received pledges for several “key pieces” of military aid from the US.

Which “key pieces”?

Posted by: andrew | May 26 2009 14:19 utc | 15

Israel and the US are already deeply unpopular in the world. The Iranians aren’t stupid so and would not retaliate against an attack and be drawn into a war that they could not win. They know that any aggressive act against them will deepen resentment in the world against both the USA and Israel and speed up their demise.
The US may have many allies amongst governments but importantly the masses are less sympathetic towards them. If for example the UK government tried to go to war in support of the USA the British people may well say enough is enough and prevent this.
It is very possible that the USA like all empires before them could overstretch and get involved in too many conflicts at the same time and be abandoned to their fate by their European allies due to pressure from the masses who now see the USA as an aggressor. Lets hope they come to their senses first.

Posted by: Charles | May 26 2009 14:55 utc | 17

Dan,
I sure would like for you to be correct and for me to be wrong. I would fine an attack on the Persians to be a horrible thing both morally, strategically, and tactically. Just an awful thing to happen.
However, I remember when President Nixon went to China. It was said that only a certified commie fighter like Nixon could be the one to seek to reconcile our nation with China. I see Obama in a similar way; the will take the Democrats places that the Republicans could never get them to go. They are right now defending Obama’s moves in AfPak and his defense of the past administration’s torture policies.
Time will tell, but given Obama’a chief of staff and the fact the Republicans are already on-board with an air campaign to destroy Iran I think the Persians are in great peril.

Posted by: Joseph | May 26 2009 15:25 utc | 19

Iran has at its disposal the simplest and most effective ‘retaliation’ to any Israeli attack; withdrawal from the NPT with full Russian and Chinese support, and with the blame for that withdrawal falling on Israel. After wards, negotiations will focus on getting Iran to rejoin and not on halting enrichment. Iran need not fire a single missile, though it may fire a few at Israel for the sake of appearances. It certainly will NOT retaliate overtly against the U.S. If the Israelis think they will, they really are underestimating their opponent.
OTH, if roadside bombings increase in Iraq/Afghanistan, Iran will ensure deniability.
Also, notice that oil has marched back up to 60$/bbl and may very well return to one hundred plus over the next year. Hardly points towards mischief.
More likely, someone has yet to come to grips with the changing strategic balance in the region.
Still, in the back of my mind, I do fear the possibility that there is someone in Israel evil/crazy/stupid enough to try the ultimate game changer and launch a nuke. Seems unlikely, but not zero possibility. I’d love to be reassured otherwise.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 15:41 utc | 21

Ogamageddon: you always wake me up from my slumber. There are two questions here: 1) is there a plutocracy — a single entity that is capable of agreeing on one policy and shoving it down the throats of everyone else? And 2) is it rational?
As to 1), there is some evidence that the western alliance is splitting, and Europe is beginning to cast its fate with Russia — diffidently, of course, because it is still the junior partner. If true, then by “plutocracy” we now mean just the US branch, not the whole western capitalist block. The US branch is of course the current hegemon, though threatened in that role, so maybe it IS taking matters into its own hands, as Bush bragged. If so, then the second question is: is the policy of attacking Iran “rational”?
Of course from our viewpoint, and the planet’s, it’s not, but from the owners of a lot of the globe’s wealth, and its biggest military, maybe it is.
Back in the Washington think tanks, someone probably still takes the idea of the threat of Muslim civilization seriously, particularly one that potentially controls most of the globe’s oil. If you, Mr American plutocrat, truly believe, based on the last 100 years of history, that you are entitled and uniquely capable of ruling the rest of the globe, then what is the loss of tens of million of lives (ours and theirs) in the balance? Isn’t that just a temporary cost, weighed against the final goal of heaven on earth under a free market economy?
But isn’t this insane? No more so, in principle, than the eradication of native Americans in the 19th century to make way for the Great American Empire.

