Iran attack would be deadly for troops
Taking the baton from Sy Hersh's latest -- in which he contends that Bush/Cheney were essentially helping Israel's Hezbollah attack as a stalking horse for a US war in Iran [VIDEO] -- Juan Cole issues a stern warning to those who think this may be a good idea (bold in original):
Let me say this loud and clear, drawing on Pat Lang. Any US attack on Iran could well lead to the US and British troops in Iraq being cut off from fuel and massacred by enraged Shiites. Shiite irregulars could easily engage in pipeline and fuel convoy sabotage of the sort deployed by the Sunni guerrillas in the north. Without fuel, US troops would be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks that US air power could not hope completely to stop (as the experience of Israel with Hizbullah in Lebanon demonstrates). A pan-Islamic alliance of furious Shiites and Sunni guerrillas might well be the result, spelling the decisive end of Americastan in Iraq.Cole has a source who informs us that Rumsfeld is attempting, unsuccessfully so far, to convince Bush and Rice that attacking Iran would be disastrous for the troops in Iraq.
But for a team that never understood why the Iraq War itself would be disastrous and who never seemed to get the difference between Sunni and Shiite, it's hard to see where they would've learned anything. Cole's source writes:
Rumsfeld is very uneasy with the unquestioning support for the Israeli offensive because of the impact it will have on American troops in Iraq. His point to Bush and Rice is that Iraq's Shias will not stand by while their Lebanese Shia brothers are destroyed...So which is it? Will Bush support the troops or will he invade Iran? (JuanCole)