"Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, traveled to Israel in early June; he was followed in late June by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both officials explained to their Israeli counterparts why the United States believes an attack isn’t necessary now, because the Iranians can’t yet build a nuclear weapon, and why an attack would damage U.S. national interests.
McConnell and Mullen also informed the Israelis that the United States would oppose overflights of Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, an administration official said. The United States has reassured the Iraqi government that it would not approve Israeli overflights, after the Iraqis strongly protested any potential violation of their sovereignty.
"We have made our position abundantly clear to the Israelis and indeed to the world, not just in our public statements but in our private conversations, as well," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. " Ignatius
————————————————————-
Ignatius ought to know. He is thought of as a friend by both the Pentagon and the White House. This column might be thought of as something of an announcement by party or parties unknown.
The Israeli/AIPAC huffing anf puffing over the possibility of an independent Israeli attack on Iran is merely a bluff, an attempt to bully the United States into doing something that a simple calcualtion of its own interests would otherwise cause the US not to do. M&M delivered that message.
Military facts rule in this case. To take loose inspiration from Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Israelis can’t get there with enough. "There" being somewhere significant in Iran with "enough" to acheve a desired degree of damage. They are not going to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the planning problem for a theoretical Iran attack/campaign they have to be able to deliver enough ordnance to the right target(s) to make the whole thing worthwhile considering the casualties they may suffer. Israelis are not given to suicide attacks. They would want to recover as many of their aircrew as they possibly could. The SAR implications of that, so far from home are "awesome" in the vernacular of MTV. Without American help for that…
And then we come to the "elephant in the room." This is the issue of overflight of Iraqi airspace. If the two naval "Ms" have told the Israelis ON THEIR OWN TURF that the US will not accept Israeli overflight of Iraq, then the game is up for the Israelis. They can launch a big (for them) set of strikes against Iran but they would have to route over Turkey or Saudi Arabia. That would make the trip much longer. That would mean that all the negatives in the attack(s) would be greater. In fact, increased distance often means that the negative aspects of an operation grow as a kind of "progression." This set of operations might well have crossed their culminating point before the airplanes leave the ground. (That was Clausewitz folks. By his dictum as interpreted by me, an effort in a battle or campaign reaches its culminating point when the negatives in the situation begin to outweigh the positives. If the objective is achieved before that point is reached, then the goal of the operation is clearly achieved, If the forward motion of the operation continues past the culminating point, then the goal may still be achieved but a sudden reversal of the situation grows more and more likely as the "advance" continues)
Nevertheless, the Iranians should not take comfort from this situation. President Bush will be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States until the new president is inaugurated. His reaction to the results of our election is unpredictable. His fixation on the Iranians within his larger notion of a manichean world made up of "good" and "evil" should give the Iranians something to think about if they intend to continue to make useless comments about their "rights."
At the same time, the Iranians should sober up concerning their prospects with a new American president. McCain will demand an end to their nuclear program of enrichment. Obama will seek negotiations over the same thing, but if the Iranians continue their present policy his policy will, in the end, be not much different than McCain’s.
The Iranians should get serious about all this and bring their "theater" of anti- Westernism to an end before a bad result brings this piece of history to a final curtain. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102872.html
To take loose inspiration from Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Israelis can’t get there with enough.
You just knew I would respond.
“to git thar fust with the most men.”
Colonel Lang,
Let me make 2 not so bold predictions; 1)Iran will continue to pursue its nuclear program and 2)no one is going to attack them for it. Not Bush not Obama not even McCain. As you said yourself, a hard evaluation of U.S. interests doesn’t support it. This was the case when oil was 40$ a barrel and its still the case at 120, or even a hundred.
Once Iran obtains nuclear capability…that does *NOT* mean actual weapons…the game will change into cajoling Iran to remain within the NPT. Threats of war would not help as they would only be an excuse for Iran to withdraw from the treaty and nuke up.
Thanks,
Lysander
John Duke Anthony makes some good points here:
http://www.ncusar.org/publications/Publications/2008-06-20-War-with-Iran-Reactions-and-Requirements.pdf
Also,
1. Do the Israelis really want to burn their “Cyrus Option” for the coming few decades?
2. What about the Jewish community in Iran? Will Israeli “smart bombs” avoid collateral damage to Iranian Jews? Or would that just be to spur them to migrate to Israel to offset Palestinian demographics?
3. What would we expect from Russia, China, India all of whom have interests per Iran?
“Bush is the “wild card” on Iran”
Yes, Junya is a wild card on Iran.
But unfortunately, I would suggest that there is more than one wild card left in the deck.
If Olmert resigns in September as he’s said he is going to do, that means Israeli elections could soon be forthcoming.
Additional wild cards are the elections and the winner of the elections.
Kadima is likely to go with Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, instead of the more hawkish Shaul Mofaz, the transport minister, but either may find their electioneering framed and dominated by a “Strike Iran before they can strike us” meme.
Such a meme will surely be the centerpiece of Likud’s likely candidate rightwinger Bibi Netanyahu, and Bibi is in the forefront of those demanding an attack on Iran.
Worryingly, Bibi is also the odds-on favorite today to win the election.
If that Israeli election is decided upon one’s Iran stance, as is quite likely, both Likud and Kadima are going to battle on who will pull the trigger quicker; not on who will holster their piece.
I agree with Pat that with the M&M’s admonitions to Israel, an Israeli strike has become that much harder.
But, I don’t think the Israelis are in a rational frame of mind any longer with regard to Iran.
And therefore, I also totally agree with Pat’s warning to Iran.
Better get while the getting is good because I think the Israelis are past the point of no return.
How do the Israelis pull off any kind of strike on Iran with 7 KC-135-type tankers? Even overflying Iraq, that doesn’t seem nearly enough refueling to get F-16s and F-15s over Tehran and Natanz with any kind of payload.
I agree with the analysis – an attack on Iran is unlikely.
I agree that Iran should tone down its rhetoric, though I think most of that is simply local political grandstanding and is over-reported.
But should the Iranians should shut up at all?
I wonder why the Colonel writes “rights” in quotes. The NPT is clear about enrichment. Pat, will you write “2nd amendment” in quotes when they want to take away your “right” to bear arms?
The “theater” is not theater to Iranians. They have endured quite a lot from “Westernism” and their position was not that of spectators but as victims.
What is suggested to them? Give up energy independence? And then? What are they to give up next?
Finally: Is there a final curtain in history?
b
Sometimes rights are excessivly expensive. If the cost of my gun rights was to be the destruction of my community, then I would forget about my gun rights.
Yes. The Iranians have a right to enrich Uranium to levels that do not reaxch weapons grade, but is that right worth what the cost may be? pl
One thing intrigues me,
“the US will not accept Israeli overflight of Iraq”
If the Israelis were to go ahead and fly over Iraq despite the warnings, what exactly would happen?
Is there really a possibility of US ordinance being fired at Israeli war planes? Why do I find that scenario so difficult to believe? Why do I find it so much more likely that this “bit of information” is just a way for the administration to say “look we told them they couldn’t” right after they do?
I have read everyone’s comments with great interest and also Dr. Anthony’s excellent overview of the situation. Opinions presented are all well researched and based on what I guess to be irrefutable logic and common sense.