Posted by: senecal | May 26 2009 17:18 utc | 23

Wow, Jerry! (#18), I’m impressed.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:05 utc | 25

Dan, you beat me to it regarding Georgia, and in spades, though I agree with China_Hand’s emphasis on the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis (of good!) as embodied in the SCO of which Iran is an observer and slated to become a full member soon (The U.S.A.’s application was rejected!).
Georgia would be suicidal to go out on a limb on behalf of Neocon-Zionist interests after having been so humiliated recently.
I’m gratified by the high level of discussion on this theme which is close to my heart. I hope some of you guys make it not just to the CFR but to the White House so we can finally have some peace.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:17 utc | 27

senecal, such calculations don’t belong to the 21st century. 60 million allies died in WWII and it was considered worth it. 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam and it was initially considered worth it. In Iraq merely 4000 Americans died and there was a national outcry after just the first 2000 deaths. So it’s becoming harder and harder, for either side, to convince people of the need for massive fatalities in pursuit of some hegemonistic cause.
I believe any country, whether Iran, Israel or the U.S., that attacks another will have finally dug its own grave.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:25 utc | 29

Parviz, I wish it were that easy but almost invariably, the establishment changes you. The rare exceptions–Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich–are sidelined as kooks.
The best means of change is a well informed public taking to the street, protesting and putting their bodies on the line. That’s something lacking in the U.S. and without it…well, a nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
The second best is waiting till the establishment collapses under its own weight, an event we may live long enough to witness.

Posted by: Lysander | May 26 2009 18:35 utc | 31

Lysander, you’ve just proven we poor Iranians and you poor Americans have much in common, the same quandary.

Posted by: Parviz | May 26 2009 18:38 utc | 33

Lysander
I don’t believe that the Israelis are any more suicidal than the Iranians, so I just don’t see that scenario coming to pass under current circumstances. I can’t see the Israelis nuking Iran on the basis that it might one day have a nuclear weapon capacity – it would be national suicide for them: fast-track to rogue state status, demographic collapse as all the sensible folks with dual nationality scarper, and a guarantee of the dissolution of many of the bonds that currently tie Israel to the Jewish “diaspora”. The Israelis hate the idea that Iran will have a functioning civilian nuclear industry, but they’ll live with it.
Realistically, Israel and Iran are too distant from each other to get up close and personal in the military sense, so the “Sampson” option type scenarios that we assume constitute Israel’s red lines with regards to their use don’t come into play.
I suppose if Iran conducted a very public series of nuclear tests, then the calculus might change, but there’s precious little evidence that the Iranians have any intention of doing this; and that’s the rub – intentions. In the worst case scenario – ie that Iran intends to develop a weapon and has the means to do so – it will follow the ambiguity path that the Israelis have themselves pioneered.
At any rate, for the Israeli political elite, Iran is a useful distraction from the actual, intractable political position its in with regards to Gaza and the West Bank; and it helps not to have to contemplate the really nasty scenarios that may arise when the pharoah next door snuffs it.
The funny thing in all the propagandising that surrounds the endless crap about Israeli military options is that it enables the US to cast itself as “good cop”; now, I don’t for one moment believe that the Iranians really take it seriously, but the “story” that they’re currently trying to tell is that if it weren’t for us good-ole Yankees keeping them ‘ornery Isrealis leashed, well, heck….so, please, please give us a break, give us something…anything….please.

Posted by: dan | May 26 2009 19:55 utc | 35

Eh. brian, don’t forget Chalabi.
The Iranis had a big part in getting the U.S.to fight that war “for them”, too.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 27 2009 1:18 utc | 37

