and later the transcript will be posted on the same site.
Asked what he thought the main policy response would be to the election loss by the Bush administration, he put a case that it would be to attack Iran, probably with theatre nuclear weapons.
The arguments about attacking Iran have been explored previously, but Carr puts this potential policy in the context of reaction to his changed situation, after the elections. Therefore it seems a new context for the Iran discussions.
Carr suggests that Bush will not take the Iraq mess as an indication that fighting on two fronts is not good policy and he will still be willing to start a third front.
If you use the oil price as a proxy for this possibility, the financial markets do not seem to think this is imminent.
One rather ominous comment that Carr made was that the cause for a war with Iran might be manufactured - with memories of WMDs and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that is not a happy thought.
The remainder of the interview contains interesting points, but the Iran issue has potential to be the most important if it is true.
Oh yes, before someone tells me, yes Bob Carr was leader of the NSW Labour party. But before you all get out the socialist slurs, he resigned as a row blew up over his use of Public-Private partnerships to construct infrastructure in Sydney, more a capitalist fault than a socialist one??
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
Quoting Baroque (Thread starter): Carr suggests that Bush will not take the Iraq mess as an indication that fighting on two fronts is not good policy and he will still be willing to start a third front.
Someone (Carr) is using some good sh*t if they really believe this nonsense.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 10648 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3205 times:
It's springtime in OZ now and the sun is beginning to burn down again and the ozone hole is stil existing and indeed, God knows what Carr may have smoked.l .
A lame duck President nukeing Iran - even if he thinks about that, Condy will talk him out of it, she would not want to have that stain on her blouse. As much as the lot of us would not want Iran becoming a nuclear power, that President is not going to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Why should he? If it really gets scary, the Israelis will do that job anyhow.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3200 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2): A lame duck President nukeing Iran - even if he thinks about that, Condy will talk him out of it, she would not want to have that stain on her blouse. As much as the lot of us would not want Iran becoming a nuclear power, that President is not going to order a pre-emptive nuclear stri
While Carr is a keen bushwalker and various weeds do abound in the bush, he appears to be a confirmed non-smoker. Are we sure that Condy can out manoeuvre Chaney?
What else do lame ducks do, one might ask? How about the bombing of Cambodia?
Glad so hear Halls thinks it is impossible, now would you be so kind as to go to W and explain it to him as well.
ArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3167 times:
The threat of another Bush war is less now. The forces are spread thin, they are stressed, the is no public will for more war. And the Dems have oversight powers now. He can't get away with so much bullshit propaganda now.
jenting, you're still welcome to support your assertion that the President does not have the ability to torture, and hold foreigners without judicial oversight?
Coz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
Neither Bush, nor the republicans have the political clout to wage an attack (let alone a nuclear one) on Iran. The mess in Iraq needs to be dealt with as a first priority before the US gets into another ridiculous mess. Furthermore, this is an international problem. The rest of the world has the ability to deal with Iran appropriately; there's no reason for the US to go it alone on such an issue.
Any attack on Iran would most likely be primarily from the air, using fighters and bombers, with some special forces as well-maybe to secure some of Iran's oil fields down by the Gulf.
As for Bush's ambition, I don't think that's waned, but with a new reality in Congress, and one that won't simply rubber-stamp such an adventure, I don't think it'll happen, unless Iran truly provokes it.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 3047 times:
Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 5): jenting, you're still welcome to support your assertion that the President does not have the ability to torture, and hold foreigners without judicial oversight?
I won't hold my breath.
A bit off thread, but it seems there are rumblings in ?Germany to bring a prosecution about torture. No doubt it will get nowhere, apart from restricting Rummies ability to attend the next Passion Play, or better still The Ring Cycle at Bayreuth (hope I spelled that correctly or I will be hanged in effigy by Klaus!).
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9): As for Bush's ambition, I don't think that's waned, but with a new reality in Congress, and one that won't simply rubber-stamp such an adventure, I don't think it'll happen, unless Iran truly provokes it.
That is one way the cookie could crumble, and the other way is the one that Carr (to be fair) half predicts.
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 10): For six years, George Bush has blissfully toked away while cruising along on a surrealistic Magical Mystery Tour.
Well, this week the bus threw a rod. The rest of the tour is cancelled.
I think you must have read the transcript and you need promotion to full Chief Mark. That was sort of what Carr commented in his summary of the Bush style.
I hope the optimists are correct because having a dab at Iran will make Iraq seem like a cake walk. This time the problem would not be military, it would be economic. Unless Iran is devastated, it will block the Straits of Hormuz. And if it is devastated that will still take about 2 million barrels a day off the market.
It will be interesting to see how the Dems and W mark out their territories, it seems that the Dems will "own" the nomination for the UN ambassador. One gathers that the Aus Wheat Board is likely to come above the horizon again, and that has potential to be a blessing for Labor here. But that is not likely to be near the end of Dem ambition and how will W react to someone taking a mower to his very own lawns? We shall see no doubt.
I must say I thought that attacking Iran would be what Artie suspected would be his October surprise (well I thought about April - May). The worry is that regardless of how tied up the ground forces are, the airforces could still carry out an attack that would really annoy the Iranians.