What concerns me is that my limited knowledge of history suggests that despite all of our careful calculations, there is such a thing as the unexpected, and there is such a thing as stupidity.
I agree that it appears that it would not be in America’s interests to attack Iran, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
However, I don’t think we will have to wait too long to find out. Once Irans first power reactor is up and running, I think the game is over.
Colonel lang,
As for “regime change” in Iran, is there a difference between Obama and McCain?
Don’t you think that if The U.S. gives up it, Iran would give up its program of enrichment ?
Thank you
Clifford Kiracofe wrote:
“Do the Israelis really want to burn their “Cyrus Option”….”
What’s a “Cyrus” Option? Drop Billie Ray on ’em singing Achy Braky Heart? That’s cold man….
I’ve heard of the Samson O, but never the Cyrus.
Cheers,
Since we are quoting Nathan Forrest Bedford, let me add:
“No damn man kills me and lives.”
I hope the Israelis and Dumbya understand that quote.
Colonel:
The Iranians have a right to enrich Uranium to levels that do not reach weapons grade, but is that right worth what the cost may be?
Now that’s a darned good question!
If the cost is an air assault on Iran, then perhaps not, but along with that benefit/cost calculation comes the unraveling of the entire treaty apparatus of the NPT, since it’s the NPT that permits Iran to perform low levels of Uranium enrichment. Thus if we violate Iran’s rights under the NPT, what will other signatories see as the benefits of adherence?
But leaving aside the issue of near-term costs to Iran, it’s obvious that the long-term costs to the U.S. of losing the guarantees of the NPT are enormous, as that would involve removing any effective foundations for controlling the proliferation of nuclear WMD. Nonproliferation can’t be based on the U.S. bombing every country that can build a centrifuge, especially given ongoing progress in enrichment technologies.
There are other costs to Iran inherent in their enrichment activities, but one unfortunate by-product of our current policy is that we are working to negate many of those costs. For example, if Iran were to withdraw from the NPT, then appropriate action by the rest of the world would be to impose economic sanctions on Tehran. But since we are already working to impose similar sanctions, in essence the U.S. is making Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT a much more reasonable course of action for the Iranian government.
Is this a deliberate strategy, or just more bungling in neocon foreign-affairs?
It increasingly seems to me that a complete dismantling of non-proliferation treaties is actually one of the goals of the Bush administration (e.g., how else can one explain the employment of John Bolton as the Bush administration non-proliferation czar?).
There was speculation in the nuclear weapons complex back in 2001 (right after Bush was elected, as his NNSA budget priorities emerged) that the sudden dismantling of otherwise-successful non-proliferation programs was a deliberate attempt by the new administration to make the world a more dangerous place, perhaps to better sell less cost-effective measures such as the ballistic missile defense. I didn’t believe the talk then, but based on more recent developments, I’m more inclined to believe it now.
Pat – The IDF practice run only involved 150 planes. That is not enough to carry the kind of payload that will seriously damage Iran’s far flung nuclear program. Since there is a major nuclear research facility under Tehran University there will be significant collateral damage and lives lost in an Israeli strike.
At that point Iran will lob 100 missles at Tel Aviv and Dimona. Probably half will get thru to their targets and there will be significant collateral damage and lives lost.
After a day or so of hot war with oil at $300/b, the EU, China, India, the UN will demand a cease fire and the US, Israel and Iran probably will reluctantly agree. In other words a lot of sound and fury for no material gain. If no cease fire, the mideast will probably go up in flames, especially if the US jumps in aggressively on Israel’s side.
I can see 100,000 Hezballah, Hamas and Fatah supporters rushing Israel’s borders and getting into Israeli towns with significant civilian carnage. I can see segments of Egyptian and Lebanese army abandoning their units to fight Israel, guerrila style. I can see a shite uprising in south Iraq which will put heavy pressure on our supply lines as well as shut down oil. Not to be forgotten, what a few Iranian missles will do to SA oil facilities and to any tankers willing to transverse the Staits. Frankly, the worst thing that could happen to the US is if the Iranian war had an Israeli face.
Pat, with all due respect I think you are looking at the cost/benefit issues in this standoff thru Western eyes. From an Iranian standpoint, I believe they look at this as an acceptable risk of limited damage compared with the prestige and security results of nuclear capability.
They know we have no capacity to ensure regime change or complete negation of their nuclear program which would require an occupation. I believe they understand the ONLY effective way out of the corner the west has painted itself into is thru negotiation and that is going to require carrots – a lot of them vs the trillion dollar cost in economic terms of an Iranian war.
Does war with Iran seems consistent with Gates’ newest national strategy iteration?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/2008%20National%20Defense%20Strategy.pdf
Nice to know we are fighting “on behalf of the world.” Sounds rather old hat Wilsonian…
Colonel,
would you not also say that the ‘wild card TO the wild card bush’ is unfortunately the ‘wild card’ cheney? after all, cheney has been trying to become prez ever since he became vice=prez some 7 years ago. to cheney, bush is HIS stick figurine complete with mouth and puppet strings attached.
also see:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080803/pl_afp/usvotevp
From insignificance to influence: the US vice presidency – Yahoo! News
This stuck out to me from the article:
Though the administration has often been portrayed as divided over military options against Iran, an official denied there are now any sharp rifts. “There is uniformity across the U.S. government about the way to proceed with Iran,” the official said. “Everyone from this White House, including the vice president’s office, is in agreement that the military option is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures.”
Funny that they made the effort to make that clear.
My prediction is that we still will not see an attack.
Believe it or not, after reading through some of our laws and reports, I’m not seeing Bush as a wild card. Don’t ask me to defend it, yet. That sense is just now germinating.
Colonel,
notice how the mainstream media has deliberately ignored the cheney fratricide article by journalist seymour hersh where hersh exposes details of a plan considered by cheney on how to provoke war with iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgBrbNXrbs
John Shreffler wrote:
“How do the Israelis pull off any kind of strike on Iran with 7 KC-135-type tankers? Even overflying Iraq, that doesn’t seem nearly enough refueling to get F-16s and F-15s over Tehran and Natanz with any kind of payload.”
The following is from an MIT Security Studies Conference April 2006 working paper entitled “Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities” by Whitney Raas and Austin Long:
Though I might disagree with parts of this 34 page analysis (and I do quibble here and there *g*), I do heartily recommend that Pat’s readers here at SST should take a gander at the entire study. It covers a whole lot of ground including an analysis of the targets, the weaponry, the defenses, the routing options and likelihood of success (where I disagree/quibble the most).
Weekend musing, back envelop calculation, how big Israel can deliver with all their airforce asset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force
Israel has about 300 F-16 (3,900 km)and 100 F-15 (5,550 km)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15_Eagle
Iran has 75 F-5, 35 mig-29, 30 F-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force
Weekend musing, back envelop calculation, how big Israel can deliver with all their airforce asset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force
Israel has about 300 F-16 (3,900 km)and 100 F-15 (5,550 km)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15_Eagle
Iran has 75 F-5, 35 mig-29, 30 F-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force
Yes. The Iranians have a right to enrich Uranium to levels that do not reaxch weapons grade, but is that right worth what the cost may be?
