When will Karl Rove decide we should attack Iran?

[techs]

For me it's not a question of if we will attack Iran, but when.
I believe that since the decision has been made the exact timing of the attack is now being chosen for political reasons. Hence, Karl Rove will make the call.
If a head count in late August shows enough Senators will vote to bring the troops home in a few months, the attack will take place before Petraues reports to the Senate in September or early October.
I doubt this scenario.
If the head count shows that the Republicans will only vote for a phased withdrawal with the out that the President can slow down the withdrawal based on his judgement, then the Iran attack will be put off.
Then the attack will take place at the time Rove thinks it will help the Republicans the most in the 08 elections. In fact, September, or early August of next year would be ideal. When Bush attacks Ian the Democratic candidate and most Senators will be obligated to show a united front and support the President. This will push most issues to the back burner, as Republicans will trip over themselves to show support for the President. And this would push all the Republican corruptions, all the terrible policies of the last 8 years to the background. And give the Republicans a chance to win.
If it looks close Bush will wait and attack Iran after the 08 elections and dump the problem on the next President.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Wanna come play golf with me this afternoon?

 

[bamacre]

If we leave Iran alone, wait for the old to die, and the young to take over, Iran won't be a problem.

 

[Conky]

You people need to decide... either Bush is in charge or he is not. You can't have it both ways! :laugh:

 

[StageLeft]

It won't happen. You're living in a fantasy world of trolls and fairies and goblins. Haven't you seen how Iraq has gone? Bush will be out in another year and a half and whoever runs on the platform of lowering/cancelling the Iraq debacle will be the new president, call the troops home, and that's that.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It won't happen. You're living in a fantasy world of trolls and fairies and goblins. Haven't you seen how Iraq has gone? Bush will be out in another year and a half and whoever runs on the platform of lowering/cancelling the Iraq debacle will be the new president, call the troops home, and that's that.

I'm going to invade Rochester and eat all of the Doritos.

 

[Lemon law]

Rove is somewhat a master of political cat herding. And basically calls the next spin line play with attached oil to pour over troubled waters.

But Rove should not be overestimated as a superman. It was his job to come up with an excuse for katrina---and was totally baffled in coming yup with something better than fire a scapegoat and don't talk about it. And I am hoping---mainly vainly---that even Rove knows an Iranian bombing is unsellable. Even though we can bomb Iran back to near the stone age---Iran still has the power to lock down the Persian Gulf---And right about five minutes after oil speculators raise oil prices to the sky---the impeachment of GWB&co. will begin. And Rove knows its almost certain that any Iranian bombing without a really strong provocation is unsellable.----Despite any fantasies that Dick Cheney has.

When the American people start paying $30.00 or better for any gallon for gas---any congressman tempted to support GWB&co. will be quickly disabused of that notion by angry constituents.----right now the money we piss down the rat hole called Iraq is remote---and only 1 in every 2000 American actually serves in the US military in Iraq. Super high gas prices would put us all into the front lines.-----and I hope Rove realizes that---and worries that there would soon be neocons hanging from every lamp post in Washington.

 

[techs]

When I say attack Iran, I am talking about bombing, not invading.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: techs
When will Karl Rove decide we should attack Iran?

When I say attack Iraq, I am talking about bombing, not invading.

Why not just let Israel do that, then back them with "evidence" that they were justified?
Sounds simple enough to me.

 

[Lemon law]

What is this crap---When I say attack Iraq, I am talking about bombing, not invading.

Don't you mean Iran not Iraq----we have already bombed and occupied Iraq---Iran is a different problem because unlike Iraq---Iran is not a paper tiger.

But now Blain raises the let Israel do it question. Which is semi-valid but operationally untenable because the Israeli air force has nothing with the range to be effective in making the number of sorties required to really wound Iran.

And the effects would be the same anyway. The US would catch the blame and oil prices would shoot up sky high as Iran shuts down the Persian gulf.

But then again, maybe Blain has a secret plan to portage oil tankers.

 

[Blain]

"But then again, maybe Blain has a secret plan to portage oil tankers."

After a day of back and forth escalations, Iran wouldn't be able to move their jets.
The next day would put their missle out of action. Three day of US backing the Israeli attack and the oil would be flowing again.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Blain
"But then again, maybe Blain has a secret plan to portage oil tankers."

After a day of back and forth escalations, Iran wouldn't be able to move their jets.
The next day would put their missle out of action. Three day of US backing the Israeli attack and the oil would be flowing again.

I remember when Rummy proposed that the Iraq War might last 6 hours.

 

[Lemon law]

To Blain---who says---After a day of back and forth escalations, Iran wouldn't be able to move their jets.
The next day would put their missle out of action. Three day of US backing the Israeli attack and the oil would be flowing again.

You are as nutty as the nuttiest neocon---even field guns from many places on the Iranian coast can turn oil tankers into floating fireballs. And many of the missiles are dug in or portable. The USA would need boots on the ground to clear a 50 miles strip away from the Gulf coast. And that ignores what the other oil rich States would do when they get the bright idea that they better stop Israel and the US or they will be next. Can you spell oil embargo and a terrorist wet dream. If you think the friendly house of Saud could survive still friendly to the US, you definitely need a reality check. And that also ignores the UN who would also go hyperspastic---and the US would likely be hit with sanctions.

Air power can wound Iran but not blunt their revenge. It would take a couple hundred thousand boots on the ground to open the Persian gulf and keep it open---and the operation would take many months or possibly years.

 

[Blain]

My answer does sounds kind of simplistic, doesn't it?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: techs
When I say attack Iran, I am talking about bombing, not invading.

What's the point of that?

After a day of back and forth escalations, Iran wouldn't be able to move their jets.
The next day would put their missle out of action. Three day of US backing the Israeli attack and the oil would be flowing again.

Nothing like having a bona fide, decorated general in our midst

The USA would need boots on the ground to clear a 50 miles strip away from the Gulf coast.

And hopefully they'd be more effective than the Israelis were last year in Lebanon.