Exactly. The article makes it clear that there is no attempt to occupy Iran. The plan is to setback the development of any program to develop a nuclear bomb. At the same time it is hoped that the opposition will somehow rise up and take control of the govt. Just why this would ever happen is not at all clear to me. One would expect that the opposition would either join in with the government in condemning the attacks or be completely isolated. Furthermore, the attack could ignite conflicts in Iraq between Shia and occupying forces. There is confidence about the US technical capacity to bomb and achieve a certain goal with a complete lack of analysis of other effects of the policy.
--- Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Economists, > On Apr 9, 2006, at 6:34 PM, ravi wrote: > Do people really believe that the USA (in particular > BushCo) will launch > a war against Iran at this point? I would consider > the probability > vanishingly small (for non-exotic reasons: stretched > out military, low > popularity ratings, public dismay over Iraq, etc, > etc). Of course > generating talk about Iran is probably a good > diversionary tactic. > > --ravi > > Doyle, > I think they (The U.S.) don't consider bombing > attacks as war. It is a > 'cheap' technical way of using war to discipline > second or third tier > states. The bombings aren't the same thing as an > occupying army. The > probability is above 50% at this point, because this > tactic is not > political poison as an invasion might be. That's > what the nukes are > being used for is to justify destroying hardened > sites, and being > underground not threatening like above ground > attacks. The aggressive > attack stance has not been repudiated by national > leaders like Clinton. > > What would bring it below 50% is some sort of > substantial global > response before hand. Or perhaps in the U.S. a > sizable public > response. > thanks, > Doyle >
