A few nukes on Tehran would take care of Iran as a viable modern nation, Persians, and to a large extent Shiites for good. It is the only possible way to achieve the fever dreams of America, and Israel, and the Saudi's too when you come right down to it. I consider this well within the realm of probability. Much higher with a Republican in the White House of course.
I am not sure why it is suppressed but the hard right of old, today's center, thought not nuking Russia and China in the late 40's early 50's was insane and traitorous. All roads of the right lead to the US beginning to use nuclear weapons.
These are black thoughts but they should be put on the table. It's an unstated subtext to many things now. Although Bush specifically did not rule out the use of nukes against Iran. Strange how that is forgotten.
I am completely puzzled by this analysis. I assume that the entire idea of a limited attack on Iran is to provoke Iranian attacks on American forces and assets. Then, bloody shirt in hand we will be free to massively attack from the air Tehran and other cities with spill over into unrestrained attacks and violence against any Muslim 'enemy' anywhere in the world.
If America cannot 'win' in Afghanistan or Iraq then American politics demands that somebody pay. The Iranians without any friends anywhere in the world will take the brunt of the punishment. By having a state actor instead of stateless terrorists as the enemy a victory of sorts can be crafted by massively damaging a nation, Iran.
A number of American deaths at the hands of Iran would provide backward justification for the previous wars and the torture and everything else that has gone under the rubic of the war on terror.
A sudden oil price spike would provide political cover for continued economic weakness and motivation for massive monetary stimulus.
I am going to take some license and theorize Bush was thinking more in terms of winning the wars which would lead to a generation long GOP majority rule which in turn would lead to all their policy dreams of near no taxes or regulation and of course more generalized confidence. All of which spelled, in his mind, economic boom.
I suppose there is something to this daydream. If the wars had cost a trillion less and lead to an America loving Iraq pumping millions of bbls. or oil a year that alone would have had significant macro economic effects. Of course the whole thing was a juvenile daydream. As were the dreams of crony capitalism backed by military victories and a smirking strutting leader being a formula for economic paradise.
I think even Bush was smart enough to realize the massive fiscal stimulus of major wars were not going to achieve the conservative economic dream. Just the opposite. He really hoped it would be done on the cheap and that the second and third order effects were what was going to bring about GOP economic Nirvana.
A few nukes on Tehran would take care of Iran as a viable modern nation, Persians, and to a large extent Shiites for good. It is the only possible way to achieve the fever dreams of America, and Israel, and the Saudi's too when you come right down to it. I consider this well within the realm of probability. Much higher with a Republican in the White House of course.
I am not sure why it is suppressed but the hard right of old, today's center, thought not nuking Russia and China in the late 40's early 50's was insane and traitorous. All roads of the right lead to the US beginning to use nuclear weapons.
These are black thoughts but they should be put on the table. It's an unstated subtext to many things now. Although Bush specifically did not rule out the use of nukes against Iran. Strange how that is forgotten.
I am completely puzzled by this analysis. I assume that the entire idea of a limited attack on Iran is to provoke Iranian attacks on American forces and assets. Then, bloody shirt in hand we will be free to massively attack from the air Tehran and other cities with spill over into unrestrained attacks and violence against any Muslim 'enemy' anywhere in the world.
If America cannot 'win' in Afghanistan or Iraq then American politics demands that somebody pay. The Iranians without any friends anywhere in the world will take the brunt of the punishment. By having a state actor instead of stateless terrorists as the enemy a victory of sorts can be crafted by massively damaging a nation, Iran.
A number of American deaths at the hands of Iran would provide backward justification for the previous wars and the torture and everything else that has gone under the rubic of the war on terror.
A sudden oil price spike would provide political cover for continued economic weakness and motivation for massive monetary stimulus.
I am going to take some license and theorize Bush was thinking more in terms of winning the wars which would lead to a generation long GOP majority rule which in turn would lead to all their policy dreams of near no taxes or regulation and of course more generalized confidence. All of which spelled, in his mind, economic boom.
I suppose there is something to this daydream. If the wars had cost a trillion less and lead to an America loving Iraq pumping millions of bbls. or oil a year that alone would have had significant macro economic effects. Of course the whole thing was a juvenile daydream. As were the dreams of crony capitalism backed by military victories and a smirking strutting leader being a formula for economic paradise.
I think even Bush was smart enough to realize the massive fiscal stimulus of major wars were not going to achieve the conservative economic dream. Just the opposite. He really hoped it would be done on the cheap and that the second and third order effects were what was going to bring about GOP economic Nirvana.