Posted by:Patrick Lang | 03 August 2008 at 04:08 PM
Looking around latest Iranian statistic. Practically almost nothing. 6.5% growth and climbing slightly. They are not growing faster mostly because of corruption and rigid social structure.
But their economy is big enough to be self sustaining, and their natural resource is needed by Asia. They got money and they all have their own banking centers.
So essentially, what we see is the limit of US financial reach. Give it several more months, the Iranian will develop their own financial center. China and Russia couldn’t care less.
There are plenty of people in the world who wants to do transaction outside the US financial system surveillance.
If Iran figures that one out, they’ll be rich beyond believe without even trying. They don’t even need oil anymore.
All
I presume that the 150 aircraft in the Israeli rehearsal included SAR, tankers, AWACS types, etc. How many strike aircraft in the package?
New Subject: I know the Iranians may decide that the damage is acceptable. I am trying to make the argument that they should not do so. pl
Pat wrote: “New Subject: I know the Iranians may decide that the damage is acceptable. I am trying to make the argument that they should not do so. pl”
I couldn’t agree more!
Starting a wee campfire to roast a few marshmellows (an Israeli attack) in a tinder-dry forest (Iran and the Straits of Homuz – By the way, readers of SST should check out Caitlin Talmadge’s Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz in the Harvard University Belfer Center Programs or Projects: Quarterly Journal: International Security) next to an ammunition dump (the Mideast generally) could start a raging wildfire that consumes all.
No one in their right mind (a non sequitur for some of these leaders involved) should think that doing a simple lil’ “Osirak” on Iran will stop there. I think it is a given that such an attack will expand many fold. There isn’t enough water in the entire Persian Gulf to stop the escalation.
And from Iran’s point of view, they probably should understand that once the fire is lit, everything they hold dear is going to get burned. When, not if, the US gets dragged into this shooting war, the gloves come off.
TomB, I believe the Cyrus
Option is a referrence to Cyrus The Great, (Founding?)
Emperor of the Persian Empire, who permitted all the “internally exiled” peoples within the smaller empires he conquered to go back to their homelands. So
the Israelis would hope for restoration of some kind of okay relations with Iran based upon that old historical memory. And bombing Iran would kill that option for centuries or
even millenia to come.
Aren’t there too few Iranian
Jews in existence to make any kind of demographic difference to Israel? And isn’t the Iranian Jewish community 2,500 years old at
least? Does one really walk
away from that much historical and cultural memory?
If Israel tried flying planes over Iraq, would we have to shoot them down to stop them? Do we have the kind of electric/electronic weapons which can disable electronic systems aboard planes? What if American planes were just to play chicken-lite with Israeli flyers to delay them till their fuel ran short? Or other inconveniencing and delaying methods?
The problem indeed comes from the irrationalists. Israel has rationalists but they are not in power. Bush
and Cheney seem irrational and evil. Does Ahmadinejad seem rational and can the Iranian power structure contain him?
By the way, I remember during the last Iranian national election that Ahmadinejad was running against Rafsanjani, who was presented in the media as being the “relative moderate, considering”. His
chances were presented as “pretty good.” It was at
that moment that Bush made a
bellicose nasty-warning type
of speech about how Iran had
better not elect Ahmadinejad. I believe Bush did that on purpose precisely in order to offend
the Iranian electorate into electing Ahmadinejad, because Bush felt he could portray Ahmadinejad as a dangerous enemy etc., in need of bombing.
http://www.binladensplan.com/Bush%20Elected%20Ahmadinejad.htm
(This article goes further than I remember events themselves going, and I am not sure if all its claims are credible. But I can’t find milder articles strictly about Bush’s cynical reverse-psychology advice to the Iranian voters).
I find this discussion quite bizarre. Iran has never threatened anybody – the only threats are in the mistranslations and spin put out by the United States and Israel. I am still waiting for any genuine evidence at all that Iran is building nuclear weapons. (I suppose they might be, but there are also little green Martians in my garden, and I have a laptop with pictures that prove it).
So what precisely are the Iranians supposed to back down from, PL?
It is now nearly 300 years since Iran attacked anyone else. It was Nadir Shah (1736-1747)(look up Wiki, if you don’t know who he was), who was admittedly an unreconstructed hegemonist of the US style.
You remember the missle Hezbollah used against the “state of the art” Israel naval boat, what happened there chaps, it was an Iranian “rubbish” missle. Do not always relie on technology superiority, Iran has some very clever scientist and are extremly innovative, especially after all these years of embargoes.
TomB,
Never heard of Billy Ray as I don’t follow current “pop culture” and the “entertainment” world. It’s hard enough just to keep up with international news. I do collect older jazz and classical on vinyl and have some older audio equipment around the house in different systems from Thorens, Perreaux, Electrocompaniet, Bryston, McIntosh, Revox, Tandberg and others.
The reference, of course, is to the past close Israeli-Iranian relationship of the 20th century and to the mythology of the Esther thing etc. during the reign Cyrus.
Israeli foreign policy has emphasized relationships with non Arab states such as Turkey and Iran and the Kurds… In recent years since Truman, American presidents like to play Cyrus…especially Bush. Etc.
jdledell: I can see 100,000 Hezballah, Hamas and Fatah supporters rushing Israel’s borders and getting into Israeli towns with significant civilian carnage.
I am wondering what would happen in Iraq if Israel attacked Iran, since Iraq’s two main political parties, viz., Al-Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (properly speaking!) were cut from the same religio-political cloth as Hizbollah, etc. at the behest of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Remember …
Iraq’s Risk In Its War. By ERIC DAVIS. NYT, Aug 7, 1981. [snip]
The major Shiite organizations are Al Dawa al Islamiya and the the [sic]
Mujahedeen. Al Dawa, which was formed in the late 1960’s, is estimated
to have 5000 members. This estimate came just before the execution of Al
Dawa’s titular leader, Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr, his sister and eight
leading Shiite clergy on April 19, 1980 ….
Al Dawa is large given the Government’s repression of Shiite movements, the execution of Ayatollah as-sadr and his followers was a serious blow. Al Dawa was always tarnished in the eyes of many Iraqis by its links to the Shah of Iran.
KUWAIT ROUNDS UP BOMBING SUSPECTS. Chicago Tribune. Jul 13, 1985.
The outlawed Iraqi Al-Daawa Party, which professes allegiance to Iranian
leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was blamed for bomb attacks on the U.S. and French Embassies and on four economic targets in Kuwait in December, 1983. Five people were killed and 86 injured.
IRAN DENIES BLAME FOR JET DISASTER — AT LEAST 62 DIE IN CRASH FOLLOWING
HIJACK ATTEMPT. Seattle Times. Dec 26, 1986. [snip]
Another caller, saying he represented the Islamic Jihad terrorist group,
said his group worked with the pro-Iranian outlawed Iraqi Al Daawa Party
in staging the airplane hijacking.
The mysterious Islamic Jihad holds at least two French and two American hostages in Lebanon. Al Daawa seeks to overthrow the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which has been at war with Iran for six years.
‘Walk Free’ Prediction Gets Puzzled Reaction. San Francisco Chronicle.
Jul 15, 1987.
