Weigh in-- Is Bush going to strike Iran?

[mburbank]

It looks to me like he is. Our troops have been given the ready to deploy order, for I think Oct. 1'st. Now that doesn't mean they will, but it's the first step. Maybe it's a negotiating tool.

But I think W. thinks this is something he has to do, and only he can do.

What do you all think, on two points? Would he, and should he?

I think he would. I think he shouldn't, for a host of reasons. I don't see a way anything good could come out of it. I think the costs are beyond outrageous, and since we don't even know where all there nuke programs are, how deeply they are burried, and how many times we'd have to bomb a hardened underground site to totally take it out, the excercise at best sets the program back a few years. I also think America has pretty much expended every ounce of good will it can count on from the it's traditional allies. As far as non traditional allies goes, Muschariff sating that we threatened to bomb him back to the stone age if he didn't become an allie... not helping.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't think he will, for a host of reasons. You might be right, it might all be posturing.

I don't think we should attack, but their president makes it increasingly difficult. He speaks of peace and friendship, and then says more things in hope of antagonizing Israel into a war. I think he is eqaully sincere when he says 1. Can't the U.S. and Iran just be friends?, and 2. Israel should be destroyed.

What REALLY isn't helpful is that the international community is now backing down on sanctions, probably out of fear of China. So now the U.S. has even less leverage, because nations such as France decided it wasn't important enough.

"Muschariff sating that we threatened to bomb him back to the stone age if he didn't become an allie... not helping."

Yeah, it's kind of funny that this comes out right when he has a book deal with Simon & Schuster. I'm guessing Armitage did say something to this effect, and would it be such a surprise? Following 9/11, would it be a surprise to see us invade Pakistan, especially since their north-western region is practically Taliban country? Would anyone have objected to an invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time?

[mburbank]

Kev; I'm not for invading anybody beyond Afghanistan, but I think I've said that Pakistan was way up on my list, and would have been the only place to even make a case for invading A.) because of the overlapping pretty much ungoverned tribal regions, and because Pakistan actually was hip deep in desseminating WMD knowledge and technology and had ties with te Taliban for sure, and maybe Al Quaeda.

I'm glad (sincerely, now, don't get me wrong) That you think our presient is not actively planning war with Iran. I personally worry that what I think are meglomaniacal traights will get the best of him, plus his self identification with Churhcill. I hope you are right and I'm wrong. Or that nobody in the administration with actual power decides they too want an Iran war.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I seriously doubt it, but I hope he applies international pressure like we do on North Korea and the like.

I'm more worried the rest of asian might go in and kick North Korea's ass and we may have to help, but I stand behind anyone who has the balls to make that move I just don't think America has the resources right now.

[Preechr]

I don't think we will have to. The economy of Iran is fairly dismal right now, and it's people connected enough to have a pretty good idea of how much money their government is wasting on the support of terrorism. Strategically, the louder I'minajihad gets in the pissing contest with Hugo "Castro, jr" Chavez over who gets to represent the 3rd world at the UN, when combined with America's tolerance to his rhetoric that they are all witnessing just as we are, sprinkled with a dash of this crap has been going on for decades now and it's getting worse every day, then blended with a creamy mixture of we saw how quickly Iraq fell and we see what kind of mess that's created... still with me? ...then potentially baked in a Nuclear Furnace lit by Israeli smart-bombs is a good recipe for Iranian Civil War just like mom used to make.

Here's a nice little research article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4621699.stm

...and here's a sweet and thorough history:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI23Ak01.html

Money Quote: "Keeping hands off Iran may be the best bet for the US administration's professed aim of "democratizing" the Middle East..."

...and finally, here's some general economic data ranging over the past 2-6 years that might paint a clearer picture of what might be cooking in that pot:

http://www.farsinet.com/news/

On that last one, skip down about half the page to the part about Cost Of Living. Note the age graph on the right from 2000. That big bubble of 10-19 year olds is now 6 years older, and 30% of them can't find jobs. Those that are employed can't afford a place of their own even if they work 2 jobs, generally, at least according to the what I'm seeing in the income chart to the left of the age chart.

The trend away from fundamentalism among the younger Iranian population, when combined with such stark proof of the failures of the Mullahs to effectively run a country while remaining a thorn in the side of the West, in my opinion, will soon lead to an overthrow of the status quo, which will likely be good for them as well as the world.

We'll wait it out. Worst case scenario, the test a nuke and Israel wipes out half the rural folk that voted I'minajihad in, sparing the students and the educated middle class that will embody the revolution. The leadership of Iran is playing to the average Arab, ignoring it's exceptional minority of almost Western already younger set. They do this at their peril. You don't see other successful Arab countries trying that.

