Someone needs to explain the various interests in Iran & how they would be affected by an attack....

[Blackhatjack]

Very briefly and superficially:

China has a growing economy increasingly dependent on new sources of oil. China has many contracts for oil and oil exploration with Iran's present government. If the US were to attack Iran and depose the present Regime, present oil contracts for output and exploration would effectively be cancelled. Not to mention that a US presence in Iran, if that were to happen, would essentially affect every oil contract that China has with Middle Eastern countries. Their interests would be threatened by a US attack, and we need not expect them to wait patiently on the sidelines while we act militarily against China.

Russia is another major player in the Middle East. Russia has the oil exploration and output know how since they sit on one of the world's largest oil reserves --and oil drives their economy as well. They are not the power they were when part of the Soviet Union, but they are the regional tough guy. Russia could actually benefit from a US attack on Iran as long as their ability to ship oil is not affected --since scarcity would drive up the price. However, Russia is very wary of allowing the US to assert dominance over oil in the Middle East by military means because the US would have other countries at their mercy, which would limit Russian efforts to build economic ties with other countries for its own self interests.

Saudi Arabia would undoubtedly suffer if such an attack occurs. The muslim extremists might unite in an anti-American conflict, and the Royal Family might be deposed. Saudi Arabia's oil fields are particularly vulnerable to attack, and those oil fields provide the US with a huge amount of imported oil.

The Iran-Syria-Lebanon relationship will drag all three into the conflict, and will set themselves to counter not only the US but the Israelis.

Moderate Middle Eastern countries will deal with their own uprisings.

THe US will be vulnerable at home to terrorists attacks, and with so many troops on the ground in Iraq they will be 'sitting ducks' to conventional attacks.

IF such an attack occurs, IMHO tension will ratchet up rather than recede once the first bombs are dropped. The UN will be powerless to enforce efforts to head off further conflict given the opposing positions of members of the UN Security Council.

Just my two cents.

[lovuian]

1. Oh there is more than that WWIII is at stake here

thats what your knowing and worrying about WWIII

[whistle]

2. Well, another war would benefit big banks, arms manufactures and war profiteers

...and one can easily see how an explosive massive bombing attacks followed by an invasion into a country with three times the population of Iraq would run up costs and deficits of $1.5 to $2.0 trillion very quickly for the U.S.

[The Stranger]

3. You name just about every country with an interest at stake, except one.

Want to try again?

[Blackhatjack]

6. There are several I did not mention ... want to fill us in on the others?

Take a swing at Turkey, Britain, the 'stans of Asia, Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, etc.

Of this short list, Turkey has already aligned itself with Iranian attacks on Iraqi Kurds. An attack on Iran would bring unpredictable results given the recent election of a Muslim leader and a country composed of mainly secularists.

[soothsayer]

4. we already warned china we would bomb iran's oil pipes to cut off china for

a month or so. If we attack Iran, it's because we are trying to keep China from dumping our currency. They already attacked it last Thanksgiving (along with the UK and the iranians and syrians, who attacked in waves when the US markets were closed, plunging the dollar into a freefall and boosting the euro and the pound, making somebody a fortune) and then the chinese threatened to dump $1 trillion in US dollars, which caused the yen to jump off a cliff (and didn't bottom out until this Feb). This all has to do with a several trillion dollar note that comes due in Sept, which the US is supposed to pay but doesn't want to. It's old money that Reagan used to destroy the USSR economy (which he did thru a coordinated attack on the ruble---making oodles of counterfeit rubles---and destroying the credit rating which went from 4A to 4F in a really really short time. So it's a very complicated story but basically somehow China is owed a bunch of money and we are defaulting on it. We sent out whole top economic team to china last xmas to deliver the news in person that we would bomb iran (bernanke said "how would you like to go without oil for a month?" and the chinese said "that's crazy, you would never do that" and bernanke says "have you met my boss?." So we need to attack Iran before the end of Sept (i think it's the end anyway) so all the * talk you hear on Iran is PROLLY just sabre rattling to make China back off, or else we really truly will attack because China is threatening to tank our economy.

On edit, an upcoming movie (Charlie Wilson's War, starring Tom Hanks) is going to cover some of this. I don't know if it will go into the bit about the missing $4.5 trillion (Leo Wanta's money---that was supposed to be used to prop up the russian economy and then the US economy but instead we let the mob take over Russia----poppy/rockefeller are said to be making alot of money as a result) and so Wanta tried to repatriate the money into the US but they had him jailed instead and then China threatened to pay back the $4.5 trillion if the US won't and that's why we are really mad at China now (I've been wondering why all these anti-china trade stories are in the news---you know there's more than meets the eye, don't you, that suddenly evil china is in the nooz?) and oh it's very very complicated but ends with the NWO and the rise of Germany (something is expected to happen this Nov) as the dominant NWO power, leading to the creepy World Mark as the big NWO currency (not the pathetic dollar, which is intentionally being gutted).

[MADem]

5. The Saudis would be happy, not suffering, if a Shah-ish regime returned to Iran

Then they'd go back to the Three Pillars strategy of yore and they'd work WITH the new Shah to set prices and output. They'd also have someone "in place" who wasn't interested in first, overthrowing the House of Saud, and second, assuming control of the Holy Places.

It would have to be BabyShah, though--Reza, with a President and PM and a majlis, like the old days, only more "Democrat-ish." A bit more appearance of democracy, but with that charming veneer of strongman-King; the Constitutional Monarchy at work and play.

The Saudis would feign disinterest, but they'd be OVERJOYED if the Shi'a Guardian Council and that whacky midget Ahmadinejad were sent packing--or better still, 'put down' so they can't get any more 'ideas' about Makkah OR Medina.

I keep saying this really IS a no-shit Holy War. Those "Muslims" aren't united at all. Don't make the same mistake BushCo made. The Shi'a and Sunni need almost no excuses to get at each other's throats when the going gets rough.