Pajamas Media

119 Comments

1. John Samford:

“Iran could claim that the U.S. Air Force took part in the strikes, or at least that it provided logistical support to the waves of Israeli fighter jets. Such involvement, in their thinking, would justify attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf region, inviting American retaliation.”

They would be correct. The IAF cannot get anywhere close to Iran without the USA knowing about it. U.S. Navy planes would watch the Israeli jets take off. Those jets would be picked up by AWACS and followed all the way to their targets on radar. They would be US built jets (F-16I) with US built bombs. So they ( Iran) would have a valid argument about US involvement.
That is why I expect the US to do the job ourselves. A B-2 cell would be able to take out all the known targets without the Iranians knowing they were there until the bombs started going off.
As far as Iran responding, it doesn’t matter. NOTHING they could do would be as bad as allowing the Mad Dog Mullahs to have atomic bombs. These guys make the Son Of Sam look rational. Would anyone think giving the Son of Sam a nuke was a good idea?

There is a workable diplomatic option. Just none of the diplos has the ‘nads to do it. Bolton, maybe. IF he was still around. Sanctions are a joke so long as two of the permanent members of the security council choose to flaunt them. So for sanctions to have the slightest chance of working, China and Russia have to be on board.
The easy way to do that is by withdrawing from the NPT. Offer to sell S. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Poland, Germany and anybody else that wants them nukes. See if the shoe pinches when it’s on the other foot.
Think about it. Right now, the Russians and the Chinese like Iran having nukes, since they aren’t worried about the Mad Dog Mullahs using them on anyone except Israel or the USA. Give them a reason to sweat too and see if that doesn’t change some minds. Putooie won’t be amused about Germany and Poland picking up a hundred or so nukes each. The Chi-Coms will have kittens over Japan getting 150 nukes and the SSBN’s to carry them in.
PRESIDENT Bush can do this his self. All he has to is sign a piece of paper and a year (6 months?) later the USA is out of the NPT. That will give the Russians and the Chinese time to sweet talk Iran.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:19 am 2. Larry Houle:

IT’S ALL ABOUT IRAN

By
Larry houle
http://www.godofreason.com
E-mail; intermedusa@yahoo.com

A DRAMATIC NEW APPROACH TO IRANIAN SANCTIONS

We need to deal with Iran now otherwise the US could be left at one minute to midnight with no other option but to attack Iran. The longer the US waits to impose a meaningful sanction regime against Iran, the greater the necessity of military action will become - with all the potential disastrous political and economic consequences for both parties.

THE REALITY IS THE US DOES NOT NEED CHINA OR RUSSIA TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN. THE US CAN IMPOSE DEVASTATING RECIPROCAL SANCTIONS

The United States with or without EU/Russia/China support immediately imposes economic and political sanctions against Iran. The sanction regime is divided into 4 parts - Defcom 1 to Defcom 4 with each phase commencing every 30 days and staying in effect until the crisis is resolved. Within the space of 4 months Iran will be under total world wide devastating economic sanctions. ANY INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, COUNTRY THAT DISOBEYS ANY PART OF THE SANCTION REGIME - THEN THE TOTALITY OF THE ENTIRE SANCTION REGIME IMMEDIATELY APPLIES TO THEM.

DEFCON 1 SANCTIONS

Under Defcon 1 sanctions Iran is immediately hit with the following measures:

1. The cutting off of all military and nuclear technology, materials, training, building including the Bushehr nuclear power plant being built by the Russians.

2. The suspension of all flights - both private and commercial aircraft in or out of Iran.

3. The worldwide banning of all Iranian passports.

4. Severing all banking relationships between all Iranian Government agencies/officials/organizations, banks, companies, front companies with the entire world banking community.

5. The freezing of all Iranian assets throughout the world including all assets of Iranian Government, Iranian companies, front companies, government officials/organizations.

