yesyesyes (:lol:)MacG wrote: Nonono, I agree with the various pretexts to *initiate* an assault on Iran, but who -in their right minds- would pursue it considering the imediate consequences?
....
I agree with everything you say, until:
Which for me is the crux - the fact that conflict with Iran would cause such a world crisis IS THE REASON TO DO IT.The whole thing look like a hornets nest, and the only wise thing to do is to avoid poking poles into it.
Say the US tomorrow launched an all-out attack out of the blue, what effect would this have on world opinion? It would be very very bad, and the US public wouldn't like it either.
But say something happens - take your pick, an attack in the US blamed on iran, a US warship in iranian waters gets fired on, really you name it, think Gulf of Tonkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident - and the US can use that to "legitimise" a response, even a small one like air strikes but builds into a bigger and bigger conflict, how would that look then?
Many people like us would see through such a cover-story, but it would suffice as a basis for heavy-spin which would offset world opinion.
The fact that this would make things so bad in the region and the world would then give the us FAR MORE leaverage to extend the conflict then it might have had otherwise.
They need the biggest, badest, crisis they can can in order to justify going further with the overall campaign.
Could the US occupy the oil-rich regions of Iran out of the blue? Maybe. Could they do this off the back of a full-blown world energy crisis with Iran openly turning off the oil......
The worse the crisis the further the US can go - and alas probably UK forces also