@dan, #24:
I guess you missed this and this. The Chinese supply of missiles to Iran — whether anti-ship or surface-to-air — isn’t just a 1990’s thing. It’s been ongoing, since the ’90’s; even in only the last six months to a year, the U.S. has prosecuted Chinese firms for supplying missile technology and materials to Iran.
The Chinese have a deeply vested interest in making sure that Iran doesn’t get attacked; first, it bolsters their political image with third-world countries under direct threat of U.S. intervention (Venezuela, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, etc). Such countries are currently, from a geostrategic standpoint, “in play”, and will remain so as long as the U.S. continues to fight these obscene wars it has committed itself to. So long as China can persuade nations that it has the means to give protection from U.S. technology, then those nations will continue to gain interest in what they have to offer.
Second, Iran has a lot of oil, and China needs it. A huge lot of oil goes through the Persian Gulf, and most of the stuff headed to Asia goes through the straits of Hormuz. So long as China has a friendly player sitting on top of those straits, it has a strong tool to keep its supply of oil flowing. Add to that the potential for a new oil bourse, the various Central Asian pipelines that are currently being discussed, and so on, and its clear how important a free, independent, China-friendly Iran is to China.
Third, by keeping Iran from getting attacked, the U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan will continue to deteriorate. Iran is a strong and canny player in Central Asia, and the longer chaos reigns there, the more it will expand its influence.
Russia, however, doesn’t have such strong incentives. Central Asia has historically been a place where Russia and Persia are in competition, so in those regions a strong Iran means waning Russian influence. In contrast, Russia’s links back to Europe are much stronger than Iran’s, and by exploiting European fears of China, Iran, and a rabidly aggressive NATO, Russia could substantially shift European cooperation towards itself and away from the U.S., and succeed in becoming the main European actor in Central Asia.
That, however, is also a powerful incentive for the Russians to keep a peaceable Iran-China relationship: the one thing they can offer Europe that the U.S. clearly can’t is a healthy relationship with the rest of the continent. So while the Russians don’t want Iran to realize its full potential, they do need it to remain independent and friendly, and of course they really need its cooperation in fighting U.S. moves to monopolize the region’s oil reserves.
So Russian missiles to Iran are a much less likely thing than Chinese missiles to Iran. I expect this pattern of behavior we have seen, recently, to be repeated for at least the next five years: i expect China to consistently step up for Iran wherever Russia balks.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 27 2009 2:38 utc | 39

#39, Great post, China_Hand. Yuur summary of Russia-Iran-China relations is first class.
And for your info, Iran trusts China a lot more than it trusts the Russians who are geographically ‘too close’ and have repeatedly attacked Iran thoughout Iran’s history, most recently occupying Iran during WWII and refusing to withdraw from Iran’s Caspian Sea provinces until the West forced them to retreat. Russia has also held Iran hostage over its nuclear programme, continually raising the price and/or refusing to deliver components for the Bushehr Nuclear Plant in what amounted to blackmail. The Iranian technocrats I’ve met have all, without exception, stated that Russia blew its chance to fill the void left by the U.S. in 1979.
Here’s some intersting background info by Ariel Cohen in JCPA:

“The Russian Handicap to U.S. Iran Policy ”

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 4:09 utc | 41

China Hand, do you think China and, perhaps more importantly, Russia have gamed out the possibility that the U.S. might make a 180 turn and decide it needs Iran as a strategic partner to confront the other two? I mean if the U.S. were to accept Iran’s nuclear program as an acceptable cost of doing business and tried to woe Iran to its side rather than bully it, it would be a disaster for Russia.
I don’t believe the U.S. is close yet to such a conclusion, but maybe in 5-10 years.

Posted by: Lysander | May 27 2009 6:07 utc | 43

theres a growing school of thought (everywhere outside the Israel-first brigade) that Israel needs to be kept on a tight leash. From the Persian/Russian/Chinese perspective, this presents an irresistible opportunity to add increased thrust for isolating Israel particularly through USA/EU channels.
And there can be no doubt that the Persians will calculate & conjure a scenario that offers Israel’s government the opportunity to over-reach again.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 27 2009 8:49 utc | 45

