The coming war with Iran?

Libby? Troop surge in Iraq? These are diversionary sideshows compared to what the nutcons have in store for us next:

" . . . At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush’s Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine’s Soroush Shehabi. “I’m the grandson of one of the late Shah’s ministers,” said Soroush, “and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.”

“I know,” President Bush answered.

“But does Vice President Cheney know?” asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away."

Apparently a third carrier groups is being sent to the Gulf.

All I can say is, can we actually take some oil this time? We haven’t taken any from Iraq despite the liberal hype and I am so disappointed. I mean if we are going to mobilize millions of jihadists against us I at least want their oil.

In answer to Cake’s question, a number of groups have claimed the name “al-Qaeda” (“foundation” in Arabic–the name was apparently assigned to them by the U.S. government). Most have no ties whatsoever to the original group, except perhaps shared goals. I presume however that they do pay close attention to Usama bin Ladin’s regular messages, and take some broad guidance from that.

So, the war’s on. Anybody feeling bold enough to predict how it will go down? Let’s wargame.

MARCH 1: Bush blames Iran for Reichtag fire. U.S. Congress goes along, with reservations.

MARCH 15: U.S. bombing campaign begins against military targets, avoids cities.

MARCH 20: “Green Zone,” U.S. bases in Iraq take Iranian missile fire. Communal massacres in Baghdad. Fractious Iraqi Shi’i militias set aside their differences, focusing on the Sunni threat. Turkish politicians complain loudly about Kurdistan, but don’t dare get involved.

MARCH 25: Iran announces successful nuclear weapons test. (In reality, the weapon was donated by China.) They threaten to close off Gulf of Hormuz if attacked again. Operation: Jackass either ends at this point, or develops into World War Three. Let’s assume the former. U.S. ceases hostilities against Iran and is forced by events on the ground to basically withdraw from Iraq (but not Kuwait or Turkey or Central Asia).

APRIL 1: Members of Saudi monarchy, Egyptian military government lynched. Refugees from Iraq pour into surrounding countries. (More than now, I mean.) In New York, Jewish kindergardeners slain on You-Tube.

ONE YEAR LATER: A stronger Iran is now the patron of southern Iraq, and intervening militarily to protect embattled Shi’is in Saudi Arabia. Half of the Iraqi Shi’i militias are suspicious of Iran, but have little choice given their military inferiority to the Sunnis. Oil is now denominated in petroeuros. The U.S. enters economic recession. Israelis quietly begin emigrating, lacking confidence in their economic or political future.

The Democrats win of course, but only for four years!

I doubt that any invasion is coming. I wish it were.

Yes, I’m surprised anyone is even considering it a remote possibility. I guess the US needs to keep the option on the negotiating table, but frankly I’m quite sure the Iranians know the score.

Attacking Iran now would be suicide on so many levels. And let’s face it, one disaster in the region is quite enough for now and the decades to follow.

HG

‘Invasion’ and ‘massive air assault’ are two different animals.

The reason the Bush administration is massing naval forces in the Persian Gulf, has appointed a Navy admiral to take over (in March ‘coincidentally’) what is supposed to be a land war theater and is pulling the Iraqophobia propaganda machine out of mothballs and reprogramming it for ‘Iranophobia’ is, well, . . . I’m not sure why. :laughing:

Somebody didn’t get the memo:

[quote]Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran’s government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq.

“We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran,” Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. “What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this.”

“It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved,” he continued, “but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”[/quote]

washingtonpost.com/

Revolt of the Generals?

I thought that the coservatives told us that oil was going to pay for the war. You do remember Lindsay being fired for suggesting the war may cost as much as 200 billion?

[quote]Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very – an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”[/quote]

house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

How far the mighty (lie factory) has fallen:

"It was, President Bush must have been thinking, a heck of a lot easier five years ago. Back in 2002, the president had a smoothly running lie factory humming along in the Pentagon, producing reams of fake intelligence about Iraq, led by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans. Back then, he had a tightly knit cabal of neoconservatives, led by I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, based in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to carry out a coordinated effort to distribute the lies to the media. And he had a chorus of yes-men in the Republican-controlled Congress ready to echo the party line.

In 2007, Bush stands nearly alone, and he never looked lonelier than during a bumbling, awkward news conference on the Iraq-Iran tangle Wednesday.

Feith is long gone, and last week his lie factory was exposed by the Pentagon’s own inspector general, who told Congress that Feith had pretty much made up everything that his rogue intelligence unit manufactured. Libby is long gone, apparently about to be sentenced to jail for lying about Cheney’s frantic effort to cover up the lie factory’s work. And the congressional echo chamber is gone: In six weeks, the Democrats have held more than four dozen hearings to investigate the White House’s catastrophic Middle East policy, and even Hillary Clinton is warning that Bush had better keep his hands off Iran, saying: “It would be a mistake of historical proportions if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran.” . . .

