COCKBURN IN THE NATION: DON'T DISMISS IDEA OF BUSH ATTACKING IRAN

Alexander Cockburn writes (subscription required) in The Nation for September 24, 2007, "Will the US Really Bomb Iran?" Cockburn gives the pros and cons and his own misgivings:

"Despite the unending stream of stories across the months announcing that an attack on Iran is on the way, I've had my doubts. Amid the housing slump here, with the possibility of an inflationary surge as the credit balloon threatens to burst, would the government really want to see the price of gas at the pump go over $5? What would Hugo Chávez do? Even a hiccup in flows from Venezuela would paralyze refineries here, specifically designed for Venezuelan crude. China has a big stake in Iran. It's also Uncle Sam's banker. The Chinese don't have to destroy the dollar, merely squeeze its windpipe or revalue their currency enough to double retail prices at Wal-Mart. The Republicans and the presidential candidates wouldn't want that on the edge of an election year."

However, Cockburn cannot be sure the neo-con hawks including Bush will think as rationally as he. Bush and Cheney may decide to finish out their administration with one last desperate irrational act. Considering the arguments pro and con, on balance, Cockburn cannot dismiss the possibility of a catastrophic attack:

"The other side of the ledger isn't hard to fill in either. The Chinese are a prudent lot and don't want to rock the world economy. Politically, both they and the Russians would like to see the United States compound the disaster in Iraq and get into a long-term mess in Iran. Sarkozy has finished off Gaullist independence. France has clambered into Uncle Sam's hind pocket and David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, has confirmed Britain's continued residence in an adjacent aperture. Israel wants an attack on Iran, and the Israel lobby calls the shots in US foreign policy. What Israel wants, Israel gets. The American peace movement is in disarray, and sizable gobbets of it would be delighted to see bombs shower down on the woman-hating ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust denier. With the United States battering the Iranian sponsors of the Shiites, the Sunnis in Iraq would further abate their attacks, seeing a chance to recoup from the disaster of the elections of early 2005, which put the Shiite-Kurdish coalition in charge . . . "

"Weigh it all up, and you'd be foolish to bet that an attack on Iran couldn't happen. The peace movement had better pull itself together, remembering as it does so that should the bombs start to fall on Tehran, most of the Democrats in Congress will be on their feet, cheering."

So don't just dismiss the crazy idea of attacking Iran. The worst part, as Cockburn indicates, is that many of our elected Democratic representatives would be among the most ardent and vocal supporters for this irrational and unjustified and illegal attack upon Iran.