Agreed, China_Hand. Another problem for the U.S.A. is that the forces of isolationism are gaining the upper hand over unilateralism. This is a fight that has been going on inside the U.S.A. for over two centuries, preventing the U.S. from even entering WWII until its own existence became threatened by the prospect of the Axis powers’ controlling the U.S.A.’s mercantile supply routes.
Unilateralism has become more and more discredited with each passing decade (albeit temporarily boosted by Bosnia and Desert Storm), but the current U.S. unilateral mess has swung the momentum over to the other side, and Israel is merely kicking and screaming in a last-ditch effort to prevent the inevitable.
China_Hand: Yes, China has no baggage, unlike the U.S. that has pissed Iran off for 6 decades, and Russia, that has invaded us continually for over 500 years. China is well ahead of the other two in this geostrategic game.
As an aside, if Pakistan got its act together and gained admission to the SCO, and if Iran’s own application is approved, a serious regional counterweight to U.S. hegemony would arise and probably deal the final blow to the U.S.’s ambitions in my region, as any further resistance would prove too costly: Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, oil-rich Kazakhstan and the other 3 CIS members would rule the roost. If India and Pakistan finally made peace the Bloc would be the strongest on this planet, an exceptional combination constituting the world’s biggest democracy (India), the world’s future economic/industrial power (China) and two nations (Russia and Iran) that directly supply 20 % of the globe’s energy resources and indirectly control another 20 % (including landlocked Kazakhstan, gas-rich Turkmenistan and the hydrocarbon-rich Caspian Sea).
I believe the U.S. has realized this is a fight it simply cannot win.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 10:04 utc | 47

I don’t see any Obamageddon — I mean Armageddon — scenarios in the making, merely a slow erosion of U.S. power and influence.
Don’t forget that the so-called ‘Ruling Elite’ you mention includes some powerful and practical forces, such as the Pentagon that has already been led down a false road by the Neocons-Zionists and has thrown down the gauntlet to anyone trying to mislead them again, this time into attacking Iran.
Israel can’t do this on its own, so that’s the end of that scenario.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 13:50 utc | 49

Thanx CH2 and Parviz.
The U.S.’ last trump card is its military. When all you have is a hammer…

Posted by: Lysander | May 27 2009 14:11 utc | 51

Parviz, I don’t believe Vietnam applies, except in the sense that we have had a War Economy since the 40’s. The War Economy started with World War II and has gained strength ever since. As Eisenhower indicated, we now have a firmly entrenched Military Industrial Complex. Wars will continue to be fought to justify military expenditures just as surely as the military will spend up to its budget and beyond, often times on useless bullshit, in order to secure the same, or more budgeted funds the next year. That’s rational, and highly immoral, microcosmically, but completely insane macrocosmically.

Posted by: Obamageddon | May 27 2009 14:37 utc | 53

Sorry, I stopped because it was too ridiculous.

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 14:42 utc | 55

Parviz-
It’s good to know you have a sense of humor! I’d never have believed an Iranian would be so silly in public… you might have a second career as an Iranian comdedian.
The few Iranians I’ve met in person seemed very stoic and not prone to remaking American folk songs.
Post like your 54 make the bar a much livelier place!
Thanks again for all your commentary… you’re a valuable human and it’s good to have your insight. Now if we could get our “leaders” to play as nice as we do, we might eventually be able to enjoy a rather pleasant Earth.

Posted by: DavidS | May 27 2009 15:42 utc | 57

Parviz: BTW, the concept of “recovery” from the Vietnam War doesn’t refer to rebuilding the physical resources of the military, but to overcoming public antipathy to the war — which did take about a generation. There is no comparable public antipathy today, except in scattered outposts of the Left.

Posted by: senecal | May 27 2009 16:13 utc | 59

Senecal: “There is no comparable public antipathy today, except in scattered outposts of the Left.
Is that really true? Anyone else care to comment?

