Guardian's future history on Iran bombing
Timothy Garton Ash has what is in many ways a rather tendentious future history on "what happened" after President Hillary Clinton bombed Iran's nuclear facilities in 2009, having won an election by demonstrating that she was tougher than Jeb Bush and/or John McCain:
Guardian Unlimited: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009
I tend to agree with those who doubt very much that Clinton will ever be chosen as a Democratic presidential candidate, much less get elected. (I doubt Barack Obama will either, for that matter.) Still, the notion that it will lead to a possibly catastrophic terrorist backlash isn't too far-fetched - it will only take a few people to carry off such an operation, after all. And the UK cannot afford a dirty bombing in London. If it hits a major tourist area, it stands a serious chance of making that part of town inaccessible for decades, with a huge knock-on as tourists stay away, and if they are not coming to London then many of them will not be coming at all. It's notable that Blair is now not ruling out participating (there's a surprise), and unlike Bush, is not up for election for up to four years.
Comments
It doesn't much matter who would be US president in such circumstances; with a lunatic who believes his main political purpose is bringing back the lost imam and the last judgment apparently running Iran they'd all respond similarly in such circumstances. The other thing Garton Ash does not consdier is the likely consequences of his imagined Iranian retaliation: Europe and the USA would probably decide that all internal muslims were potential enemies and treat them accordingly.
Posted by: Thersites | April 20, 2006 12:43 PM
I can't understand why there hasn't already been a dirty bomb attack.
Dirty bombs to me seem like an awesome terrorist weapon. Due to public fears of radioactivity, they could cause huge disruption even if the actual death toll was minimal. Most traditional terrorists (ie those following Maoist insurgency doctrine) at least want a lot of disruption, not a lot of dead.
Posted by: George Carty
|
April 20, 2006 4:23 PM
"Europe and the USA would probably decide that all internal muslims were potential enemies and treat them accordingly."
You mean (white?) Europeans and (white?) Americans are racists who can't distinguish between an attack by a foreign nation and its own citizens?
Posted by: thabet | April 22, 2006 6:47 PM