With inevitable certainty, Iran's Next

Anti-war activists such as Cindy Sheehan will again grow with fury since a possible armed conflict with Iran is becoming closer to reality. In a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, it found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran's Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms. While support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

Republicans: 76% of respondents favor potential military confrontation

Democrats: 49% supported such action.

Some respondents believe Iran posed a more serious threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq did.

FT.com - 57% Americans support military action in Iran

* * * * * *

Could this have been avoided? The Western leaders had a momentous opportunity to pursue a workable solution when former Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami was elected in 1997 and re-elected in 2001, and his reformers held control in Parliament. Then again, Khatami had to battle the powerful Guardian Council, whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but lost in many political battles, which led to much dillusionment amongst his followers, and the reformers lost power. But regardless of that, there was perhaps a period of 2-3 years where the Western nations, particularly the United States, could have taken advantage of the situation in this Middle Eastern country.

Now the West has to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new President of Iran, who has been busy taunting the entire international community about his anti-Holocaust views, the destruction of Israel, and his frequent declarations that his country has the right to pursue nuclear power and the right to enrich uranium.

The US had given the Big-3 (UK, France, Germany) to work out a deal with Iran, but those talks finally broke down after 2 years of effort. Only the Russian proposal where it would provide enriched uranium to Iran, for exclusive use in energy reactors, remains a possibility, but this may also fail if the United States and other Western governments refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If so, Iran would seek to break off all negotiations and would unilaterally start breaking its remaining seals and restart its enrichment process. Even if the matter was referred to the UNSC, an agreement on economic sanctions is highly undoubtful if China does not go along with it. Iran is a major energy supplier to China, and despite 2 to 3 years of negotiations, the populous Chinese country wants more talking to be done.

Newsflash! Iran's top nuclear negotiator spent only 12 hours in Beijing on Thursday, and has managed to get key Chinese support. Ali Larijani stated that, "The Chinese government is opposed to bringing the Iranian nuclear issue from the IAEA to the UNSC and they believe the issue should be solved within the framework of the IAEA." (Article from the Edmonton Sun)

With China siding with Iran, an agreement within the Security Council on economic sanctions and military intervention is impossible. Also, Iran is threatening an oil embargo against the Western nations. This possible doomsday scenario may push oil prices up to $131/barrel, a level which could trigger economic recession or collapse around the globe. (Of course, analysts realistically believe it would not happen and that OPEC will step in, but then they are already pumping at near 100% production.)

The end result? Another unilateral military intervention by the United States or another "coalition of the willing," which may be even quite smaller than the group that participated in Iraq. But don't worry, the US can easily say we are doing this to foster freedom and democracy or perhaps you can get the good President Bush to say "the actions by the Islamic nation of Iran poses a threat to the national security of the United States of America."

Yes, conservatives will be happy about it. Liberals will hate it. Looking at the bigger picture, there are indeed questions we must answer. Can we afford it? Nope, so more deficit spending (years of $400-500 billion deficits will continue). What about Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half? Well, we got another war so there's nothing he can do about it. Do we have the manpower? Rumsfield says we do ...right..., and Saddam's our friend in the Iran-Iraq War. What if Syria helps out Iran? Well, I guess the US has to take over Syria. What if China sends troops to Iran? Don't worry, China's military has pretty old equipment, we can knock them out too. (Ok, maybe a few of the military analysts in the Pentagon would not discount the ability of the Chinese military.) So if the US invades Iran, and the Iranians start blowing up oil wells and refineries? Post-war plans? How much more to spend? Questions and questions keep popping up in my mind.

Another clusterfu*k waiting to happen.