Re: VDH II

"A third, and often unmentionable, course is to allow the most likely intended target of nuclear Iran, Israel, to take matters into its own hands. We know this scenario from the 1981 destruction of Saddam’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor: the world immediately deplores such “unilateral” and “preemptory” recklessness, and then sighs relief that Israel, not it, put the bell on the fanged cat. "

"Saddam French" é mencionado. A ajuda a Saddam numa guerra suja contra o Irão fica enterrada, claro. Agora, porque raio iria o Irão atacar Israel que deveter cerca de 200 ogivas nucleares contruidas em segredo e fora do acordo de não-proliferação?

"But 2006 is not 1981. We are in war with Islamic radicalism, at the moment largely near the Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy. Thousands of Americans are in range of Iranian artillery and short-term missile salvoes, and, in theory, we could face in Iraq a conventional enemy at the front and a fifth column at the rear."

Pois, mas os "Iraqi Shiites" são um problema criado pelo próprio VDH, isso e o "ethnic cleasing" a que os Sunistas têm sido sujeitos. Divertem-se a acabar com os insurgentes nacionalistas mas quem vai sobreviver são a AlQaeda e o Shiitas.

"If the Israeli raids did not take out the entire structure, or if there were already plutonium present in undisclosed bunkers, then the Iranians might shift from their sickening rhetoric and provide terrorists in Syria and Lebanon with dirty bombs or nuclear devices to “avenge” the attack as part of a “defensive” war of “striking back” at “Israeli aggression”. Europeans might even shrug at any such hit, concluding that Israel had it coming by attacking first."

Tipico dircurso de apelo ao medo irracional. Os Nazis faziam o mesmo em relação aos judeus e eslavos. Mas é verdade que um ataque Israelita poderá desencadear o inferno. Mas a culpa será de quem, de quem reage a um ataque (na mais pura tradição de blitzrieg israelita) ou de quem ataca?

"After Iraq, a hit on Iran would confirm to the Middle East Street a disturbing picture of American preemptory wars against Islamic nations.

Tem toda a razão meu caro. É olhar para o mapa e ver quem tropas onde, e quem ocupa quem. West Bank/etc, Iraque, Afeganistão, Arabia Saudita, etc. Se me puderem esclarecer sobre o perigo militar da invasão islâmica do mundo através de um mapa eu agradecia. Tudo isto por causa de um golpe de sorte de terrorismo ideológico de Bin Laden, que pouco apoio tem efectivo, e cujos regimes árabes querem combater pelo significado subversivo que contém contra os Estados Árabes.

"Experts warn that we are not talking about a Clintonian one-day cruise-missile hit, or even something akin to General Zinni’s 1998 extended Operation Desert Fox campaign"

Estará a falar de um missel sobre um fábrica de aspirinas no meio do affair "Monica"?

"The Europeans and the Americans right now must accelerate their efforts and bring the crisis to a climax at the Security Council to force China and Russia publicly to take sides. India, Pakistan, and the Arab League should all be brought in and briefed on the dilemma, and asked to go on record supporting U.N. action. "

É lógico que quem até agora construiu armas nucleares e misseis em segredo pretende autoridade moral para impedir os outros de o fazer.

"Finally, the public must be warned that dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come."

E aqui está. "Le piece de resistance". A escolha entre dois males. Tipo Estaline e Hitler (sabemos qual foi o resultado...para Estaline).