Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Obama out for blood 

War with Iran is imminent.

See Chris Hedges (among many others):

The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. The air attacks are designed to cripple the Iranians’ military capability in three days. The Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with targets in Saghand and Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy-water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, and the uranium conversion facility and nuclear technology center in Isfahan, will all probably be struck by the United States and perhaps even Israeli warplanes. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran molybdenum, iodine and xenon radioisotope production facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, and the Kalaye Electric Co. in the Tehran suburbs will also most likely come under attack.

But then what? We don’t have the troops to invade. And we don’t have anyone minding the helm who knows the slightest thing about Persian culture or the Middle East. There is no one in power in Washington with the empathy to get it. We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation.

It is not hard to imagine what will happen. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad. Expect massive American casualties, especially in Iraq, where Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies will be able to call in precise coordinates. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will be shut down. Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers. Oil prices will skyrocket to well over $4 a gallon. The dollar will tumble against the euro. Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability. The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals. Pakistan could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno.

What does the standard-bearer for "liberal progressivism" do? (I do not note this to make an abstract point, but to express disappointment and fear.)

He writes a column in the NY Daily News with this title: "Hit Iran where it hurts: Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran." And he makes some "get-tough" headlines by advocating for economic measures against Iran:

With Jewish campaign money more critical than ever and Jewish votes potentially important in a handful of key states, most of the 2008 presidential candidates are trying to carve out pro-Israel positions they can call their own.

Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) has latched on to the burgeoning effort to increase the economic pressure on Iran through divestment. But Obama’s strong effort on behalf of a major divestment bill is being thwarted by an unnamed Republican senator — and Obama forces say the real culprit is the Bush White House.

The controversy involves the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, which would require companies with more than $20 million invested in Iran’s energy industry to divest those funds. The measure would also make it easier for state and local governments to purge their own portfolios of Iran investments.

I get Obama's "strategy" here. He wants to stake out a "tough" Iran policy that makes use of "diplomatic" measures (yes, sanctions are "diplomacy" for U.S. politicians) as opposed to bombs. The problem is, Bush is, by numerous accounts, preparing to bomb Iran right now. Given this situation, advocating for sanctions against the "tyrannical" Iranian regime, as Obama has been doing, is like giving words of encouragement to your long-time friend and partner in crime as he prepares to shoot his next victim in the head.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?