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:22 utc | 61

@Parviz #61 “Is that really true? Anyone else care to comment?”
I can only speak from my experience, but I believe that it’s true. There seemed to be an almost active propaganda campaign against anti-war activists and conscientious objectors beginning in the late 1970’s and continuing to the present which began with attempts to romanticize the collective plights of VietNam War veterans (“They spit on us at the airport! *sob!*”) and is manifested today with bumper-sticker grade slogans such as “Support Our Troops!” or “Cowards Cut and Run!” and “They Hate Us For Our Freedom!” which are used to shout down the less bloodthirsty in the populace. Those few who do speak out against war are painted as simple-minded idealists at best and the word “pacifist” most definitely has a dirty connotation in mainstream America; possibly even eclipsing the word “liberal” as a label which will effectively end a debate.
It seemed like there was a push fairly recently by the left(er) to satirize these behaviours with television shows like “American Dad”, but it didn’t matter how cartoonish the attitudes were shown, the bloodthirsty embraced the image… much like teenagers emulating the antics of “Beavis and Butthead” about a decade or so ago.
Over-the-top warmongering is far more socially acceptable in American circles than quiet, rational debate. Although the battle will continue into perpetuity, I would say the homocidal and militaristic have overwhelmingly won the battle for hearts and minds in America.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 27 2009 16:52 utc | 63

Lizard: Too cute, IMHO. But let’s wait and see whom Iran elects. I want anyone but Ahmadinejad to win, so I want all my American friends on this Blog to use your contacts at AT&T to swing the Iranian vote the way they fixed the American Idol vote:

How AT&T “Power Texts” helped Kris Allen

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:55 utc | 65

On the more serious side, your comments (Lizard, Monolycus) are most depressing. Think I’m gonna go get drunk (obviously, down here, with utmost care).

Posted by: Parviz | May 27 2009 16:59 utc | 67

Parviz, Senecal
I’d put it this way – Americans will remain happily supportive of wars as long as they’re not personally inconvenienced, the casualties remain within tolerable bounds, there’s some sense, however illusory, that progress is being made towards something tangible, and there are no supervening economic issues that bring the guns vs butter debates to the fore.
Americans were, in general, very supportive of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to begin with. Succesful invasion, light fatality count that was sufficient for the purposes of US militaristic martyrology and feel-good ( as long as they weren’t you or yours ), refracted narratives of heroic sacrifice. The protracted grind of ever-increasing casualties, the relentless stress on the military, the non-stop stop-lossed extended tours and the over-dependence on reserve and NG components eroded support to the extent that in 2008, given a choice between a standard US militarist with the medals and the back-story to prove it, and a much more “Clintonian” peacenik type, the US electorate chose the latter.
Now I appreciate that for most people Iraq can’t be over soon enough, but the reality is that the US is on the way out.
This leaves Afghanistan, where as long as the fatality count remains at 200-300 per year levels, and NATO allies are seen to be sharing a good portion of the burden ( ie 40-50% ), there will be sufficient support to continue for a good long time to come.
As regards additional ventures – fuhgaddaboutit. Anyone who has any doubts about this should canvass a random sample of people with the observation that “$5 per gallon gasoline and the drafting of your firstborn is a price well worth paying for military intervention in Iran”.
Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any of you that are beaten to death by an angry mob armed with shovels.
Lizard
The exact same things were being said back in the 2005-2008 period with regards to the monthly lunar cycle.

Posted by: dan | May 27 2009 17:56 utc | 69

Lizard-
I’d have to say July 4… if there is gonna be some kookiness I’d pick that day – but I wouldn’t bet more than a beer on it.
Parviz- no I’ve never seen a mullah let his hair down… but I have partied with some catholic priest after their high school girls hoop team took state. I remember stuffing myself with many other drunk journalist, coaches and the collared-types into a mini van, one of the priest was driving, which seemed like a good thing; if you’re gonna have a drunk drive you around, might as well be someone who can preform last-rites 🙂
All I seem to know lately is that I don’t know… ya’ know?

Posted by: DavidS | May 27 2009 23:01 utc | 71