Iran...?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hello

Several times for one year I heard and read in french medias that Dick Cheney wanted to strike on Iran.

Personnaly, I don't know what to think about it, I consider it would be a big surprise but I also consider G.W. Bush as a man who can do everything without worrying about his image or about which sort of trace he could let in the History, he seems to be persuaded that he always do the right things, the judgement of others seems to not matter a lot for him.

Anyway, if something like that happens it could be the begining of a real big war, not a 3 mounths one like in Irak, maybe engaging a coalition versus an other and all that this could implicate. So it would be not a light decision.

Can we hear same thing about such a decision in USA? Do you consider it's a possibility? If ever it happens what could be the impact on the campaign? Which candidate could it favour? Is there already a candidate who want such a thing?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As for Bush and Cheney although they may like to attack Iran the US military is stretched too thin for them to do so without invoking a draft which would cause massive protests across the country and would be the final nail in the GOP's presidential coffin.

The question is: do Bush and Cheney care about all of this?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

(Granted, Iran could retaliate against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose things could ultimately escalate out of control.)

That's also what I think, and more of that Iran has treats of cooperation with at least, Russia (who can communicate with Iran by the Caspian Sea), Venezuela (Chavez said he will intervene if a military action was undertaken against Iran) and China could also want to make problem to occident is such a thing is done.

So I consider that to know if Bush and Cheney care about consequences of such a thing is highly important. They know they are highly unpopular and that their assessment is considered as highly bad, will they resist to this last temptation if they have nothing to lose?

If such a thing happen where could it drive 2008 USA presidency election?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

After the Iraq debacle there's no way we can win global support

You have to know that now the president of France is Sarkozy and France is no more the "3rd voice of the world" (as small could have been this voice it existed and was considered, especially in arab world and also in persian world, Iran).

I think Sarkozy just wait for a good occasion to show that now France is back and want to give the hand to the USA and if Iran becomes more and more menacing to the West in the years to come, Bush and Sarkozy could have not any problem to go together, like the whole West in general plus other countries in the world. Sarkozy could guarantee the presence of the whole European Union, he's the only moving man in it and he psychologicaly lead it, more of that France takes the turning presidency of it in July 2008. The big voices which could be opposite to such a thing, would be Russia, China and Venezuela and maybe others. Here could be two opposite coalitions, and here could be a world war.

For example friend states of the USA could be attacked by Venezuela or friend states of Chavez in Latin America, China could use the situation to open a war on Taïwan which she absolutly wants to take back, Russia could help Iran by Caspian Sea, and if Europe helps USA, Russia could attack Europe, in the way to make fall the power of the West in the world and especially the power of the USA... So like I said if Bush-Cheney take such a decision, it would not be a light decision.

Clearly, I still consider that such a decision would be a big surprise but I also still consider Bush as a man who can do everything without caring about the consequences especially if he has to leave the power soon.

American political experts who speack in France (most known is called Nicole Bacharan) consider that one of the big issues of this campaign and maybe the big issue is the image of the USA in the world, which the 2008 presidency election could change and make it better, less cow-boy. If such a thing happens, the image of the USA, and also of the whole West (Sarkozy could play a big role in it) could not be changed yet, so that amputating this election of this main issue. If a war is open, no matter Clinton, Giuliani or anybody, they will continue it, the choice would be on "who to lead this war?", so that also making other issues of USA smaller and smaller. It's because of all this that I put this topic on Iran in "2008 presidency election campaign".

Still one year to go before Bush to go away...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well

I agree with the last post of both Stateboiler and dead0man. To go in the sense of Stateboiler, I would add that in South Lebanon, military instructors of Hezbollah were Iranian and that currently, experts think that there are big probabilties for that nuclear sites are situated underground. You can still airstrike on earth the more you could get would be some vibrations, could it disturbs nukes?

I would also add that you can't put police forces right after a war, the army is necessary first but for sure it has to form a police as fast as possible. In Irak it was hard to do as fast as possible I think, but they had to previous before or at least to think more than what they did before taking the decision of going there.