State Department officials indicated yesterday they were perplexed by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s assertion that 17 men convicted in Kuwait of bomb attacks on the U.S. and French embassies will eventually “walk free.” …. The 17 are mainly Iraqi Shiites identified as members of the underground Al-Daawa Party, which is pro-Iranian.
5 Warships in Gulf Convoy. LAT, Oct 1, 1987.
Three pro-Iranian Shia Muslim organizations in Lebanon warned Tunisia
against executing seven fundamentalists convicted earlier this week of
trying to overthrow the government of President Habib Bourguiba. The groups-Hezbollah (Party of God), the umbrella organization for those holding Western hostages in Lebanon; the Daawa Party, a Hezbollah ally, and the Islamic Coalition-warned of a confrontation and a “sweeping storm” if the “unjust death sentences” are carried out.
peace
I don’t know where the word “rubbish” comes from. That was an effective anti-ship missile.
If your implication is that the Iranans could hold Hormuz closed against the US Navy for more than a short time, then you know not whereof you speak.
Now, the futures price of crude in that period would be a wonder to behold. pl
Alex,
Alors, mon vieux lapin, “justice” is on your side. If only the world was about justice…
No, I am concerned with how many dead and otherwise used people there will be if this quarrel comes to war. pl
PL
‘If your implication is that the Iranans could hold Hormuz closed against the US Navy for more than a short time, then you know not whereof you speak.’
I don’t really understand you. We all know that the only force in the world that can stop the US Navy is the US Air Force, but surely the issue is civillian tanker movements, not the Navy? Who is going to provide cover? Insurance cover I mean, not air cover.
Andrew
differentclue,
Yes, Cyrus the Great was my reference. Don’t have numbers on Jewish Iranians in Iran but there is a community. A number of Israeli leaders are from the Jewish Iranian community which is interesting.
Shaul Mofaz שאול מופז or
شائول موفاز
for one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Mofaz
I had the same thought about Bush “helping” Ahmadinejad and this would tie into the “axis of evil” speech (Jan. 2002) and rejection of the 2003 Iranian initiative via the Swiss…Neocon sabotage/active measures/dezinformatsia?
Andrew
You are right. You don’t get it.
The navy and marines will scour the Iranian coast like the inside of a dirty pot. That’s what they do best. All this COIN business is not their cup of tea. Yes, as you remind, the USAF will have some thing to do with this as well. Don’t kid yourself, these targets will not be hard to find, and if the launchers can’t be found, then other retaliatory targets will be chosen.
Insurance rates, crude futures prices? They will be through the roof until Iran is a pile of smoking rubble and the bloackage is removed. pl
We’ve done it before, we can do it again:
Another US Military Action Everyone Has Forgotten
Seems like I’m posting this one every 9-12 months!
Colonel, of course you are right that in pure humanitarian terms, the cost, were this to come to blows, would be large and relatively pointless and entirely avoidble.
But has the game become too big for that to be a consideration now?
Both sides have placed themselves in a corner whereby backing down would be political suicide.
The Iranians will not be willing to set any kind of precedent where they are seen to back down over Israeli threats. That is never going to happen.
The Israelis will not allow anyone to threaten their regional hegemony (irrespective of whether they actually believe the Iranians can build and would actually use a nuke).
But how likely is a fight really?
The US is too militarily confined and economically vulnerable to start a war with Iran, especially with the effect that will have on the barrel of oil, I think
What of the Israelis?
Military consideratons and “getting there with enough” aside, has Israeli society recovered enough from the 2006 war for the Israeli military to prosecute this?
The 60 year old myth of Israeli battlefield prowess was shaken if not demolished 2 years ago. And the missiles that rained on Israel for most of the 34 day war were small fry and relatively discriminate.
What will happen to Israeli society if less discriminate missiles with much lager payloads bombard Tel aviv?
Israelis stay in Israel as long as they feel “relatively” safe. The demographic cannot handle a mass exodus of people.
But then can the Israelis afford to be back down to Iranian pride?
Are the Iranians banking on this being an Israeli bluff?
The “theater” of anti- Westernism is, and I think we mostly agree on this, aimed at the locals rather than the “Great Satan” himself.
As long as the war drums are beating, the Iranians will continue their bullishness.
This should be put back into the hands of the IAEA. It should be taken out of the political arena (publically at least).
The formula cannot be based on the Iranians being supplied anything. That would go against their energy independence agenda.
The only solution that I can see that can stop this reaching any kind of aggression is one whereby IAEA inspectors are placed permanently for a period of a number of years on the ground, with the abilty to monitor without restriction, all the enrichment going on in order to make sure that it is never weapons grade.
A compromise as always is the only alternative to war.
Clifford Kiracofe wrote re his prior reference to an Israeli “Cyrus Option”:
“The reference, of course, is to the past close Israeli-Iranian relationship of the 20th century and to the mythology of the Esther thing etc. during the reign Cyrus.”
Ah, so in other words what you meant was that by attacking Iran, Israel would be hurting it’s ability to have good relations with same. Glad you noticed my question and responded. I speed googled it and didn’t notice anyone else ever having used that so, of course, was in the dark.
Notice that you didn’t make a prediction either way regarding such an attack. Still too close to call for you even now and even in light of this Ignatius’ report?
Cheers,
“That was an effective anti-ship missile.If your implication is that the Iranans could hold Hormuz closed against the US Navy for more than a short time, then you know not whereof you speak.”
Sir, I acknowledge your superior knowledge in the field, but they would be pretty stupid to mobilize all their ground-to-sea assets at once, wouldnt they? If I was playing the Iranian side, I would have teams with mobile platforms waiting for the first shock & awe to roll over and then start piecemeal hitting shipping both in the Hormuz and in the whole indian ocean theatre, using civilian crafts and whatnot. As well as barraging the neighbours, of course.
I dont think the Iranians can close the Hormus, but they sure can make it a risky place to be for a long time, no? While we are all busy studying COIN, I guess a lot of the others are studying just the IN part as well as having workshops on assymetrical warfare from the underdogs perspective. European economical installations, our precious northsea rigs, pipelines and infrastructure, thats what I would hit if I was the Red Hats…
By Col Lang; “New Subject: I know the Iranians may decide that the damage is acceptable. I am trying to make the argument that they should not do so.” pl
I would submit the Iran needs to strike while the Iron is hot. I wrote earlier that there is no attack on Iran in the offing. But that is because of high oil, and an American quagmire in Iraq/Afghanistan. Not to mention a global banking and real estate crisis. Those may not be permanent situations and when they change, Iran will still have a hostile U.S./Israel to deal with.
There will likely never be a time of greater advantage for Iran and they will accomplish as much as possible during that time; arm Hizbullah to the teeth, strengthen their influence over Iraq and gain a nuclear capability.
Again, capability does not mean actual weapons. Just the ability to make them in short order. That will be their insurance policy when things turn against them as over time they surely must.
Frankly, any Iranian government that doesn’t carpe the diem now would be grossly negligent. Because if as Col Lang says, the U.S. is willing to attack Iran now, they will certainly be willing to attack Iran if the situation is much more favorable in the future.
“If your implication is that the Iranans could hold Hormuz closed against the US Navy for more than a short time, then you know not whereof you speak.” PL
Pat, I’m sure you know that the Iranians have studied our options, and have also learned a lesson from the GW1. The Iraqi army & AF knew that we’d target thier planes & tanks, so they buried them and built plywood targets. After the war we found out that a lot of the ‘kills’ were dummies.
