More Iran rumblings

[Ocotillo]

link

War Clouds, Plus -- Worst Idea Ever

Fred Kaplan wonders if the "prepare to deploy" order that's "been sent out to U.S. Navy submarines, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunting ships" means we're going to war with Iran. Sam Gardiner, former US Air Force Colonel, concludes that we are in a new report (availble in PDF) for the Century Foundation. Gardiner says the preparations for war "will not be a major CNN event." Instead, they "will involve the quiet deployment of Air Force tankers to staging bases" and "additional Navy assets moved to the region." Gardiner makes the point that while nobody's talking about a land invasion of Iran, significant elements in the government do have more ambitious goals than simple surgical strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities. Such strikes are very unlikely to actually resolve the perceived Iran issue, and there are administration figures who've convinced themselves that a sufficiently wide air target set will prompt regime change in Iran. One should note that the curious thing about air power is that the professionals involved in managing it have a longstanding, cross-national, and incredibly pernicious habit of massively and systematically overstating its efficacy in accomplishing all sorts of implausible things.

At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest G****** Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.
Now I rather doubt that's going to happen. Typically, Bush dials down the crazy factor a notch or two relative to what comes out of the OVP. Nevertheless, it's a sobering reminder that we have genuine lunatics operating in the highest councils of government at the moment. It's an extremely dangerous situation.

[Nbadan]

I'm hearing rumblings of an 'October Surprise'. Could explain the cold-shoulder treatment by the Bush Administration toward Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at today's UN dinner...

New York, 19 Sept. (AKI) - Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has not received an invitation to a dinner for world leaders given by United States president George W. Bush to mark the 61st summit of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Ahmadinejad's spokesman, Hossein Elham stated. Ahmadinejad, an acerbic critic of U.S. foreign policy, last week challenged Bush to a debate at the UN General Assembly and in May wrote him a letter that went unanswered.

Link

[Ocotillo]

Yeah, that would not be suprising except it could blow up in their faces if they do it too early. My depressed emoticon is not that I don't want to see regime change in Tehran, it is a reaction to the belief that lobbing a few bombs in Iran will inspire the people to rise up against the current regime.

If there were to be cruise missile and air strikes against Iranian targets there are many things the Iranians could do. What if their army came across the border to Iraq and engaged us in Iraq and called on the Shiite militias to join them in the fight against the "great satan" Or they could cut off the spigot of oil angering the rest of the world at us for increasing the cost of oil.

[Nbadan]

Well, I think the first step is to get everyone out of this state of denial that the U.S. would ever invade Iran because it would be the crazy thing to do. Attacking a country based on the intelligence of a guy named 'curve-ball' is equally crazy, but we've gone there.

[Yonivore]

What if their army came across the border to Iraq and engaged us in Iraq

Ask Saddam Hussein how that whole "Highway Of Death" strategy worked for him back in '91.

Iran would be unable to move a ground army of any size into Iraq. Period. We would decimate them at the green light.

...and called on the Shiite militias to join them in the fight against the "great satan"

More likely but, if we decapitate Iran, there won't be much coordination and, really, how much worse could the insurgency in Iraq get?

Or they could cut off the spigot of oil angering the rest of the world at us for increasing the cost of oil.

Hey, they gotta pay the bills too.

[Yonivore]

At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest G****** Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.
Now I rather doubt that's going to happen. Typically, Bush dials down the crazy factor a notch or two relative to what comes out of the OVP. Nevertheless, it's a sobering reminder that we have genuine lunatics operating in the highest councils of government at the moment. It's an extremely dangerous situation.

And on this little tidbit, I'm calling bull .

Sounds like your source needs to be investigated for disclosing classified information unless, of course, you can source this to a publicly available DoD do ent.

But, hey, it's been widely speculated that suitcase nukes could travel both directions...and, what's to say Natanz couldn't have some premature detonation or something?

"Dayum! Must have cut the wrong wire."

[Extra Stout]

We're f****** kidding ourselves if we think that airstrikes against Iran are going to spur a regime change. It will galvanize support behind the regime and make them even stronger than they are now.

If we launch an air attack on Iran before the November election, then we have gotten to the point where our own government has become at least as great a threat to our own security as those we are fighting.

[Extra Stout]

And on this little tidbit, I'm calling bull .

Sounds like your source needs to be investigated for disclosing classified information unless, of course, you can source this to a publicly available DoD do ent.

But, hey, it's been widely speculated that suitcase nukes could travel both directions...and, what's to say Natanz couldn't have some premature detonation or something?

"Dayum! Must have cut the wrong wire."