For the Iraki Shiites, I think it's not so simple, Iraki Shiites fought against Iranian Shiites while Iran-Irak war (1980-1988), this war had a strong impact on peoples of the both countries. If it can work for a few militias, I don't think it would have a big impact on this eventual conflict.

Then, the debates turned until now just arround the iranian ground. I don't want to say that 3rd World War is for tomorrow but I still think we should be aware about the possibility that striking on Iran could be the begining of it. With troops (air, sea, ground) engaged in Irak, Afghanistan and Iran, the powerfull countries who don't really like USA and the whole West could want to use the situation to put down the whole West forces in the way to get more power in the world. I think the quatuor Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China (all of them armed by Russia) could be a serious opposite coalition which could be joined by other countries from all over the world. When there are two coalitions, each country of each coalition is on war against each country of the opposite coalition, here is how are made world wars. The question would be how many country could stay neutral, if their neutrality is respected.

More of that, if West propose to strike on Iran at UN security council and if Russia and China say "no", it could burry definitively UN after having been seriously shot with Irak war.

Then, like someone said if Iran has nukes, it could sell it to anybody. Could it be someone like... Chavez?

I also think that Bush could only open a war, even if that's just airstrikes, if public opinion find it legitimate. For that, Ahmadinejad has to be more and more menacing, or medias has to show a more and more menacing image of Ahmadinejad. Both things that the US government can cause I think. So in this way, Bush and Cheney will to strike would be still priority.

I also agree to say that Bush and Ahmadinejad are two sort of idiots who don't really care about the betterment of their country. But they are two sorts of serious idiots. More of that, they are both some sort of radical religious serious idiots who both believe in the back of a "Lord from God", Jesus for Bush, Mahdi 12th imam for Ahmadinejad, which could come, according to what they think, by an apocalypse on Earth. When this two sort of idiots meet them and when they disagree, I think we can expect for eveything and we should to be aware about it.

To precise my thought, I currently think that strikings on Iran before november 2008 would be a big surprise at 60% and that G.W.Bush can decide to do everything at 40%.

Even if G.W. Bush doesn't strike I think that anyway it will be just an adjournment and that chances of ruling this conflict without military actions are more tiny than with. I don't see Ahmadinejad in 2009 saying "Ok, I've lost elections good luck to the followers even if they have not the same ideas, I go back to my home" and more of that, voting is sometimes manipulated in Iran according to some observers. I can also add that when someone really wants to stay on power, if the people is good controlled, he can do that especially by pretexting a military conflict. There are possibilities to rule the conflict peacefully but I currently see them as tiny, let us see.

Clearly, if such a thing does not happen during the 2008 USA precidency election campaign, making exploding it, I would be surprise that such a thing does not happen before 2020, more sure before 2015. Anyway I think we should at least consider the possibility of it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Discussion has spread on Libanon and Turkey, I would like to add elements about these two countries.

First, Lebanon. We can't say Lebanon supports Hezbollah, it's not so simple. Lebanon is a very splinted country, maybe one of the most splinted of the world. In this country there are about 17 communities. There different sorts of Muslim (Shiite, Sunni, Druze, concerning the mains), different sorts of christians (Catholics, different sort of Orientals, different sort of Orthodoxes), and a Jew community, here are for the main communities which share this country. This unified country seems to be quite a sort of miracle in the middle East. The lebanese political system is shared by all communities in the way these are all represented and have a representation which reflect their importance. So, the post of president is reserved to a communuty, so is the prime minister post, the commandant of the army post, etc. The current president Emile Lahoud is part of a community which is pro-syria, so which support Hezbollah, but the prime minister is from a community anti-syria.

Concerning the general agreement of Libanon to Hezbollah, it's good to think about its two decades ago civil war (civil wars are surely the worst wars that exist), and in July 2006, what lebanese feared it was a new civil war so they prefered not criticizing the shiite community (about 30% of the lebanese population, occupating about 30% of Lebanon) which Hezbollah pretends to represent. More of that the stupid massive bombing of Israel on whole Lebanon, destroying unusefully this country which didn't need it, helped the lebanese to prefer Hezbollah than Israel. An israeli action was legitimate, they had been offensed, but the way they took was so scilly and counterproductive.