I would presume that the Iranians will do pretty much the same with their Sunburns, etc.
I don’t think the purpose of an attack by Israel on Iran would have as it’s true purpose, a true destruction of Nuclear sites. It’s purpose would be to provoke Iran into striking in counterattack against US forces maybe in the Persian Gulf, there with the declared purpose of keeping the straits of Hormuz open(who would argue with that). After this “slap in the face attack” by Israel, how easy would it be for some US commander to pick a fight with a hopping mad Iran? Then the conventional attack by the US, like we did to Serbia, would be begin, and that, many weeks long, could push back Iran’s industrial stature for a decade. This would require Iran to “believe” this bitch-slap by Israel was sanctioned by the US.(easy) – and a US commander who was willing to pick the fight in the Persian gulf. So ahmadinejad could stand there with no electricity,no air conditioning, no elevator, no water, sewer system broken, highways broken, Refinery capacity kaput, rail line broken, airports closed, TV and media taken out- and decide if he want Iran to be a part of the industrialized world or not, and like Milosevic, he may decide to kneel. Then maybe not. So payload over Terran/Nantez is not an issue for Israel. Only the ability to trigger an Iranian response, – and a US commander, just one, willing to pick the fight.
DJ
I was in on the kill in GW1 and know all about that one. Yes. The Iraqis built a lot of dummies and moved their mobile launchers around a lot. Actually, the study that established that was written under my supervision. The Iraqis still lost the war. They did not bury their planes and tanks. We destroyed them by the hundreds. both from the air and on the ground. You academics suffer from talking to each other too much.
The Iranians would be similarly defeated.
The futures traders would be the real winners. pl
Mad Dogs says: “When, not if, the US gets dragged into this shooting war, the gloves come off.”
The yanks, like the Israelis, depend on the nuclear threat.
“Everything they hold dear is going to get burned”
And hey, haven’t the Japanese behaved ever since!
Believe me, thinking doesn’t get any more short term than the apocalyptic nonsense this represents.
Mo said,
Mo, that’s is pretty much what was in place from 2003 to late 2005. Iranian lack of cooperation with the IAEA after that resulted in several unanimous IAEA board votes and elevation of the issue to the UNSC. I’m all for putting it all back in the hands of the IAEA, but Iran either doesn’t want that or it’s wants some kind of quid-pro-quo in order to fully meet its obligations, much less agree to something like the Additional Protocol. We won’t know either way until the US and Iran sit down and play “let’s make a deal.”
All,
Col. Lang is absolutely correct about a US naval/air war with Iran. I did some contingency planning in the Gulf back in the early 1990’s after the Gulf War. Both the US and Iran have been preparing for a naval war since before that. Despite gains in Iranian capabilities, they will still lose. The only question is how long it would take.
Iran isn’t backing down and is ratcheting things up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2497782/Iran-threatens-to-shut-Gulf-shipping-lanes.html
If government scientist(s) from government laboratories are responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001, then why is hypothetical Iranian WMD more of a threat to the US than existing US WMD?
Are the controls in place strong enough that no person or small group of persons can set off WMD from the US inventory?
TomB, All,
Don’t have a prediction yet other than some type of use of force is a possibility to which I attach no percentages. Not enough data for me to make a judgment, only lots of rumors.
For example, I heard a rumor among the zillions flying about inside the Beltway, the other day in DC that Pentagon planners were looking at the concept of a major “raid” say at the level of 15,000-20,000 troops or some such. A “raid” would not be billed as an “attack” I was told…and we would be just seeking evidence of an illegal nuclear program….well, well…
If a war does take place, perhaps it will be catastrophic enough for both sides that it will be a “learning experience” which alters policy in some fundamental ways in the future.
On the other hand, it seems our foreign policy elite and Congress haven’t learned much from Iraq and Afghanistan given Gates’ new (Jacobin) National Defense Strategy, and Obama’s and McCain’s and sundry politicians’ statements. What level of pain does it take here at home in terms of blood and treasure to arrive at a reality-based foreign policy? We shall, indeed, see.
What I am most interested in, however, is how Russia, China, India, the EU, and Japan would take advantage of a US attack on Iran. That is to say, how does it/would it affect the multipolar strategic environment and relative US power?
Bill W,
the brit telegraph article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2497782/Iran-threatens-to-shut-Gulf-shipping-lanes.html
is a showcase in ‘propaganda’ trying to portray iran as the bad guy, complete with a carefully chosen photo of an iranian spokesperson caught in a smirk.
the facts remain…………….
–iran signed the npt, has a legal right to build nuclear power stations and to construct fuel rods for those civilian power stations.
–no one to date has produced any evidence that iran is doing anything else with its nuclear research other than building civlian power stations. just look at the 16 u.s. intel agencies assessment in the iran nie.
–george w bush has decided to ignore all 16 u.s. intel agencies and rely on israel for all intel regarding iran’s plans. this despite the facts on the ground that continually dispute israel’s kooked intel assertions. remember that israel is trying to bully u.s. into doing their dirty work for them and they could care less how many americans die in the process to achieve that israeli objective.
let’s look back in history — israel made the same accusations against iraq, then bombed the power station at osirik claiming it concealed a clandestine weapons factory. examination of the ruins following our u.s. invasion of iraq failed to produce any evidence to support israel’s claims.
–israel through their neocon operation they had set up inside the pentagon provided much of the now discredited claims that saddam had nuke and bio weapons in the run up to the 03 invasion.
–only one nation of all the nations of the mideast is known to have a (formerly) clandestine weapons factory under a supposedly peaceful reactor and that is israel itself.
what iran has actually said is that they anticipate a u.s. attack on iran since iran does not actually have nuclear weapons and is therefore an easy target. if you were iran, watching israel whip the u.s. into a pit-bull frenzy to send in after you, what would you do?
Clifford Kiracofe wrote:
“What I am most interested in, however, is how Russia, China, India, the EU, and Japan would take advantage of a US attack on Iran. That is to say, how does it/would it affect the multipolar strategic environment and relative US power?”
Interesting indeed, except the fish are running and I’m obliged to go chase ’em which means I couldn’t follow your replies if I asked for your thoughts regarding same right now. I’ll definitely try to remember to ask when I get back though, for sure.
Cheers,
What would be visible early/advance indicators of the US initiating an attack of some kind? In what time frame and sequence? (Beltway rumors don’t count, IMO.)
Here is a list of foreign embassies in Tehran which would be caught up in the mess. Presumably they have an interest in all this.
http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/Iran/Iran2.html
Perhaps we can tabulate indicators and then observe what happens.
J,
You said,
Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the point. Iran violated its safeguards agreement (CSA) for more than 20 years. While Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology, it does not have a right to violate such agreements, which are treaties themselves, part and parcel of the NPT and the heart of the Agency’s verification measures. Furthermore, it is the IAEA that determines whether Iran is in compliance with the NPT and its CSA and not Iran – IOW Iran doesn’t get to unilaterally decide that its program is “peaceful,” particularly when it has a demonstrated and admitted history of deception on the matter.