[Preechr]

LOOK AT ME, KEVIN!

I'M LINKING STUFF, JUST FOR YOU!!!

[sspadowsky]

I doubt that he will. It's just a feeling, and I could be completely wrong, but I think he's going to have a hell of a time selling the invasion of Iran- especially after even the hardest of the hardcore Bush supporters have admitted that there are no WMDs in Iraq.

I think if he goes for it, his ass will be on the chopping block. There's no way the public will support him.

Sorry for the lack of nuanced political analysis. I'm tired.

[mburbank]

Yeah, I agree with all that in terms of making sense. We don't need to attack Iran and it makes no damn sense.

But we didn't need to attack Iraq and it made no damn sense either.

And as commander in chief, he doesn't need any support at all, congressional, public or otherwise, to order a strike on Iran. I am concerned that he intends to commit us to war on Iran and leave the mess on the table. As Iraq demonstrates it's very hard to get out once you're in. I worry that he has a messianic vission and thinks this needs to be done, and the next president, even if he's Republican won't be in a position to do it. But if he starts it, they'll have to continue it.

However, I don't think W. drives the American bus, I think he's more like the hood ornament. So in less some of the other power players, who are just as whacky, but have a tad more depth, don't want to partner with him, it won't happen.

But I don't find the idea that it would be lunacy, or that it's uneccasry, comforting.

[Preechr]

I tried to explain to you the logic beind the strategy so far, and even recommended a nice little resource book. This fits that strategy, and the logic is contradictory to Iraq.

[Geggy]

Preechr,

the reason for the downfall of Iran was because US and Britian was behind the toppling of mossdegh and destroying Iran in which mossadgh secured it as a democratic nation 50 years ago. After mossdegh complained the Brits were swindling million of dollars out of their oil industry and not giving Iran a fair share of profit, the US and Brits worked together in an operation called Ajax to remove the undesire and uncooperative government under messdegh and actually were responsible for installing puppet regime in Tehran. Iran was under rule of dictatorship by Shah, and yes Shah relied heavily on the US's aid and arms supply. It went on as long as almost 30 years. Iran never recovered from it and you wonder why there have been backlashes of anti-americanism from the people of iran. I know you're going to accuse me for being a far leftist for saying these things but it's a fact. The bush administration is currently in the exact process of what had happened before the toppling of mossadegh 50 years ago.

[Preechr]

That's one way of looking at it.

What constituted Iran's "Fair Share?" If moon people informed you your house was situated on tremendous deposits of resplendium, a fabulous natural resource you'd never heard of, and set up a mining operation in your basement to get to it in exchange for a percentage of the profits, would you have the right to steal the minig equipment and kick out the moon folk that got the ball rolling to begin with?

I know there's more to it than this simple analogy, but I'd like to see you explain the fundamentals of the history before you start in on splitting the hairs of the discussion.

The Ottoman Empire was defeated, and it's territory divided by the Europeans that kicked it's ass. The partition plan was retarded and self-serving for the powers that drew it up, and that set the stage for the wars that have been raging ever since. The partitions were designed to give the West control over the Middle East, and that plan has obviously failed to a large degree.

The conflicts in the Middle East have, for the last century, revolved around supplying oil to the West. If the War on Terror has anything to do with oil, it is headed east. Within ten years, the emerging industrial economy in China and South Asia will be requiring oil in proportion to our oil needs of the 1920's... our own industrial revolution. If the Middle East situation is not stabilized soon, China will have no choice but to go take the oil it needs. How is the status quo of the past 30 years helping this emerging problem?

The Shah was friendly to the West because we supported his regime. The Shah did not see the need to gain support from within his own borders, preferring instead to serve as a merchant rather than a leader. We have made worse mistakes than allowing that to continue. We never bothered to understand Arab culture, and until we made that commitment, the efforts of the West to co-exist with the Middle East were fraught with failures.

What does that mean, then? Should we stop trying? The Bush Administration is NOT in the exact process of what happened 50 years ago. The Bush Administration is at least attempting to learn from history and accomplish what the West has been trying to get for 100 years: Peace. That will only happen when built upon a foundation of Freedom. We are no longer interested in installing supplicant merchants like the Shah or gangsters like Bashir Gemayel just to satisfy our immediate goals.

The War on Terror marks a paradigm shift for the West. If you are going to study the history of what's happened so far, do us all a favor and do so in order to learn the lessons of our past mistakes and apply them, not just hold them up as a reason not to proceed. If we don't find a way to spread peace effectively, we only allow further war.

[ziggytrix]

Can't argue with that.