To finish on lebanon, it's good to know that Hezbollah wins most of his popularity cause he has iranian oil dollars and it uses it to take care of the peoples. For example after the sutpid israeli bombing, Hezbollah offered 10.000 $ cash (in tickets) to all the ones who had lost their home in the bombing, how to get more popularity?

Concerning Turkey. It's interesting to speack about this country cause to me he could play a not negligible role if a open conflict with Iran begins.

First concerning the freedom and democracy in this country. It's good to wake up and to think about the fact that we're speacking about a traditional muslim country, so in this country we don't envisage the society and the individual like we do in Occident. This said, it's also the muslim country who is the most close of Occident and its current government is surely the most open government that Occident can have to cooperate with.

Then, this country is also a young republic and it can explain that we can go in jail when we speack about something that put in cause the country, like armenian genocide. Remember that Southists and Yankees met troubles each other when USA was a young republic and I'm not sure it was easy to have a free opinion in this time, we can also speack about Mc Carthy, could we speack freely 50 years ago in USA? Franco left Spain in 1975, and in 1914-1918 war, France executed the soldiers who did not go on war. So, things are not so simple, we are all men and we have to remember about what we are and about what we were a few time ago before going on cristicisms so easily.

I don't legitimate what is Turkey, I just say Turkey has a history and it explains its present, we can't put western cristicisms on it without thinking about it. We can't say "I don't like you! You have to change!" or if you say it you must have a deep, strong and honest reason, otherwise it's just some basic self interest and in this case it's good acknowledge it, otherwise it's some hypocrisy. When the question of the justification is ruled, I think it's good to be aware that if change can need force it especially needs time and pedagogy.

Concerning the role which could play Turkey if a military conflict is open with Iran.

Like I said the current government is surely the most Occident-friendly turkish government that Occident can currently have in Turkey. But in the population there are nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces and I think it's good to be aware that there are possibilities for them to go on power, by democracy or by a coup. For example, I think that what's currently happening in Kurdistan is important, if the current turkish government continues to listen the current US government, so if it does not decide a big military intervention in iraki Kurdistan and if the Kurds, who fight for an independant Kurdistan, continue to make problem to turkish army, it could make growing the nationalism and the anti-USA, anti Occident feeling in Turkey. More of that, yesterday a trial opened, it's the trial of the murderers of 3 evangelicals (2 Turks, 1 German), the murderers killed these evangelicals in the name of nationalism, pretending that evangelicals are a threat for Turkey and that they act to serve the foreign interests (for the reason they are maybe not so wrong, look at what happened in Ivory Coast, anyway currently evangelicals are just about 3.000 in Turkey for about 100 millions peoples). What is good to know in this story it is that, according to a serious media in France, the public opinion supports these ultra-nationalist murderers.

All of this to show that to me there is a nationalist danger in Turkey. The decision of USA to attack Iran could encourage nationalism to take the power to use the situation to invade the iraki Kurdistan and to breack the cooperation with the USA, and then maybe making Turkey joining an eventual, but possible to me, anti-Occident coalition which could be composed of at least, like I've already said, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela.

Here are some possibilities, and high probabilities to me if the current world trends stay like they are. In this way it would be just a question of time to me, less than a year? 5 years? More? Less? Let us see but I still think it's good to be aware about these possibilities.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

What's the reaction of the candidates for presidency after the report of American intelligence agencies?

Do they support Bush position? Is he alone on this position? What's about the public opinion? The media? 

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Back of this topic on Iran.

I reopen it because I want to announce that I've just opened a new topic on Iran in the rubric of this forum named "International general discussion" to speak there about Iran in general and about the consequences of strikes there. Last event, the one between US and Iranian warships. You can find it here.

So, I really want to dedicate this topic to which impact could have on the presidential campaign  an attack from G.W. Bush on Iran and to the position of the different candidates on the Iranian crisis.

For example, which candidates do you think could decide to strike on Iran if they are elected. Personally, I think that Obama, Edwards and maybe Romney could be the only ones, through the credible to be elected, who would not decide to strike on Iran.