Greetings Economists, The 'plausible scenario' from this site: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/78912-Iran-0
Has some features to recommend itself. A look down the road beyond Seymour Hersh's reportage, a way to frame the conflict structure and a debating point start. Dave Eriqat writes, ... I believe the U.S. will attack Iran in 2006. Here's why. The master plan of the United States is to control the oil in the Middle East. Only two countries stood in the way of that plan: Iraq and Iran. Iraq has been neutralized and will remain impotent for the next decade because of civil war. Iran alone now stands in the way of the U.S. master plan. ... How can they favor starting a new war even as their support for the last one is declining? I was baffled by this inconsistency until I realized that the declining support for the war in Iraq is not a rejection of war, but a rejection of losing wars. Americans are perfectly fond of war as long as they're winning. In any case, there seems to be ample support from the American public for a new war against Iran. ... Maintaining the status quo in Iraq is also untenable, as the voices calling for withdrawal intensify with each passing day. That leaves only one avenue of action to this administration: escalation. A new war against Iran would divert attention from Iraq and firm up public support for the president and his party, ... Another 'rational' argument against attacking Iran is that the U.S., by virtue of its constrained manpower, can only feasibly attack Iran by air, which would not be very effective if limited to 'military' targets. This is true, but it misses the point. The initial air assault against Iran would be merely the first step in what the U.S. probably hopes will become a larger war. Why? Because the only way the United States can successfully neutralize Iran is by dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on its civilian population, forcing Iran to surrender unconditionally. Even the U.S. will not dare to unilaterally break sixty years of nuclear taboo and drop a nuclear bomb on an Iranian city. However, it probably can get away with using 'tactical nuclear bunker buster' bombs against ostensibly military targets. The world will be outraged, of course. But after a few months of media spin, the U.S. will probably quell the opprobrium. ... The U.S. can then withdraw its soldiers in Iraq into its new massive, city-sized military bases and wait out the civil war, while keeping a close eye on the oil. The U.S. will be a pariah nation, but so what. It will control the bulk of the world's oil. Doyle, This I think reflects Russian thinking about what 'could' happen. However, it might be close enough to Bush's actual plans to give some basic outline. for how they would go to war with Iran. And for us some way to think about what is coming and what is to be done. thanks, Doyle