Unlike 2002, when the White House fired salvo after salvo of fake intelligence about Iraq, today it can’t even stage its lies properly. Like the incompetents who couldn’t organize a two-car funeral, the remaining Iran war hawks in the administration held a briefing in Baghdad on Sunday to present alleged evidence that Iran is masterminding the insurgency in Iraq. But it was a comedy of errors that convinced no one. Twice, at least, the administration had earlier postponed or canceled the much-promoted event, designed to reveal the supposed secrets behind Iran’s actions in Iraq. When it was finally held, it was not in Washington, but in Baghdad, with not a single White House official, no U.S. diplomat, no State Department official, no CIA official and no one from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Instead, a couple of anonymous military officers held a background-only briefing, barring cameras and tape recorders, to present some blurry photographs of bomb-looking things—and not a shred of evidence of Iranian government involvement. . . .

According to The Washington Times, the effort to blame Iran was directly torpedoed by the U.S. intelligence community, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The ODNI, said the Times , “sought to play down the intelligence on Iranian involvement, fearing that the report will be used as a basis to launch an attack on Iran.” Many earlier reports noted that both the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community were strongly opposed to any attempt to demonize Iran. There’s nothing like a bureaucracy scorned to conduct passive-aggressive sabotage of misguided policies, and in this case the bureaucracy apparently succeeded. The dog-and-pony show on Iranian meddling in Iraq not only didn’t scare anyone, it caused guffaws of laughter and ridicule. . . . "

About those EFPs from Iran…

[quote]PRESIDENT BUSH HAS now definitively stated that bombs known as explosively formed penetrators — EFPs, which have proved especially deadly for U.S. troops in Iraq — are made in Iran and exported to Iraq. But in November, U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop came across a pile of copper disks, 5 inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order. This ominous discovery, unreported until now, makes it clear that Iraqi insurgents have no need to rely on Iran as the source of EFPs.

The truth is that EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it. Far from a sophisticated assembly operation that might require state supervision, all that is required is one of those disks, some high-powered explosive (which is easy to procure in Iraq) and a container, such as a piece of pipe. I asked a Pentagon analyst specializing in such devices how much each one would cost to make. “Twenty bucks,” he answered after a brief calculation. “Thirty at most.” [/quote]
latimes.com/news/opinion/

[quote]But as has been observed here, anyone can make crude and simple EFP munitions in a basic workshop. All you need is a lump of plastic explosive and a piece of copper. Shape the copper into a saucer, put the explosive under it, and you’re there. Obviously this will be a lot less efficient, accurate and reliable than something like SLAM (optimal design of the the metal ‘lens’ is an art requiring a lot of computer power), but you can compensate by making it ten times bigger if you need to.

Maybe the insurgents should be given some credit for being able to build their own gear, or maybe there’s more intelligence we don’t know. But if EFP mines were being supplied by an outside source, you might expect to see somethng a lot slicker.[/quote]

defensetech.org/archives/003285.html

Again, I ask: Is Iran a threat? Should Iran be allowed to have even one nuke? If yes and no, what should realistically be done about it?

I note that Spook had claimed that no one in the Middle East was really worried about the Iranians getting a nuke. Would he now like to comment on all the active nuke development plans of the Persian Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt? Turkey? What was that? Cat got your tongue?

We can’t do anything now because King George shot his wad in Iraq. He’s not just an imbecile, he’s now an impotent imbecile.

Given the half-assed performance of the military in Iraq, please explain to me how they can do any better in Iran? Should we flush another trillion dollars or two down the shitter and to start and lose this war too?

Hey, maybe it’ll stop people from saying “its another Vietnam”… they’ll say “its another Iraq”. Seems the only country the military option can beat is Grenada…

To whom? Civilization as we know it? No. To the US? No. To Israel? More so, but Iran is still heavily outgunned, and there’s no reason to believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. To Saudi Arabia? Yes- maybe the Saudis should stop treating their Shiites like third-class citizens.

Much better if they didn’t.

[quote]If yes and no, what should realistically be done about it?
[/quote]

Continue and ratchet up the economic pressure, making sure you keep the Russians, Chinese and Europeans on board; open direct negotiations; do NOT launch military attack, which would unite the people behind the hard-liners and shatter the international agreement on sanctions.

Good question. Is it?

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.” . . . "

Exactly, spook.

No stomach.

Not effective.

Not possible.

Not going to happen.

End of.

(But that won’t stop people from fantasizing about this absurd impossibility, will it spook? Not you, and not those from either side of the debate, isn’t that right?)

-H

Exactly, spook.

No stomach.

Not effective.

Not possible.

Not going to happen.

End of.

(But that won’t stop people from fantasizing about this absurd impossibility, will it spook? Not you, and not those from either side of the debate, isn’t that right?)

-H[/quote]

Cheney: ‘All Options’ Available for Iran

" . . . Cheney said . . . “We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference,” Cheney said.

“But I’ve also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table,” he said, leaving open the possibility of military action. . . ."

I’m surprised that you think the fact that Cheney says something is possible constitutes even remotely persuasive evidence that it actually is, spook. Especially in this particular case.

Why does that surprise you? spook sees conspiracies everywhere.