Depressing read, but probably describing the very likely outcome if war were to happen.
I think the US would be on it's own this time as well - there is no way the UK would be a part of it, it would be political suicide for Gordon Brown. On 21/08/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "It's impossible to say whether the United States will attack Iran > before President George W Bush leaves office in seventeen months'time, > because nobody in the White House knows yet either. It is easy to > predict what would happen if the US did attack Iran, however, and the > signs are that the hawks in the White House are winning that argument. > > The most alarming sign is the news that the Bush administration is > about to brand the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a > "terrorist organisation". This is a highly provocative step, for the > IRGC is not a bunch of fanatical freelances. It is a 125,000-strong > official arm of the Iranian state, parallel to the regular armed > forces but more ideologically motivated and presumably more loyal to > the ruling clerics. > > Declaring the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation is not > just a way for the US government to vilify Iran as a terrorist state. > It is one of the key policy disputes between those in the > administration, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rica and > Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who think an attack on Iran would be > unwise, and those around the vice-president, who think it is > essential. > > Almost everybody in the Bush administration believes that Iran is > seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the region and to attack > Israel. (Others are less certain.) The war party, led by Dick Cheney, > also believes that the clerical regime in Iran would collapse at the > first hard push, since ordinary Iranians thirst for US-style > democracy-and that the attack must be made while President Bush is > still in office, since no successor will have the guts to do it. Even > after all this time, the administration's old machismo survives: "The > boys go to Baghdad; the real men go to Tehran." > > > So what will happen if Cheney & Co get their way? The Iranian regime > would not collapse: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now unpopular due > to his mishandling of the economy, but patriotic Iranians would rally > even around him if they were attacked by foreigners. What would > collapse, instead, is the world's oil supply and the global economy. > > Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander-in-chief of the > Revolutionary Guards, explained how that would be accomplished in a > speech on August 15 (though he made no direct reference to the US > threat). "Our coast-to-sea missile systems can now reach the length > and breadth of the Gulf and the Sea of Oman," he said, "and no > warships can pass in the Gulf without being in range of our > coast-to-sea missiles." In other words, Iran can close the whole of > the Gulf and its approaches to oil tanker traffic, and if the US Navy > dares to fight in these waters it will lose. > > Despite the huge disparity in military power between the United States > and Iran, this is probably true. Over-committed in Iraq and > Afghanistan, the United States cannot come up with the huge number of > extra troops that would be needed to invade and occupy a mountainous > country of 75 million people. The US can bomb Iran to its heart's > content, hitting all those real and alleged nuclear facilities, but > then it runs out of options-whereas Iran's options are very broad. > > It could just stop exporting oil itself. Pulling only Iran's three and > a half million barrels per day off the market, in its present state, > would send oil prices shooting up into the stratosphere. Or it could > get tough and close down all oil-tanker traffic that comes within > range of those missiles-which would mean little or no oil from Iraq, > Saudi Arabia or the smaller Gulf states either. That would mean global > oil rationing, industrial shut-downs, and the end of the present > economic era. > > Can those missiles do all that? Yes, they can. The latest generation > of sea-skimming missiles have mobile, easily concealed launchers, and > they would come in very fast and low from anywhere along almost 2,000 > kilometres (well over 1,000 miles) of Iran's Gulf coast. Sink the > first half-dozen tankers, and insurance rates for voyages to the Gulf > become prohibitive, even if you can find owners willing to risk their > tankers. > > It's very doubtful that US air strikes could find and destroy all the > missile launchers-consider how badly the Israeli air force did in > south Lebanon last summer-so Iran wins. After a few months, the other > great powers would find some way for the United States to back away > from the confrontation and let the oil start flowing again, but the US > would suffer a far greater humiliation than it did in Vietnam, while > Iran would emerge as the undisputed arbiter of the region. > > Many, perhaps most senior American generals and admirals know this, > and are privately opposed to a foredoomed attack on Iran, but in the > end they will do as ordered. Vice-President Dick Cheney and his > coterie don't know it, preferring to believe that Iranians would > welcome their American attackers with glad cries and open arms. You > know, like the Iraqis did. > > And Cheney seems to be winning the argument in the White House. > > -Gwynne Dyer" > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:240883 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