That's Matthew Yglesias' comment, not Ocotillo's, and the "source" probably is a DC tail party guest. Good luck sourcing that. Those kind of comments have about a 20% accuracy rate.

[Ocotillo]

Our military in Iraq kind of has their hands full at the moment. Saddam's army kinda sat the last one out other than some Fedeyeen and lived to fight another day. Our army is more degraded than pre-Iraqi invasion days. The Iranians may actually be greeted as liberators in southern Iraq. Sunnis would freak at the thought of Iranians invading their country and up the sectarian violence.

Regarding him needing money, I would wager he would like to destabilize the world economy and see who can hold out longer. Don't forget, we don't think he is playing with a full deck. And oh yeah, what about the rest of the muslim world? You think Musharref needs the headache of trying to placate his fanatics while defending his ties to us? I read the Saudis are worried if the Iraqi civil war intensifies it could spill over into their country.

The middle east is a tinder box and we have to think through the consequences of our actions in every matter we do.

[Nbadan]

We're f****** kidding ourselves if we think that airstrikes against Iran are going to spur a regime change. It will galvanize support behind the regime and make them even stronger than they are now.

If we launch an air attack on Iran before the November election, then we have gotten to the point where our own government has become at least as great a threat to our own security as those we are fighting.

Ultimately, It's not about regime change, it's about giving the U.S. control of Iranian oil fields as well as making the transportation of Caspien sea natural gas more easily accessible. When the bombing does start I think you can expect to see a rather sizeable group of Americans take the Southern IRanian oil fields and try and hold control of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

[Extra Stout]

The Iranians have been saving a big chunk of their oil revenues for a very long time. They aren't going bankrupt if they cut off oil supplies for a month or two.

[Yonivore]

Our military in Iraq kind of has their hands full at the moment. Saddam's army kinda sat the last one out other than some Fedeyeen and lived to fight another day. Our army is more degraded than pre-Iraqi invasion days. The Iranians may actually be greeted as liberators in southern Iraq. Sunnis would freak at the thought of Iranians invading their country and up the sectarian violence.

They'd have to cross the border first. And, contrary to your statement, our armed forces are not degraded. I'd bet we have the military assets available to completely annihilate whatever formal military the Iranians tried to send into Iraq.

I think you're confusing the logistics of an insurgency with the logistics of an invasion. Iran would have to amass troops in locations before an invasion, they couldn't trickle them in under the radar so to speak. No, a military invasion by Iran is, at this point, an impossibility. And, if they start lobbing missiles into Iraq, Tehran would be leveled.

Regarding him needing money, I would wager he would like to destabilize the economy and see who can hold out longer. Don't forget, we don't think he is playing with a full deck. And oh yeah, what about the rest of the muslim world? You think Musharref needs the headache of trying to placate his fanatics while defending his ties to us? I read the Saudis are worried if the Iraqi civil war intensifies it could spill over into their country.

You're right, he might. But, I doubt he'd outlast us...or the Chinese, who are pretty oil-hungry at the moment.

The middle east is a tinder box and we have to think through the consequences of our actions in every matter we do.

It's always been a tinderbox. I say it's time to burn the kindling and see what remains afterward.

[Ocotillo]

It's always been a tinderbox. I say it's time to burn the kindling and see what remains afterward.

then do your country a favor and enlist today. We need the manpower.

[Nbadan]

The Iranians have been saving a big chunk of their oil revenues for a very long time. They aren't going bankrupt if they cut off oil supplies for a month or two.

but they'll have much less money to spend on things like nuclear research, and after years of land and sea embargo, and softening up with 'air-embargos' like we did with Saddam, Iran will become much more of a paper tiger, at least that's probably the theory. You gotta remember, even Dubya has admitted that he doesn't see much of the more pessimestic studies when it comes to such topics.

[johnsmith]

then do your country a favor and enlist today. We need the manpower.

Perfect words from a guy that has nothing left to say. Honestly, the left is always pissed at what the right says, but their final response is always the sop ric, "why don't you join the military then"?

And no, I don't have the answers or any solutions, just pointing out what I always see from the left.

[boutons_]

Attacking Iran will solidify the asshole regime in power for 50 years.

The people, esp the younger people, are fed up with morality police harassing them.

The best tactic, and Saudi could help, is to drive the price of oil down to $40, robbing Iran of $Bs and making their buy-off of the populace with subidies on just about all staples unsustainable.

But, I trust dubya/ head/rummy to make continue to make the worst possible choices, with no benefits, only costs, to the USA.