[mburbank]

My main problem with your argument Preech, is that you see this 'paradigm shift' as something coherent, a shift. I would call this more of a paradigm lurch, or maybe a paradigm spasm or even a paradigm siezure.

I would say that since the end of the cold war we have been paradigm confused. We fuck around with all sorts of paradigms, most of which are variations on the cold war paradig of which are like the cold war paradigm, some of which are 'clash of civilzation' type paradigms and some of which are bizarro free market as physics and or religion paradigms. We currently almost as many paradigms as there are opinion and policy makers. I don't think this is odd or even unwarranted. But I think you are engaged in magical thinking to believe we truly have a coherent foreign policy that qualifies as a paradigm. It's a hopeful view, and I applaud that, but in some ways it reminds me of tin foil hat conspiracies, in that it assumes a degree of competence I just don't see.

For instance; If it's all going down acording to plan, what do you make of this national Intelligence estimate that says the war in Iran has increased the the power and threat of terrorism?

[mburbank]

One of the oddest outcomes if we do strike Iran, is that it would make the following true:

"It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times. And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets."

Who wrote that? Well, only a true Dadaist President like W. has the capacity to make Gary Hart prescient.

[Geggy]

Yes! Keep clinging on the incompetence blanket statements, ya fucking tool.

The more terrorist that are created, the longer we would have to stay in the middle east. That seems to be the neocons' strategy. Hahaha! Tin foil hat stuff!!! Bwhahah!

[Geggy]

I'm sorry

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You need to calm the fuck down.

[Geggy]

Ok

[mburbank]

War Signals?
By Dave Lindorff
The Nation

Monday 25 September 2006

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed - but until now largely theoretical - prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)

Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date - in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

[Preechr]

Projecting power isn't always a precursor to actual war. I think it's pretty clear Iran wants no part of a direct shooting war with us. I think it's also very clear at this point that Iran isn't taking diplomacy seriously. We cannot allow them to stall until they get a nuke put together, and they're pretty much admitting that's what they're doing when they adamantly claim the right to do so and refuse to stop their nuclear enrichment programs. Unlike Saddam's Iraq, they have no real enemies in the Middle East they need to bluff with lies about their capabilities.

We would need ships there to enforce sanctions, right? Naval forces can also be useful in stopping SCUDS coming in from N Korea. There are many non-war reasons we could be mobilizing a naval strike group, intimidation being only one of them.

[mburbank]

"Projecting power isn't always a precursor to actual war."

True, and I'd say that was what was going on herr with confidence, if we had a different President. My borther, who works for the Fed, was sure that when our troops were massed all around Iraq, we were just 'projecting'. I hope you are right.

[WhiteRat]

Originally Posted by mburbank

. Our troops have been given the ready to deploy order, for I think Oct. 1'st.

From my experience the military is ready to deploy every single day. Where did you here about october 1st?

[McClain]

Prepare to deploy orders are given on a daily basis to commands and units all over CONUS. Doesn't mean much. Unless it's en masse, which it's not. And besides, we already have troops in Iran.

As long as Ahmadinejad continues to bludgeon the American media with notions of a prosperous US/Iraq relationship, he exercises his Invasion Avoidance Insurance. I believe the American public won't acquiesce an arbitrary invasion.

[mburbank]

Serious question, here. In what way does the American public need to aquiesce? W is commander in chief, he doesn't need congressional or popular approval to order a strike, and then the whole mess is a fate accompli.

It wouldn't be a stretch for him to say congress already gave him the authority to do it. He's said as much about warantless wiretapping already. His interpretation is that congress told him he could do whatever he felt neccesary in the war on terror.

He's a lame duck, but all his powers are intact. If he feels 'called' to do this, it will be next to impossible for the next President, Democrat por Repubican, not to continue it.

Suppose he has a Kevinistic belief that this iraq and Afghanistan were just the start of a 'great war' that must happen. Public support is dropping. The next President will have to think about election, and then reelection. No future President will have the power to get the ball rolling that he does, and once rolling no future President will be ablse to simply say 'oops' and stop it. That's a lot of temptation for folks as megalomaniacal as this current bunch.

[McClain]

I was stating what the majority of US citizens think; we won't support an invasion. But I recognize the divide between civic principle and a lack of executive comprimise. It seems like all of his actions are blessed by some fairy-tale absolution.

But I don't think he's setting wheels in motion that can't be stopped. I think you're putting too much "megalomaniacal" onus on potential successors. Do you have any faith in the next generation of leadership? In spite of a convoluted partisan/sectarian process? I understand that no man will take the oath with the intention of making himself a martyr (ironically, Bush has called himself one) but it just seems obvious that EVERYONE outside of our current administration recognized the gross incompitence, and would only use that as a benchmark for improvement.