SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : ACCO: 800America.com, Inc
ACCO 3.435-0.3%10:33 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LTK0072/7/2007 11:53:46 PM
   of 694
 
12 Consequences of
Attacking Iran

by Jon Basil Utley
antiwar.com

(edit: i severely edit this to the first 7 to isolate the points i find most significant in his list--max)
1
Iran would blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also itself manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place, able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed along Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for America and the whole world.
************************************************************
2
War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities. Iran has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast gas compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack. Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work. After all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic Shias) would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made secret the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program. This could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have designed ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.
*************************************************************
3
The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power.
**************************************************************
4
American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S.
*************************************************************
5
The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the whole Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."
************************************************************
6
War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the latter would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already a majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance. In Latin America, new, higher oil prices would further strengthen President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, giving him more money to subsidize further damage against American interests all over the continent.
***************************************************************
7
We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons that have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very effective.
***********************end***********************************

i skipped the 8-12 as it is so absurd to give this first 7 and then talk about the political consequences in U.S. and like the next it would mean the death of the republican party.
Like, from the first 7, it really matters the political effect on the politics of the U.S.. He never registers that if first 7 happen your talking Global Catastrophe. So he goes from major dangers and starts discussing matters that if the first 7 happen what politcal ramifications.
You get this mindset of "Total hell with break loose " and then, o wow, the republican party is done, and all will then be better.
They ERASE from mind the consequences of what they are describing.
Somehow all this happens but everything will be fine afterwards is the thinking, i see no sense this person really grasps what is at stake here.
And damnred he never contemplates what this will mean to the individualsd that breath air and have to eat and sleep and walk around.
He considers nothing about the death/the horror/the evil--i do not understand people that create scenarios but don't FEEL the bloody horror of the consequences.
As science fiction writers these blokes would be utter failures.
Your best writers of Sci-Fi are writing flesh and blood stories of the BRUTAL CONSEQUECES of a bad scenario happening.
If all hell does break loose, just at the level he describes, his other 5 consequences are trivialities that i think will not really matter to a injured and shocked world,. As i say like to say "!Este es NO Juego!".Max
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext