^ I'm sure you're both right about Schell and Schelling, and that you both know much more about the ideas and theories mentioned than I do. The point of posting the second article wasn't really to forward either of their ideas, nor was it to compare the current situation with the cold war - I was only trying to bolster the main thesis of the first article by illustrating that the notion of a leader possibly deliberately creating the impression of being a nut case for political advantage is nothing new.
"As for the Iranian government, getting a nuke is more about global public relations."
I agree, but no one really knows for sure.
What do you think - do you buy Porteous' main assertion? Is Ahmadinejad posing as a loon, or is he a real loon? Or perhaps a bit o' both? And what do you think is going to happen? Iran gets the bomb? Israeli air strikes? A pre-emptive nuking? Or something else?
My personal prediction (though who the hell knows - it is hard to see exactly where this is going) ...
Major terrorist event in the US by the end of this year, probably sooner rather than later. As a result, expansion of ground war in Iraq into Syria and regime change there. Massive aerial bombardment of Iran, including nuclear strikes. Probably no ground invasion there and no regime change (for now). After that, anyone's guess.
I base that in part of this...
www.amconmag.com/2005_08_...icle3.html
Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative, Aug 1/05:
"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
Unsubstantiated, natch. But hardly far-fetched, given the response to 9/11.