DEFCON 2

In 30 days, if Iran refuses to stop all uranium enrichment and sit down at the table in good faith then the imposition of the following Defcon 2 Sanctions:

1. The immediate stoppage of all forms of transportation coming in or out of Iran including, buses, automobiles, boats. Only oil tankers would be exempt.

2. Cutting off of all satellite signals, phone lines, internet connections, electricity etc.

3. The complete closure of all border crossings to Iran.

4. The complete shutting down of all economic activity/trade with the outside world except for the importation of gasoline into Iran and the export of oil and gas out of Iran.

DEFCON 3

Thirty days after the imposition of Defcon 2 sanctions, the start of Defcon 3:

1. The importation of gasoline into Iran to be ceased by all countries, companies and individuals.

DEFCON 4

120 days after the start of the first sanction regime - Defcon 4 - the stoppage of all payments for Iranian oil and gas exports - NOT THE STOPPAGE OF THE EXPORT OF IRANIAN OIL AND GAS. JUST THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE PRODUCTS.

Iran can export oil and gas to China etc but the Chinese and other countries can not send money or any other financial instruments to Iran. In short - the oil/gas flows out but no money flows in. If Iran decides to stop the export of oil to certain countries but not to others like China, then under this sanction regime all countries including China must help the affected country or countries. In short, share the pain of oil shortages. If any country refuses to cooperate then the totality of these sanctions will be imposed immediately on them.

Again, if any country, company, or individual chooses to disobey these sanctions then THE TOTALITY OF THE SANCTIONS IMMEDIATELY APPLIES TO THEM. For example, if China decides to continue trading with Iran then all trade between China and ALL countries, companies, individuals immediately ceases. All Chinese container ships on their way to the US or any other country must be turned back. All international flights in or out of China cease. All Chinese passports to be null and void etc. If any country decides to continue to trade with China then the totality of the sanctions immediately applies to them. And so on.

This sanction regime is absolutely devastating. Having these sanctions apply to any country who decides to ignore them will totally devastate that countries economy. THIS LINKAGE GIVES THESE SANCTIONS TOUGH LOVE FURIOUS TEETH.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:50 am 3. Dark Helmet:

Just cut the head off the snake and kill the mullas. All at once. The Persians are our freinds. The rulers are not. Kill them. It ends

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:53 am 4. courtneyme109:

A regime killing regime change is prob the real deal. All this nukey strike stuff is a smokescreen.

Hiz’B'Allah by their Khomeinist creation will prob get annihilated too.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:19 am 5. Doubting David:

The scenario has a possible outcome for the US that is positive: Iran, by attempting to draw the US in after an Israeli strike, could provide us with precisely the cover we need to invade and occupy the oilfields, which - unlike Iraq’s - are entirely located in the sparsely-populated south of the country on the Persian Gulf. We would then be in a position to dictate oil production levels, ensure that the Straits are open, and keep the government contained in the Northern half of the country. An immediate reduction in oil prices to Western companies would buy the US government time with our own population. The Israelis could be left to “mop up” Hesballah.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:51 am 6. NickLevi:

Larry Houle:

You start by saying that the U.S. doesn’t need the world for effective sanctions, and then proceed to list things with which THE WORLD must comply.

Sounds a lot like Napoleon’s “continental system.” That worked out great, didn’t it; the resulting enforcement on Russia?

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:00 am 7. John Samford:

“Sounds a lot like Napoleon’s “continental system.” That worked out great, didn’t it; the resulting enforcement on Russia?”

Are you on the correct thread? What does ol’ Nappy have to do with the Mad Dog Mullahs? Do you own a map? Look and see where Iran is. Now look and see where Russia is. They are not in the same place, are they? Maybe because they are different countries? You think?
Repeat the process for France and the United states of America.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:18 am 8. Tom Holsinger:

This is mere puffery comparable to claims of global alarmists, err, warmists.

The mullahs have shown a pattern since 9/11 of acting only through cutouts to preserve plausibile deniabilty for their idiot foreign apologists.

