Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (7551)	7/30/2004 5:50:38 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20039

Re: Yes, I know Iran is next on the War Party's path to global supremacy. There is a question about whether or not they'll actually invade Iran, which seems doubtful, Bush doesn't have the political capital at the moment to pull something like that off. Told you so: A dangerous summer As Bush slips in the polls no one can be sure what the increasingly panicked neo-conservatives will do, writes Hassan Nafaa* weekly.ahram.org.eg Excerpt: I, too, think it unlikely that this administration would resort to postponing elections, at least under normal circumstances. However, I do not rule out other possibilities or scenarios, including another military adventure. In "American options in Iraq", which appeared in Al-Hayat several months ago, I suggested that the Bush administration may attempt to escape its predicament at home by fabricating a crisis abroad, with Iran, Syria or both. The ideological delusions of the neo-conservative clique in the White House are such that they may be tempted to push the confrontation with Iran to the brink, casting Tehran as the "serpent's head" that must be severed in order to win the war against terrorism. When pushed to the critical point, they believe, the American people will always rally around the flag and their president, and even more so if the quarry is as big as Iran. Such was my distrust of the Bush administration at the time that I added, "Some might think that recourse to such an option is a form of madness possible only in an authoritarian government ruled by a pathological maniac...but not in a country with institutionalised checks on power and provisions for public accountability. I for one do not share this opinion." Apparently I am not alone. The mistrust and apprehension of what the Bush administration might get up to is now abundantly palpable inside the US, as is reflected in the writings of numerous commentators and scholars. And not without reason. The scenario I described above is not just a theoretical likelihood, but a concrete option on that administration's agenda. In a recent statement Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "A preventive attack against Iran is a possibility." It is still too early to tell whether the US will undertake this assault by itself or give Israel the green light to do it for it. Or, perhaps Israel will take the initiative to escalate the situation in the Palestinian territories or in Lebanon [or in Athens? a Greek 911?] in order to lure Syria and Iran into a trap of its own devising, one that will goad the Americans into action on its behalf. But, however it plays out, the purpose of the scenario is to destroy the alliance opposed to the US and Israeli project of regional hegemony. This alliance consists of the Palestinian resistance, the Lebanese Hizbullah, Syria and Iran. If this analysis is correct, the world is in for a dangerously hot summer. Nevertheless, even if another war scenario has entered the realm of the possible, putting it into effect will not be as easy as some strategists in the White House or Tel Aviv imagine. The resistance alliance, regardless of the differences in the ideological orientations and interests of its components, still has some important leverage cards. It could, for example, transform Iraq and northern Israel into a hell for occupation forces and settlers. Also, it is unlikely that the US administration would want to embark on another military operation in the delicate run-up to election day, unless it could secure consensus among the American public that such an operation was a legitimate deterrent against a certain and imminent terrorist attack against the US. Given its dismal credibility ratings this administration would have a very hard time generating such a consensus, if only because no one would believe the information it furnished, even if that information were well-founded. On the other hand, perhaps this would not deter the Bush administration, whose recklessness and aversion to rational thought processes is becoming clearer by the day. [...] _______________________________