Former Intelligence Analyst -Hastert's Dem opponent- comments on Iran

In part>
While serving as an intelligence analyst in the Middle East, I became the local expert on Iran's military and leadership structure. I departed the region in 1999, but Hersh's article leads me to believe that many of Iran's battle plans and nuclear ambitions have not changed.
...
I can tell you exactly what would happen if we were to strike Iran. First, Iranian military forces would shut down the Straight of Hormuz (the choke point through which 35% of the world's oil flows through) and oil prices would skyrocket to a possible $100/barrel. Hezbollah has the ability to project power and export terrorism to America's shores, which could lead to another terrorist attack like 9/11. A greater concern for America and the Middle East would be for Iranians to unite behind their radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who beats a nationalist drum with an anti-Western and anti-Israeli message.

Currently, Iran is a divided country. Young Iranians are on-line and curious about the western world while religious and military leaders suppress any democratic ideas and oppose student protests. The youth of this troubled nation represent hope for a Democratic Iranian government and it would be a shame if we let them down by dropping nuclear bombs on their country. An aggressive pre-emptive strike would give Ahmadinejad credibility and draw more support for his radical agenda.

So how do we win in Iraq and Iran?
The only solution to both Iran and Iraq is a diplomatic one. We need more security in our world, but that can only be achieved by working harder on cultivating diplomatic ties with our allies. Diplomacy and economic influence will make our enemies realize that their failure to cooperate in securing a peaceful world means that they will be isolated and reviled. There are better ways to handle the situation than pulling out the nuclear card every time we feel threatened.

Diplomatic approach:
I support the "Nixon goes to China" approach to Iran. The problem with this strategy is that Bush does not have a diplomatic bone in his body. One thing that we could do with a newly elected Congress is to withhold funds for an Iranian offensive until the president replaces Condoleezza Rice and we have a new diplomatic leader in Washington; my recommendation would be Jimmy Carter.

more.......

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/15/212739/417

They will be shooting themselves in the foot economically speaking and hastening an end to the world's oil jones. Please shut down the strait, or better yet, have the Israelis do it under 'pretext' or something.

comments after the article. There are quite a few arabs and persians that say they don't want a war. You might be spoiling for a fight, at least you sound like it but acting like Dubya isn't going to help matters.

Bush is a spoiled child and I think it's overdue that someone says he can't have what he wants just because he demands it. If he even wants to get close he'll have to calm down and ask politely before any of the adults will even pay attention to him.

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=443851

I commend the new leader of Iran in speeding up America speedily ending its oil "jones". Cold turkey would be a far better way to go about things, IMHO. You think Bush is worse that the mullahs; I think these fundies all deserve eachother. None of them care a whit about the rest of the world, just how they'll 'go down', either in history or according to 'the plan' as they see it.

Obviously, on Easter Sunday, I'd like to see them all speaking to eachother (and including those Jews, too !) instead of AT eachother. But we know that's not going to happen with divine intervention.

what immature boys do. It a playground credibility thing.

Incidently the US military was rubbishing the Iranian manuoevres in the Gulf as rather puny and overrated, apparently the Iranians are always exaggerating their military capability. This was almost in the same breath as expecting us all to wet our pants because of the immediate nuclear threat that Iran poses.

I can't take either of them seriously. One of them or both of them are lying. Remember we were supposed to think that Saddam was going to invade the states and murder everyone in their beds ? He was meant to be a clear and immediate threat just like Iran is being portrayed now.

The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb
By Amir Taheri
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml

and

Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power
US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy
by George Monbiot
Tuesday April 20, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

(the only error being that in the 1500s Jesuit Francisco Ribera created the 'futurist' eschatology in order to point the 'antichrist' label away from the papacy during the Reformation; not just during the 1800s as Monbiot supposes).

US, Israeli, and Islamic fundumentalists are driving this conflict to a zero-sum game's conclusion, or delusion, as a nuclear conflagration inevitably results. Someone in the nuclear community should discuss with Iran what they are facing if this continues ... as long as they're patiently weaving those rugs.

Telegraph or as it is jocularly known 'The Daily Torygraph' and is a member of a neocon propaganda group Benador associates, along with other luminaries as Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer ?

The really frightening truth is the Telegraph prints that rubbish.

clearly now, TheBaldyMan. Insrutable orientals or at least near-orientals.

having links to intelligence agencies and oil companies are completely coincidental to their preferment from the Bush regime.

Why would you trust an American Enterprise Institute alumnus before your native common sense?

The media must have prepared the ground expertly if you are so ready to swallow the latest offical press release, contrary to all the facts that state otherwise.

It's WMD and biological warfare trailers all over again. Wake up and look at all the evidence.

not Chalabi or Kharzai, in case you haven't been reading the papers ... the stuff about the occultation and the craziness about the Jews is just too much for the world, let alone you, to ignore.

But I must say, again, that nukes aren't necessary to respond to whatever provocations Iran may make to the US or Israel, just as nukes aren't necessary Iran needs the nukes in the first place. They're free to develop them for peaceful purposes, sure. We all have plenty of time according to Juan Cole's excellent article on 'mickey mouse watches'.

Sabre rattling will get old after awhile. Just you wait and see.

They would gladly trade a little economic hardship for their people (you don't think the mullahs will miss any meals, do you?) for an opportunity to champion World Islam by standing up the Great Satan United States.

The people who will suffer most for sky-rocketing oil prices, as with most problems, will be the people on the very bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Poor people in this country to be sure, but subsistance economies all around the world. We could be talking mass famine in a very short time.

Of course, Iran's leaders will just say, In'ch Allah.