[Ocotillo]

Perfect words from a guy that has nothing left to say. Honestly, the left is always pissed at what the right says, but their final response is always the sop ric, "why don't you join the military then"?

And no, I don't have the answers or any solutions, just pointing out what I always see from the left.

Well I'll tell you the answer....... Don't start lobbing bombs and starting wars without tremendous prepararation and buy in from your own country otherwise you will end up with a situation like Iraq multiplied.

What say you Smith?

[Ocotillo]

Perfect words from a guy that has nothing left to say. Honestly, the left is always pissed at what the right says, but their final response is always the sop ric, "why don't you join the military then"?

And it is relevant. The right overstates the threat to this country insulting us with comparisons to the cold war or WWII. The right will tell you this is even worse. Well get off your ass and join up and do something about it.

Americans had no doubts about WWII and men joined in droves. Women went to work in munitions plants. Rationing was in place. Sacrifices were made by all.

This war on terror that is currently misplaced in Iraq is short on commitment from those who support it the most. They act as if it's a video game they can play from their couches but it costs real money, real lives and impacts our security here. Rather than being a cheerleader get off your ass and do something about it.

[01Snake]

Well I'll tell you the answer....... Don't start lobbing bombs and starting wars without tremendous prepararation and buy in from your own country otherwise you will end up with a situation like Iraq multiplied.

What say you Smith?

Get on your flamesuit.

[Yonivore]

Well I'll tell you the answer....... Don't start lobbing bombs and starting wars without tremendous prepararation and buy in from your own country otherwise you will end up with a situation like Iraq multiplied.

What say you Smith?

Well, since the U. S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq and since it was already established that regime change was our official policy and since the American Public was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Iraq when this all went down; I'd say peoplpe need to quit being fair-weather patriots and stand behind their decisions.

[Yonivore]

And it is relevant. The right overstates the threat to this country insulting us with comparisons to the cold war or WWII. The right will tell you this is even worse. Well get off your ass and join up and do something about it.

Americans had no doubts about WWII and men joined in droves. Women went to work in munitions plants. Rationing was in place. Sacrifices were made by all.

This war on terror that is currently misplaced in Iraq is short on commitment from those who support it the most. They act as if it's a video game they can play from their couches but it costs real money, real lives and impacts our security here. Rather than being a cheerleader get off your ass and do something about it.

It wasn't just the right. Everybody on both sides of the aisle believe Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a threat to our security and to stability in the middle east. You can rewrite history all you want but the contemporaneous statements of the Kerrys and the Rockefellers and the Clintons are recorded in perpetuity.

[Nbadan]

It wasn't just the right. Everybody on both sides of the aisle believe Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a threat to our security and to stability in the middle east. You can rewrite history all you want but the contemporaneous statements of the Kerrys and the Rockefellers and the Clintons are recorded in perpetuity.

Yet none of them invaded a sovoreign country based on the intelligence they had at the time - no matter their statements on record.

[Ocotillo]

eh, cherry picked intelligence that was provided by the proponents of the war that conveniently left out the doubts about many of the claims being made. The American people are not behind the war because they believe they were misled about it and they were.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, since the U. S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq and since it was already established that regime change was our official policy and since the American Public was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Iraq when this all went down; I'd say peoplpe need to quit being fair-weather patriots and stand behind their decisions.

I don't recall that U.S. policy is regime change at our whim. It seems to me that to the extent that regime change was an officially-expressed policy choice pre-Iraq, that choice was informed by significant "facts" that supported the change of that regime for very specific purposes -- alleged possession of WMD's, violation of UN resolutions, supposed alignment with terror groups. That case was made -- and clearly, not very well -- over years and years, not a handful of months.

I'm not a big advocate of using American troops to force regime change except where provoked -- i.e., Afghanistan. Simplistically (there are far more sophisticated ways to argue this point, but I'm not inclined to spend the time here to articulate them), I think it's a curious decision to pursue regime change without provocation because it smacks of imperialism and only exacerbates the view that Americans are trying to bully the world to comply with our view. I mean, it's borderline extremism -- if the Islamo-facists are extremists because they use force to seek to impose their world view in the West, isn't the United States equally extremist for using force to seek to impose its world view in the Middle East without provocation? Do we get a pass because our world view is better? If so, why hasn't our superior world view been imposed on nations with governments that are real threats and in which people are genuinely suffering?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since the U. S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq and since it was already established that regime change was our official policy and since the American Public was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Iraq when this all went down; I'd say peoplpe need to quit being fair-weather patriots and stand behind their decisions.

I'd say I was against the invasion before I was against it. Patriotism intact.