The crux of the dispute is therefore the question of whether Iran’s program is wholly peaceful or not. Certainly much of Iran’s program is civilian in nature, though much of it has inherent military uses as well. Regardless, mostly civilian is not good enough – it must be wholly civilian. So, to answer the question requires a close examination of all the historical information along with a high degree of transparency and accessibility by IAEA inspectors for a significant period of time. IOW, in order to account for Iran’s past deception, the IAEA says it requires measures above and beyond what is required in Iran’s standard CSA (which obviously cannot provide the kind of needed access and transparency since it was that CSA Iran was able to deceive for all those years). The IAEA clearly laid out to Iran what the Agency required in 2003 and Iran agreed to it. For about two years, Iran was fairly cooperative, but has since failed to fulfill its 2003 promises to the IAEA’s satisfaction.
Legally, therefore, the IAEA board is perfectly with its rights to raise the issue of Iranian noncompliance to the UNSC, which has passed three binding resolutions on the matter – quite a feat for the diplomatically-challenged Bush administration. What’s quite amazing, actually, is the level of international agreement on this issue despite this administration.
Next you bring up the NIE. I suggest you go back and read it again because it doesn’t say what I think you think it says. It says the Iranians had a weaponization program which it halted in 2003 (note that “halt” is not “end” or “dismantle”). If true, the IAEA did not detect this program and is still unaware of it. Therefore, how is the IAEA to know when/if Iran decides to “un-halt” the program and get it up and running again? It won’t unless a much stronger verification regime is in place – a regime Iran says it won’t implement even on a temporary basis. So the NIE actually underscores the IAEA’s position all along and highlights the importance of Iran allowing the Agency the access it needs to do its job and give very Iran’s program is wholly peaceful.
To conclude, I think it’s important to take the public posturing regarding desired end-states between the US and Iran with a grain of salt. These are the starting positions from which a compromise will (hopefully) be reached once each side can find a way to get to the table. I don’t think the US will get zero enrichment in Iran and I don’t think Iran will get the slate wiped clean with no additional restrictions on its program. The likely end result, in my view, will be that Iran gets to enrich, but with a significantly stronger and more transparent and aggressive inspection regime that will make resumption of an Iranian weapons program very difficult.
Huh. I am trying *NOT* to worry my pretty (?) head about any of this too much, except that I just bought tickets to go visit my relatives in South Lebanon in late September/early October. I’ve been feeling confident that all hell won’t break loose while I’m there. Until now.
This thread is making me worry. I should not read about this stuff on the internet.
My motto is – if they start bombing before we go, then we don’t go. If they bomb while we’re there, we sit tight and hope for the best. I figure with the other stuff I’ve got going on, the odds of lightening hitting me twice are low. And if my Maker wants me, He’ll have me, sooner or later. I’m going to Lebanon (Insha’allah).
I do hope this business doesn’t escalate, that’s all. My kids would never forgive me for running out on them and getting blown up.
The Iranians only need a moderate oil slick to shut the gulf to all shipping —
forget the anti mine forces etc.
They can close the gulf for at least 3 months if push comes to shove.
The Gulf states would have kiss all their tourism ventures goodbye.
Lina, there are elections in Lebanon in the spring. Unless Israel attacks Lebanon at the time of attacking Iran, I doubt the Resistance will risk their electoral chances by giving the Israelis an excuse to pound Lebanon again.
This stuck out to me from cwz’s article:
Though the administration has often been portrayed as divided over military options against Iran, an official denied there are now any sharp rifts. “There is uniformity across the U.S. government about the way to proceed with Iran,” the official said. “Everyone from this White House, including the vice president’s office, is in agreement that the military option is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures.”
i guess there are different definitions of “small government”.
but what i really wanted to do was to enter a thought from the “conspiracy fringe” re wild card dangers. i’ve been spending too much time lately away from news sources, but last i heard bush was still planning to attend the olympic opening ceremonies, with all sorts of other “world leaders”, so we could maybe see major wild card play this weekend already, eh?
just a thought. one that i’m sure is not original to me, though beneath the dignity of this gathering.
‘Col. Lang is absolutely correct about a US naval/air war with Iran. I did some contingency planning in the Gulf back in the early 1990’s after the Gulf War. Both the US and Iran have been preparing for a naval war since before that. Despite gains in Iranian capabilities, they will still lose. The only question is how long it would take.’
Andy
The Colonel told me that I didn’t get it and evidently I still don’t. Sorry to be slow on the uptake.
Isn’t time the critical variable? The question isn’t whether Iran can ‘close’ the Straits for ever (even I’m not that dumb) but whether it can drag out a crisis long enough to do serious political and economic damage.
Past experience surely suggests (at least to me, fwtw) it would certainly take weeks and probably months for ‘normality’ to return. With the electoral clock ticking in the US that is serious. Political and economic damage elsewhere would also be happening all that time (e.g. here in the UK the Brown government would fall about 2 days after it announced its support for US measures, I should think).
I guess I still haven’t got it, but please be patient with me. I’m trying to learn.
Andrew
Leila-
My take on the Washington Post article that Col Lang posted is that no-one’s bombing anyone. Granted, I’m no expert in this stuff.
Believe it or not, I think Bush is actually smarter and more rational than we are willing to allow ourselves to believe. That is anathema for many. But I think the signs are out there. (I’m sure some people’s blood vessels are popping while reading this.)
One could counter: “But if he were so rational why would we stay in Iraq?” Because the generation in power in Washington today are products of the 1960s and 70s. For them, the major failure of Vietnam is that we didn’t stay there long enough to finish the job. And now the world sees us as a nation that “cuts and runs.” That’s why leaving has been coupled with losing. So in this Administration’s mind, staying in Iraq has been the rational thing to do.
I truly believe that there are all sorts of signs out there that Bush has recognized the limitations of military options and is not a wild card in this.
Here is one:
Google Search Result
Best of luck.
Andy,
what i said — –no one to date has produced any evidence that iran is doing anything else with its nuclear research other than building civlian power stations. — IS the point.
show me the beef where iran is a nuke threat. 3% civilian enrichment does NOT transfer into weapons grade manufacturing (80% plus).
we spelled ‘u.s.’ ‘contained’ a REAL nuclear threat during the ‘cold war’ with the soviet union having REAL ‘weapons grade’ nuke enrichment, REAL nuke weapons production program, and REAL nuke weapons DELIVERY capability. iran is small fish, with NO nuke weapons program, with NO nuke weapons delivery capability, and NO nuke weapons threat in any capacity. ‘if’ iran were to ever go into nuke weapons development, then ‘containment’ should be the word of the day.
i ask ‘where’s the beef’.
your argument about safeguards violations i view as a stick of bologna, whereas i’m looking for the REAL-DEAL BEEF of real-world solutions/answers to the overblown ‘iran problem’. and that is ‘containment’, not the lets-kill-everybody-in-sight mantra coming from the bush-cheney-neocon-israeli cabal.
J,
You have it backwards. When a country violates its CSA, the IAEA has a duty and a right to fully investigate those violations regardless of any evidence of an actual NPT violation (IOW, enriching to 80%). This is really a separate issue from what you’re suggesting which would be an NPT, not a CSA, violation.
So no, the only evidence required in the case of a CSA violation is evidence the CSA was violated. In the case of Iran, there is plenty of evidence for that as well as Iranian acknowledgment of those violations. When such violations of the Agency’s accountability measures occur, it is up to the violating state to make corrections as well as to provide the a complete accounting and the transparency and access measures for the Agency to verify that a state is now in compliance with its CSA. This is what Iran refuses to do.
In short, NPT violations are not the same as CSA violations and the latter is all about accountability and verification to get a state full back under safeguards. To require the level of evidence for CSA violations would be to make safeguards useless. States could violate them at will as long as no evidence comes to light of an actual NPT violation. That is simply not the way the safeguards regime was designed, and for good reason.
Again the Iranians are smart and sophisticated at both internal and external intrigue. How do they play it? Wait it out? Stimulate an aggressive response? Lie low? Flex some muscle (say in the straits of Hormuz) or through proxies? A huge country with a huge population that has survived 2500 years as a entity is going to be very very careful in its choices. No announcements there about preventive war and preemption. After all they do have to consider what immediate capability is in theatre even if they believe it can be defeated or minimized by its enemies. But it does look like Iranian patience will have paid off. No real effective on-scene inspections, and no really brutally crippling international sanctions. And quite strong interenational support. Strictly benefit cost analysis seems to argue for nothing before elections and they just worry that Bush wants a “Victory” somewhere for the history books. After all when he and his dad have breakfast, he may have “Won” those two terms but his DAD did have several “Victories.”
Andy:
When such violations of the Agency’s accountability measures occur, it is up to the violating state to make corrections as well as to provide the a complete accounting and the transparency and access measures for the Agency to verify that a state is now in compliance with its CSA. This is what Iran refuses to do
Granted, but the larger context is that Iran’s spotty track record of permitting IAEA inspections is still infinitely better than Israel’s.
The Bush administration is currently attempting to rationalize the idea that a nation that (a) is not a signatory of the NPT, (b) has built nuclear weapons and continues to operate a surreptitious nuclear weapons program, and (c) has likely proliferated such technology to other non-signatory states, ought to be able to attack an NPT signatory nation whose track record of IAEA inspections is merely inconsistent.
Besides being insane, that’s also a clear case of the Israeli pot calling the Iranian kettle black, and that larger context is what gets lost in all the saber-rattling.
The rogue nuclear weapons state in the middle east is Israel. Any discussion about how well other states behave w.r.t. the IAEA must proceed from that all-too-obvious context.
Past experience surely suggests (at least to me, fwtw) it would certainly take weeks and probably months for ‘normality’ to return. With the electoral clock ticking in the US that is serious. Political and economic damage elsewhere would also be happening all that time (e.g. here in the UK the Brown government would fall about 2 days after it announced its support for US measures, I should think).
Posted by: Andrew | 05 August 2008 at 04:54 AM
First of all, Israel knows as much naval strategy as they know about chinese cooking. They couldn’t even drive their frigate to lebanon without returning with a giant hole in their ship.
Closing persian gulf. why exactly one needs to “close” it? It;s a question of oil transportation, slowing down the oil enough until the US economy crashes. From last data. we won’t be able to survive 3 months of $300+/barrel.
It is not that people suddenly can’t drive. But it’s a question of economic crisis where suddenly mortgage paper isn’t worth a thing and banks start imploding. (ie. the very structure of US lending economy) 2009 budget deficit is $600B+.. without add on of various bank and corporate bail out. Nevermind additional war cost. War with Iran can add $200-500B easy on initial phase.
——-
Can Iran “close” the gulf?
1. Iran doesn’t need to sink tankers, they only need to punch hole on every tankers. (there are only about 4500 tankers in the world (think about that!)
2. US naval strategy is build on fighting another naval power (ie. ship, anti ship weapons, submarines, planes, etc) All Iran has to do is NOT fight like naval power, but mechanized infantry on surface of water.
– eg. semi submersible cement pontoon/barges. It’s cheap, well constructed one with multiple chamber is almost impossible to sink using air to surface missiles. It can be used to protect small soft craft from ship fire while moving.
It can be used as platfrom to launch ‘anti tank’ weapons against ship. (imagine that. cheap RPG vs tanker? RPG WINS. another hole in a tanker)
this pontoon practically will function like foxhole on land. (launching a $300K torpedo against $300 cement structure? They already win there.)
These cement pontoon can be made in thousands if not hundred thousands, turning the entire gulf into a giant maze for speed boat/rubber boat/jet skies vs frigates. Guess who is going to win after frigates dislodges all it’s heavy missiles? A frigates against 100 anti tanks, medium range missiles, thermobaric, mine, torpedo and advance RPG? It’s downright medieval.
-. tankers as unsinkable missile platform. (protect the tankers body with active armor and those cement pontoon (will stop all expensive near surface missiles and torpodos) All costing less than $50million without the weapons. invite aircraft to bomb the tankers (add manpad and medium range anti aircraft) Even if the entire structure only down 3 fighter jets, Iran already won in term of cost. Nevermind sinking aircraft carrier with this set up. which I believe is very much doable.
-unlimited amount of decoys (surface/underwater) make those sonar,radar, and imager saturated with useless electronic bleeps) This will make submarine absolutely useless. The torpedo can’t distinguish between real ship from a piece of floating metal.
I am sorry, when it comes to making sure no oil is going in and out of the persian gulf. I choose Iran side. because they ahve far shorter logistic, gigantic mountain, unlimited amount of cement)
and we are not talking about blowing p oil facilities in Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, etc…
which makes closing the gulf pointless altogether without oil terminals. (anybody know that there are less than half a dozen of those puppies? think about that)
When it comes to making sure no oil flowing through the persian gulf, the Iranian WINS period.
Our navy is design to fight naval power, not making sure oil is flowing.
If Iran conduct naval warfare, they lost. If they focus on making sure no oil is going through. They win.
Babak Rahimi:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rahimi.php?articleid=13254
“What the freeze-for-freeze proposal has failed to include is a comprehensive response to Iranian concerns over the U.S. policy of economic and political pressure, which has only made Tehran’s hard-liners more assertive in both domestic and foreign affairs.”
A Brit analysis (2006) of a war scenario and consequences/implications:
http://www.iranbodycount.org/analysis/
k. 4 biggest variables left at play. Israel next PM, Iran, Bush/Condi, and oil price (Saudi really)
Everybody already have some idea how the military issue will play out, or how the “diplomatic solution” will go on. Both depend on the variables above.
On Israel:
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2008/07/thinking_through_the_consequen.html
The technical details are as follows: Kadima’s circa 70,000 members are eligible to vote in a leadership primary to be held on September 17th. Four candidates have so far announced their intention to stand, all of whom are serving as ministers in the current government—Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, and Public Security Minister Avi Dichter. Any candidate receiving 40 %-plus one votes in the first round becomes party leader. If no one achieves that, then the top two candidates go into a second round run-off on
—
Iran will react and play for time (with Russia and China’s backing) Germany is getting antsy with their economy slowing. Sarkozy is absolute Israel’s lapdog. UK is hook on Bush despite crashing economy.
Saudi. I can’t guess what they are thinking. Anybody? (they definitely turn on the tap after Olmert resign.)
Condi/Bush. They are playing wait and see. General is putting tight leash on Bush/Cheney. Frankly I think Condi’s diplomatic effort has collapsed. It all external variables now. Annapolis style.
The naval blockade is definitely on.
thus, the war is now probably on.
The plan: naval blockade for several months, then let Israel attack Iran.
The ball is now on Iran side. This is going to get very nasty. Kuwait and Israel are gone for sure if there is war. Half of Iran oil facilities are definitely gone too. Time to take out your pen and paper and do the calculation.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.
Kuwait began finalizing its “emergency war plan” on being told the vessels were bound for the region.
The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed “force-protection policy.”
Cieran,
I’m not quite sure what your point is with a comparison to Israel. Are we supposed to give Iran a pass simply because Israel has never joined the NPT?
And Iran’s violations were not “merely inconsistent.” Iran engaged in a two-decade program designed to purposely deceive the IAEA. This included, inter alia, delaying inspections, then removing equipment and material that should have been declared; cleaning the facilities, and then allowing the Agency to inspect. It was lucky these deceptions were caught in the first place.
While I would like to see Israel denuclearized and brought under the NPT, I don’t think Israel’s nuclear history can or should be used to justify Iran’s history. In other words, bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.
Andy:
I’m not quite sure what your point is with a comparison to Israel. Are we supposed to give Iran a pass simply because Israel has never joined the NPT?
Sorry not to make the point more explicit. Let’s try again…
And as far as your question, the answer is clearly “no”.
The underlying point is simply that Iran is not an existential threat to the U.S. — so the idea that any clandestine weapons efforts within Iran’s nuclear programs (assuming these even exist) justify our our taking unilateral military action against them is absurd.
We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman, and we definitely can’t afford to initiate military hostilities against any and all countries we suspect to have a clandestine nuclear weapons program (especially now, with our military stretched thin and our economy teetering on the brink of recession, or worse).
We can (and should, given our status as a founding member of the IAEA) lead the world effort to bring Iran into the fold of proper inspections and fully-peaceful nuclear technologies, but that effort does not begin and end with bunker busters, and it should be performed in close collaboration with other IAEA members, some of whom are actually at real risk from Iranian weapons.
And for us to threaten to attack Iran because of Iran’s obstinacy towards IAEA inspections, when we are making said threats on behalf of a country in the region that already possesses a rogue nuclear weapons program, is the height of hypocrisy.
I’m completely confident that the rest of the world sees that point, and quite clearly.
The trade bickering with Iran has happened since the Clinton Era.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War ended abruptly. [3]
The next year, the American Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA) which threatened even non-U.S. countries making certain investments in Iran. Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will be imposed two out of seven possible sanctions, by the U.S.:[4]
This is the larger context that everybody sees while the neocons are busy with more wars…
(realignment of global geopolitics to eurasia, instead of US-western europe)
http://www.dailypfennig.com/currentIssue.aspx?date=8/8/2008
Numbers released yesterday show US consumers borrowed more than twice as much as economists forecast in June as a decline in home equity forced Americans to fund purchases with credit cards and other loans. Consumer credit rose by $14.3 billion, the most since November, to $2.59 trillion. Consumers here in the US are using credit cards and loans to cover expenses as falling home values cause banks to restrict access to home-equity lines.
And the weekly jobless claims released yesterday showed another 455,000 workers filed last week, 30,000 more than economists predicted. Continuing claims also rose to 3,311,000. The only positive piece of data released in the US yesterday showed pending sales of previously owned homes rose in June as buyers swept up foreclosed properties. But I don’t think you can look at an increase in foreclosure sales as a real positive for the US economy.
No, the underlying economic fundamentals of the US economy have not improved. In fact, they have actually worsened. Last week I reported how the administration is projecting a record high deficit in 2009. The 2008 fiscal deficit forecast of $289 billion equals 2.7% of GDP, while the 2009 fiscal deficit estimate of $482 billion is equivalent to 3.3% of GDP based on a 2.2% GDP growth projection for 2009. And if you take the IMF’s projection of only .8% US GDP growth instead of the administrations overly optimistic 2.2% GDP rate, the fiscal deficit would stand at 3.5% of GDP, matching the 2004 high.
The administration have also predicted a declining current account deficit to 4.9% and 4.7% of GDP in 2008 and 2009 respectively. This puts the total of these twin deficits (budget and current account) to near 8.0% of GDP in 2009. Implications of these twin deficits are significant for the US$, as foreign investors face an even wider choice of alternatives to US dollar investments. The credit crisis in the US has already made foreigners a little wary of US investments and higher US interest rates would be required to maintain foreign flows into the US. But higher rates will mean a further drag on a faltering US economy. I continue to believe that these twin deficits, and weak underlying economic fundamentals will push the dollar lower over the longer term.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7537173.stm
Plunging stock prices on Wall Street mean the world’s top two banks by market value – and three out of the top six – are Chinese.
Singapore’s investment funds Temasek and GIC have used the turmoil to make massive investments in the Western banking sector.
They’re now the biggest shareholders of Merrill Lynch and UBS. They are both sitting on big paper losses as values continue to fall, but they will tell you this was a unique opportunity to gain that sort of foothold on Wall Street.
And while we are focused on this week’s one-year anniversary of the credit crunch, it is easy to forget that other anniversary we were marking last year – 10 years since the Asian financial crisis.
The irony of Asian money bailing out Western banks has not been lost on many in this part of the world.
And the great game continues. After this Europe energy supply will be 100% under Russian control.
Result: Iran-Turkey is the only other route europe can get their gas without using sea transport.
I think this is the very first big central asian battle on Russian side. (after chechnya, but condi also fail to get chechnya. That was brutal and the russian won’t forget that bit.)
It’ll be interesting to see if this strategy will extent to Iraq, Pakistan and afghanistan.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080808/ts_nm/georgia_ossetia_dc_40
Russia forces on edge of South Ossetia capital
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5husI0nTUotIgdN_K5DP4R6b9ubcQD922CNB00
US troops train Georgians amid tension
Jul 21, 2008
British-Georgian military exercises may fall
Joint military training exercises by Georgian and British forces next month could be cancelled depending on how the South Ossetia crisis develops, British officials signalled Friday.
afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUSFTVx0HK_tpeQHLP9bvyGwjvTQ
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109854.html
Jews flee Georgia
In a bulletin to its membership Friday, NCSJ said that, according to its contacts, most of the Jewish community in Gori, an early near the conflict zone, have left for the capital Tbilisi.
http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/6863/
Israel ceased its weapons supply to Georgia by Russia
This is going to be very interesting. A complete diplomatic and financial battle between Bush/UK/Sarkozy vs Iran/China/Russia.
Something is going to pop for real. Either Kuwait or some small european country economy.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200808090304.htm
Britain, the United States and their allies plan to target Iran’s energy sector with tough independent sanctions in a bid to overcome opposition from China and Russia to a hardening of measures against Tehran at the U.N. Security Council, a senior British official said Friday.
The official, who demanded anonymity because of the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations, said the individual sanctions would target vulnerable areas of the Iranian economy, including the finance sector and investment in the country’s oil and gas industries.
I cannot believe no-one blasted me for my “Bush is smarter than we want to believe” comment.
People are going to let that stand!?
Chuckle.