[Marxism] Why Bombing Iran Would Mean Invading Iran

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 09:25:09 MST 2012


Between bombing and 'occupation' there is a lot leeway for tactical
pressure on Iran. All involve of course massive retaliation, asymmetrically
or otherwise, by Iran.

The US could occupy Iran's oil export/fuel import facilities and defend
them somewhat easily. This would crippled Iran economically.
Israel/Amercian mercenaries could do 'target' occupation-to-sabotage of
specific facilities. Expect lots of casualties there. They could occupy
small but other strategically vital areas of Iran as well. I don't think a
full on invasion if 150,000 American troops is realistic. One that would be
used, as Sen. Reed suggest, to remove the "machinery of state", that is,
regime change. Iran's gov't has a mass base, a real one, and a defensive
capability that would put Saddam Hussein's "Republican Guard" to shame.

I think the US/Israel axis could do some damage as noted in the Atlantic
article, with only the "hope" that Iran would back down. But the reaction,
also noted by the writer at Atlantic could be to hyper accelerate it's
n-bomb development, kick out all IAEA inspectors *forever* and wage a very
expensive war against U.S. interests around the world.



More information about the Marxism mailing list