Why do the wingnuts desperately want Obama to attack Iran (Think Progess)?

[agentS]

I was reading this story on Think Progress today and noticed that it's following a narrative running for awhile since the riots ended in Tehran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/08/bolton-iran-military-force/

a quick synopsis

Last week, Iran’s President Mahmoud Amadinejad said Tehran would have “no problem” agreeing on a deal to send its enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment. But today, Iran told the IAEA that it would back out of the deal and begin enriching its uranium stockpile in Iran.

On Fox News today, John Bolton declared that “Iran simply has no intention of being talked out of its nuclear weapons program” and that “very severe sanctions” will not work. Later, when host Gregg Jarrett asked if military action is “the only answer,” Bolton agreed:

JARRETT: Is military force probably in the end the only answer?

BOLTON: There are two outcomes, one is Iran getting its nuclear weapons, the other is Israel or somebody uses military force to stop it. That’s where we are.
But Bolton conveniently never discusses the sobering consequences of military action on Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said war with Iran would be “disastrous” and “the last thing we need.” “There is no military option that does anything more than buy time,” Gates said last year. Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni answered war hawks like Bolton calling for military action against Iran:

After you’ve dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? … ventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.

A top defense official said an attack probably would “incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize” their nuclear material and have “a number of destabilizing” consequences for the region. Bolton actually thinks attacking Iran “would lead to greater stability in the region” but that if anything goes wrong, a simple “campaign of public diplomacy” will sort everything out.

Palin was making similar suggestions last week.

So, can one of you foreign policy experts here weigh in on this matter?

1) Are they nuts or just war hungry? Ain't 2 wars and 1 side action enough for them?
2) The NIE for the past 7 reports has said Iran has NO nuclear weapons program and NO 95% enriched uranium. Where is the threat?
3) Where is the evidence that a War against Iran would stabilize the region? WHERE? Whoever's claiming it, what is their evidence?

[DJ13]

1. Iran is smack in between Iraq and Afghanistan

Maybe its as simple as the imperialist war mongers want a singular piece of ME land in their control?

[Lil Missy]

2. They DON'T want him to attack Iran. That way they can complain about it.

[arcane1]

3. Step 1: convince the fools that Iran is the Greatest Threat Ever

Step 2: declare Obama and the Dems to be soft on terror, and leaving the country open to nuclear attack

[librechik]

4. why do you think? (hint: it's a country that also starts with "I")

[Puzzler]

5. It's a win-win for them

1) If Obama attacks Iran and is even moderately successful, then they have one of their goals achieved.

2) If Obama attacks Iran and we end up with a huge mess, then they'll be happy to, because it'll be Obama's mess.

[louis-t]

6. Hawks like Bolton have the common sense part of their brain

shut off. It doesn't work properly. They only see the egomanic benefits of the attack, never the consequences.

And Thank Yooooooouuuuu for the heart.

[quaker bill]

7. I am going with nuts

Iran is bigger and far better equipped to defend itself. With Iraq we had spent a dozen years carefully dismantling its air defenses, before we invaded. "Shock and Awe" might have cost us a fair number of aircraft if we had not. Iran's air defense has not been degraded.

Iran has an airforce. Not only do they have their own airforce, but they got most of Saddam's airforce during Desert Storm. Now I am sure that their airforce is not as good as ours, but it is vastly better than Iraq's and will put up a fight.

Iran has a significant stockpile of cruise type anti-ship missles, significantly upgraded from those fired on British ships which caused considerable losses in the Faulklands War.

I expect we could "win" a ground assault on Iran, but not quickly, and with significant casualties and losses, the kind we have not seen since Nam or perhaps even earlier. Then comes the occupation, which we have learned is far deadlier than taking the ground in the first place. We would not be able to sustain the cost in blood and treasure for very long at all.

[old mark]

8. I think we should just attack the republicans and get it the fuck over with.

They are more danger to the US than Iran is anyway....


mark

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[invictus]

10. Their unelected president said mean things about Israel. Therefore they must be "annihilated"!

:sarcasm: