IRAN

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

At the risk of inviting Abcdxxx back into yet another opportunity to call me an uneducated, Jew-hating, liberal moron... What you are witnessing is not the run up to war with Iran. Iran is and has been the major power in the midEast, up until the point at which we invaded and occupied Afghanistan on one side of them and Iraq on the other. The people of Iran are terrified of an American invasion and the subsequent Iraqification of their homeland and the government of Iran is terrified that everybody's going to find out just how mind-numbingly powerless it really is when compared to the Juggernaut of the Western world.

This, in short, is chess. Our model for Iran is similar to what you can witness for yourself in China: A recalcitrant and sometimes petulant government fully taking credit for a burgeoning economy fueled by an ever increasingly connected capitalist core of businesses ( connecting to the economies of the rest of the modern world. ) The model also allows for Iran to remain, as China, the dominant power within the region. Iran's current suggestion for the latter, as well as a hedge against an American attack, is for it to have nukes. I have already said I believe this not only eventually will but also should happen, and I will elaborate on that, once again, as soon as Abcdxxx shows up to crucify me for blasphemy.

Most of what you are hearing about the inevitability of our war with Iran is coming from the news reports, right? Here's how you feel better about that: Completely ignore anybody that talks about Ahminajihad's rhetoric. That fruitcake is about as much the real leader of Iran as I am the leader of I-mockery. Same thing goes for Hugo Chavez. Those idiots simply represent the people find it better for them to have their interests on the front pages of the world's newspapers. In that respect, they represent us as well, if you think about it. The worst thing that could happen at this point would be for everybody to stop hearing about and thus caring about the most important transition in modern history. We really want this in the public eye, and the only way to insure that is to keep it in the news, and you get that by freaking people out with outrageous reports of imminent doom.

Right now, Condomolyzmishqua Rice and everyone else in State are working their asses off to satisfy Iran's need for legitimacy by some other means than it's possession of nuclear weapons. I hope they succeed, but, if not, don't be surprised when they join us at the adult table. That won't mean war, but it will symbolize one more step to the end of war altogether. I'm pretty sure this sort of concept was what John Edwards was talking about when he was quoted on Israel being the biggest impediment to peace last week...

Get out from under the covers and learn to see past the news, Max!

[mburbank]

The news I'm reading doesn't even slightly take into account Ahmenaboujieboos rhetoric. That's just the way they talk over there.

Here are the things that have me worried, in no particular order.

1.) Seymour Hirsh at the New Yorker thinks it's happening, and he has an appaullingly good track record going back almost a generation. He's not known for hysteria, and saber rattling on both sides while worth noticing doesn't make him write stories ever.

2.) Several hughly placed generals have leaked that they would resign if Bush attacked Iran. It's not news that they would feel that way, but it is news that they feel enough in a corner over policy to leak something like that.

3.) If you are using a chess metaphor (as opposed to say candyland) I'll assume that you, like me, don't think W is anything more than a figurehead president. My problem is, I don't think Chenney is a chess playin' man. I think he used to be a poker guy who went semi quietly mad and is now more about shooting hundreds of drugged, fenced in birds for sport. I believe he has a lot of power, I think he got a chip on his shoulder thirty years ago over Vietnam and Watergate which has grown over the years into a full frontal crazy. He may even have begin with the idea of soft words and big sticks, but now he's in hittin' distance and I think he's a loose cannon. Now I hope their is a sane power structure in place that would stop him from going totally naa-naaa, but I think all the years he has spent building up his own offices within the regular power offices are all about making him a guy that when other people throw the breaks on, it takes a while to slow him down. I'm praying for a heart attack.

My brother, a smart guy who works for the FED, was convinced big stick was what we were doing when we massed around Iran, because there was just no damn plus side to invading. For most everybody, things have really changed since then. Most everybody is more realistic now about what we can and cannot accomplish. So it HAS to be big stick, right? 'Cause there;s just no plus side to anything else. These dudes HAVE to look elwhacko to be a credible threat, right? But I think they ARE elwhacko and they don't see any more clearlythen they did four years ago.

[mburbank]

Oh, nice Boo-Hoo pic by the way, you great big A-hole. I thought my computer had turned into a mirror.

[Abcdxxxx]

My take is that any manuevers against Iran would be precise and contained attacks. The exact details as to what was hit and how it was done would be left for the conspiracists. My guess is the fly over will involve Turkey, and/or India. Iran's recourse would be through their various guerilla armies, rather then an outright breakout of war - unless the administration involves Saudi Arabia. I don't think our own administration has a firm policy, they're just mapping out every crazy option available, so they can change their mind every 10 minutes.

[GAsux]

Combine Iran's continued defiance with regards to their nulear ambitions and couple it with what is at least tacit support of the insurgency in Iraq and you've got some serious issues to deal with. If the Iraq situation wasn't already on the table, I think a lot of people would be changing their tune and saying, this is a serious problem we need to deal with. The Iraq situation has damaged credibility not only operationaly in terms of sapping manpower and funding, but also in terms of prestige. Having seen what's gone on in Iraq for the last few years, public support for ANY military intervention ANYWHERE at this point will be a tough road.

And that's unfortunate because I think the Iranian situation, posturing or otherwise, is 194 times more sinister and has broader international implications than anything that happened in Iraq pre-war.

That said, I'm significantly less convinced that anyone in the D.C. area thinks that military intervention is a desirable course of action at this point. It would be niave to think that there is no planning for such eventualitis, but I think it's a long way from folks in decision making seats saying you know, we need to drop some bombs on those people.

As for the draft, this conversation comes up at every sign of conflict, small or large. This administration does not have the political juice in Congress or in public support to pull off draft legislation, even if they wanted to. Conflict in Iran would involve a heavy does of Air Force and Navy assets with minimal involvement from ground troops anyway.

Unlike the Iraq war, there's no reason to try to take and hold ground in Iran. There's no desire to change their government, other than an attempt at regime change which is all nicely handled via airpower. IF a military action became warranted, even if via some kind of Gulf of Tonkin scenario, you can bank on seeing a heavy dose of cruise missiles aimed at every conceivable significant target in Iran.

My thoughts, anyway.


P.S., no need to overfly Turkey, as the Turks might be reluctant to approve anyway. There's a reason we moved all our assets including C2 stuff into Bahrian, Qatar, Oman, etc and only half of it was because of an effort to reduce the footprint in Saudi Arabia. It's a quick hop across the Gulf with nothing in between. Not to mention easy Naval access.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I don't think our own administration has a firm policy, they're just mapping out every crazy option available, so they can change their mind every 10 minutes.

Max and Abcdxxx finally agree on something!

There is a plan for Iran, and it's not a war plan. Think about it: If our plan from the get go was to eventually invade Iran, would we have done up to this point what we actually did do? When we invaded Iraq, we sure as hell didn't give them four years to dig in and build defenses. Sure, Saddam had quite a while between Desert Storms 1 and 2 to think about it, but it's pretty obvious that he never really considered we'd jump.

Iran, on the other hand, is feeling very intimidated by now. It knows whatever defense to an American attack it might mount won't matter in the end, which threatens its already tenuous totalitarian hold on it's citizens. Iranian citizens know for a fact how quickly Iraq's regime fell, and their experience with the Iran/Iraq stalemate proves logically that their own government would surely meet the same fate within a few days of our Bradleys crossing the border. No matter how their government might try to lie about this possible future, the people of Iran aren't going to buy it. They know.

They also know what happened to the people of Iraq once America's military forces muffed the process of waging peace. They probably know better than us just how badly our nation-building skills aren't up to the task of fixing what we broke. Iranians have family and friends in Iraq. They get their newspapers and news reports. They read the Iraqi blogs and whatnot. As much as many, maybe the majority, of the citizens of Iran would rather have a freer style of government, they sure as hell don't want to go through the meat-grinder of American occupation to get it.

All that being said, and in keeping with my previous analogy to China, don't look for a grass-roots revolution as the solution to our issues with Iran...

Let's discuss the government of Iran. As I previously stated, Ahminajihad is decidedly NOT the leader of that country's government. He's much more like their giant foam #1 finger. Iran is run by a massive, theocratic bureaucracy, mob-like in many respects, but with no real single leader. Personally, I find it useful to compare it to the Democrat Party here in the US, but I don't expect you guys to follow me there... It's an elusive pseudo-structure of factions and loose understandings, and it's all about attaining and retaining political power.

As such, it's actually very close to being a modern Democratic society... Throw in real elections, and run them through the WTO's program for sad little nation-states that need a little guidance, and most of our problems with them are solved. I've heard as much as I need to from right-wing ideologues screaming about the outrage of some lily-livered appeasement approach being on the table when Ahminajihad keeps spouting off about the elimination of Israel... Back to my comparison to China: just as the mainland
grows into it's new Capitalist shoes and has less impulsive need to resent America's two China policy regarding Taiwan, so will Iran and the rest of the middle east slowly forget about the specter of the Zionist Entity as the concepts of political and social freedom begin to establish themselves in their respective regressive societies.

Make no mistake; our current diplomatic battles with Iran serves as a proxy-war with the governments of Syria, Saudi and Egypt, too. Saddam was the main bad-actor in the play, and we graciously removed him with no cost whatsoever to his neighbors. By doing so, we did them all a huge favor. They all now have the opportunity for graceful transitions, and they will all take them to save the long-held balance of power in the neighborhood.

Now, enough about what they think. You guys seem more worried about what our side is thinking, anyways, right? Alright, let's get to that...

I read as much as I can of what the decision makers in our government are reading, which is why I feel about the issue as I've stated above. I think I've painted an accurate picture of the situation "on the ground" as I can in a nut-shell format here, and I believe that most of the bureaucrats in our own regime share this perspective. Assuming that's the case, what possible good would war do in this situation? Let's see if we can bolster this a bit, Ok?

Recently, we've announced that Iran has been linked to high-tech new IED material that's responsible for some actual deaths of some actual Americans... surely that's cause for military response, right? Have we attacked yet? Why not? We've also captured many actual Iranians fighting among the insurgency in Iraq... Again, a perfect opportunity to open up a can of Whup-Ass... yet, still no attack... Hmm.... Whomever is holding the reigns on this imminent invasion is obviously waiting on something, and it's obviously not a valid excuse. That we obviously have, and really have had for quite some time now.

Maybe the fact of the matter is that we don't want to do that. Ever. We just aren't going to, pretty much no matter what. This is a fact not because we are scared or that we are pussies or that we have doubts we could pull it off... It's just that we see an obviously better alternative, and we are pursuing that rather than pulling the pin on what would most likely be the biggest grenade the world's ever seen.

Honestly, Max, I'm pretty sure this is just another one of your OMG! threads you've made a habit of throwing out there whenever a ridiculous meme suits your compulsive need to suspect Bush and Cheney to not-so-secretly be really working for the Devil in hopes of transforming the planet we all know and love into a Robo-Cop-slash-Blade-Runner-like version of Hell on Earth, much like Sspad does with crap like his "fear" of an impending draft...

The actual fear you guys have is not that Bush is going to do the absolutely WRONG thing, but that he'll continue to do the right thing. Isn't it? Come ON! You can do it! Admit it... Hell, if you're shy about it, send me a PM and I promise not to tell anybody.