Fragen? Antworten! Siehe auch: Alternativlos
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration.Und dafür haben sie ihren "Wir müssen das Atomprogramm stoppen" Bullshit umgebastelt in einen Teil des War on Terror.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.Oh, äh, und der Iran hat Ölreserven.
Der Plan, mit Kritikern umzugehen, ist dann "Clinton hat sowas aber auch getan", und Clinton hat ja tatsächlich Afghanistan, den Sudan, und Bagdad angegriffen, nur halt nicht mit einer ganzen Armee. Die ganze Sache geht offenbar von Cheney aus:
The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”