Eric: The US is NOT considering an invasion. They are contemplating a range
of tactical sorties designed to slow or halt Iran's nuclear program.
Simon: Sorry Eric, but I have to disagree. Iran was subjected to the most
stringent inspection and ongoing serveillance. The IAEA found no evidence
that Iran was moving its nuclear research towards a weapons programme. Even
assuming this to be the case, most estimates put the time scale at ten
years. Iran's nuclear programme is not an imminent threat.
You say that Iran has oil contracts with Russia and China. Well that's a big
coincidence isn't it. Whether they invade or bomb strategically, the aim is
to displace the current Iranian administration. Perhaps they are relying on
the antagonism between the Mullah government and the pro-western population
to produce a government they can work with. If bombing doesn't displace the
administration, then they the US will have little choice but to invade.
As Julie intimates, this is all sounding worrylingly familiar. Iraq was
invaded on the premise that it had WMD capability - that was the sole
justification put before the UN by Colin Powell. Iraq didn't have WMD
capabilities. It had nothing of the kind. Of course, now we are seeing
justification in hindsight through these 'Saddam Tapes'. Interestingly, if
Iran is strategically bombed and its nuclear programme is wiped out, there
won't be any evidence to decide the point either way.
The US administration can't afford to spell out the real reason why it's
taking military action.
Simon
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
