Prediction: Us To Attack Iran By 2008 - Political Forum

CHUQ · 12-07-2006, 05:06 AM

STOCKHOLM: Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked secret Pentagon documents during the Vietnam war, said on Wednesday that he believed the US would attack Iran before 2008 and urged Washington insiders to make new disclosures to prevent a new war.

Ellsberg, who is one of four recipients of this year’s Right Livelihood Award, often dubbed the “Alternative Nobels,” being presented in Stockholm this week, also urged US allies to threaten to withdraw from the Nato alliance if nuclear weapons are used against Iran. “It is more likely than not, in the next two years, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will direct an attack on Iran,” Ellsberg said at a news conference for the Right Livelihood laureates.

Do we have a concensus?

The News - International

CHUQ · 12-07-2006, 06:03 AM

I agree with you, the Cato, seems to have its own agenda. While I have read some of their reports that made good sense, this one is a tap dance.

francois60 · 12-07-2006, 07:57 AM

Not gonna happen. If Iran is attacked, it will be by Israel.

A less likely, but more diplomatically slick option would be to put American pilots in Saudi planes and attack the facilities. With SAudi Arabia claiming responsibility, of course. That's an ancient Soviet trick and it works like a charm as long as no one gets shot down.

CHUQ · 12-07-2006, 08:24 AM

I think that trick has been used recently as the Lebanon conflict. I do not think Saudi panes would be used similpy because of the Sunni-Shi'a thing.

francois60 · 12-07-2006, 12:04 PM

The Saudis are more concerned about Iran's intentions than just about anyone. If they had the skill, they'd probably try to do it themselves.

francois60 · 12-07-2006, 12:05 PM

It's actually politically easiest for an Arab state to do it. The condemnation from the international community would be somewhere between little and none, and it wouldn't inflame the Muslim world like an attack by the US or Israel would. Muslims are used to and have learned to tolerate inter-faith fighting.

CHUQ · 12-07-2006, 12:53 PM

IMO any attack would be disastrous.

francois60 · 12-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Attacks are disastrous all the time. They should only be undertaken if the alternative is worse.

A nuclear Iran could be a disaster for the region. My own view is that if Israel or the Saudis consider it enough of a threat, they'll deal with it. We can help if they ask, but otherwise it's primarily their backyard and thus their problem.

francois60 · 12-07-2006, 09:40 PM

I can't see Saudi Arabia attacking Iran. They are still two muslim countries. I know that muslims fought each other all the time in the past, but it's a different world today. I think the populace of Saudi Arabia don't want to see two Muslims fighting each other. They would probably view it as being puppets for US foreign policy.

The hatred and mistrust between Persians and Arabs, and Sunnis and Shiites, go back a long way. There is also a lot of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia over oil quotas.

Gumbercules · 12-08-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

With regards to us attacking Iran, I do think that our current position in Iraq, and how an attack on Iran would make it more difficult there, I would have to say that I do not forsee an attack on Iran anytime within the next few years. It's too politically difficult to get the support for an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

I wouldn't rule out an attack on Iran in the near future. Depending on what course we take in Iraq. If we pull out the odds are good that the Shiite majority will takover with support from Iran. But the Saudis will provide some form of logistical support for the Sunnis. The Shiites will probably win just because of sheer numbers. We then have a nuclear Iran in control of alot of the world's oil and in a prime position to attack Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We're going to be involved over there for a while no matter what happens though.