US vs Iran
ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.”
And as though there weren’t enough people in the White House pushing for war, Israel sent its war-addict Mr Netanyahu to advise Mr. Cheney and others on Iran; as though they needed encouragement.
“Israeli Opposition leader and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with US Vice President Dick Cheney and leading American senators Tuesday to offer advice on dealing with Iran.”
In US the Neocons talk about a pre-emptive attack as though it will have no consequences for the US and the region, not to mention the world economy. On paper US military is overwhelmingly stronger than Iran’s. Total US defence-related spending will rise this year to over $500bn; Iran allocated $4.4bn to defence in 2005. Is it possible that the Neocons are thinking that an attack on Iran will be a “walk in the park”? It is obvious that Iran cannot match US weapons, technology and expertise. However, it would be wrong (based on this disparity) to draw the conclusion that, in the event of an air attack, Iran would shy away from a confrontation with the US or that it will not take the fight to US forces in the region or that it will not disrupt the flow of oil from the region. If countries just looked at the weapon systems and defence budgets, no-one would ever challenge US or any other big power. But we have seen the limits of big defence budgets in for example, Vietnam (USA), Korea (US/UN), and Afghanistan (UK, USSR, US/Nato). It would be a folly to think that this is going to be only a short air campaign. The law of unintended consequences creates endless possibilities for unsavoury by-products.
Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar