[lbo-talk] Hersh on Bush & Iran

[Gar Lipow]

On 4/11/06, Sean Johnson Andrews <inciteinsight at hotmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, it seems that Doug was talking about people who knew
> something about Iraq.  It now seems, in hindsight, that a pretty good test
> for the people who actually did know something about Iraq are the people who
> predicted the civil war--and, within the administration, many of those folks
> were ignored or fired.  Not that this helps with predictions about Iran. I
> doubt Bush consulted LBO-Talk at all, but an interesting point on that front
> as well (I wasn't watching this list, but haven't seen any mea culpa's
> lately.)
>
> Still I am not sure whether the question is if it would be crazy to use a
> tactical nuke (or stupid or a "miscalculation") or if the current
> administration is that crazy/stupid/inept.

I think partly the question is of goal. Assume for the moment that
there primary goals are weatlh and power for themselves, their friends
and supporters, and the Republican party as a bigger entity than just
"friends and supporters".  (I don't include "capitalism", because I
doubt this administration thinks in that way.)

I don't think most of them worry about foreign policy consequences in 
the conventional sense.  Whatever the temporary inconveniences Iraq
brings, (and I'd bet that is how Iraq is thought of in the
administration) I don't  think they have lost their sense of
invincibility. Win domestically and you can turn the rest of the world
around; if the rest of the world temporarily turns against us so much
better; if the whole world denouches the U.S., the  Arabs take the hit
and switch to the Euro, our creditors take the hit and start selling
our paper - well we (to the administrations mind) are better able to
take the ecoomic consequence than they are. And the whole world  being
against us is a great scapegoat to  rally the  people of the U.S.
behind  us. And if the rest of the world  does  not get  back  in
their  rightful place (behind the U.S.) well we have nukes to force
them back.

Is the Bush administration really thinking like this?  Not being a
mind reader, I can't be sure. But anyone think there is not a one in
ten shot they are thinking exactly on these lines? One in twenty? one
in hundred? Anyone think there is not at least a 1% shot that
something like this is their logic? If so the question of bombing and 
even nuclear bombing of Iran will has  zero to do with any evaluation
of  the what is will happen outside the U.S.  If this guess is right
then it will be 100%  determined by domestic politics  - both whether
there will be bombing (which I'm guessing they have already decide or
are at least leaning heavily towards) and as to whether that bombing
will be nuclear.

Which leads back to a conclusion that I'm sure most of us  have
reached for  these or other  reasons - that we have to make the
domestic political price of bombing Iran as high as we are able. Don't
think  it likely that we can stop it; but we do need to try.