"But Baer does not advocate military force against Iran. “We can't afford it,” he said. “It would require one million soldiers on the ground. It's a large country with a large army and there's an ongoing revolution. It would be like hitting a hornet's nest.” Air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are hugely problematic because “Iran could retaliate in multiple ways, from sabotage in Iraq to targeting Persian Gulf oil facilities. If that happens, we could be seeing oil prices go to $300 a barrel.”I'm not at all familiar with baer's work - including not having seen syriana. it's kinda odd that he singles out Perle - and also kinda odd that he notes that their intention wasnt to benefit iran.
Like other analysts, Baer says Iran has been by far the biggest winner of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which has also increased Teheran's standing in other parts of the Middle East, especially where there are large Shiite populations. Meanwhile, the Saudis and other Gulf states “lost their shield against Iran, which was Saddam Hussein.”
“The Perles and the Rumsfelds didn't intend to benefit Iran,” said Baer. “But that's what happened.”"
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Baeriana: a chat with Robert Baer
* ken interviews bob baer:
Posted by lukery at 6/22/2006 01:52:00 PM