Direct attack by them on anyone but Israel would result in immediate and final miiltary action by ALL their neighbors except Russia, and the certain elimination of their regime and their enjoyment of the spoils of power.

Two can play the plausible deniability game. This is ours, assuming that the Israeli govt. really will do something, and that is not at all a given due to Kadima.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:26 am 9. John Samford:

Larry Houle,

None of these sanctions will matter to the Mad Dog Mullahs and most will be ignored by those who choose too. By the time we reach Defcon 4, the US will be in Fortress America posture.
Sanctions will do more damage to the USA then they will to Iran. In a USA vs the World scenario, the US can win a military conflict, but not an economic one. Culture matters before and after a conflict. Once battle is joined, culture becomes unimportant until the conflict is resolved.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:28 am 10. Iran and the Coming War. How Iran plans to drag the U.S. into war if Israel dares to attack its nuclear program…Omar Fadhil, Iraq the Model Author « Tizona’s Weblog:

[...] Page 1 of 2…Pajamas Media [...]

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:46 am 11. austin:

The reality is

1. Neither the US Air Force nor the US Navy is strategically engaged.

2. The US Army/Marines and the Iraqi military are firmly in control of Iraq and have large stockpiles of war material and are combat proven. Iraqis have no love for the Iranians at all. Many want us to invade Iran and get it over with.

3. ANY attack on US Soil will unify the US behind the President, whomever that is. His hands will be tied by public opinion. Because the Oil Crisis by such an event would be very bad, it will hurt Americans deeply and this WILL unify the nation and we will ALL accept that we are at war.

4. Iran imports most of its food and gasoline. Any shutdown of Hormuz would hurt it very badly.

5. The Gulf states are Arabs, not Persians.

6. Iran cannot fight a manueverist war and it lost the last one when Iraq went manueverist in 1988. Most of its oil is on or near the coast while the big cities are far inland.

7. If Iran uses its missiles, they will likely hit civilians in Arab states. This will be a huge propoganda victory for the Arab rulers.

The only strategic choice for Iran is to back down.

We live in interesting times.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:26 am 12. robotech master:

It truly shows how delusion iran is if it thinks it can beat the US in a war… 6 months tops until their country is wiped out. The problem comes in as with iraq…rebuilding. While their iran would be crushed quickly fixing and repairing the country will take decades.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:41 am 13. SAF:

If you recall Russia was an economic basket case in the 90’s. Both the soaring price of oil and weapons sales to the Iranians saved their economy. So it is in their best interests to promote turmoil in the Mideast. Provoking Israel to attack Iran is part of the game plan, all their protesting that this would be a bad thing not withstanding. The Chinese like turmoil in the Mideast because they mistakenly consider the US an enemy and what is bad for us is good for them. Perhaps their position will change when they figure out we are a customer.

Now the Saudi’s don’t mind this too much either as shutting down Tehran shuts down a customer. They will worry about the Straits but assuredly the US will take care of it.

A revolution from within is what Iran needs. Would completely stabilize the Mideast as no other event could. If they are attacked by Israel (and that seems more like a when) and then follow up with missiles and shutting down the straits a very effective way of prompting the population to remove the mad mullahs would be to totally wipe out their electrical generation capacity by using aluminum shrapnel bombs as we did in Bosnia, doesn’t do permanent damage but does kill power for a while.

The next few months will be interesting. The likely election of Obama will prompt a November attack by Israel.

Jul 3, 2008 - 10:00 am 14. Flesh:

The more likely strike scenario is that Israel scrambles 100 planes, fly them towards Iran over Jordan and Iraq. The US green lights the flight plan since US controls the airspace, even over Turkey.

But over Iran stealth B2’s and F-22’s do the real damage.

In Iraq, the US/Iraq forces are already forward deployed on the Iranian border, moving forces west to east. In Afghanistan, expect another brigade to be deployed due to the Taliban offensive that is occuring.

Once the Iranians lose their nuclear option, Iran starts proxy wars wherever they can… then who knows.

Jul 3, 2008 - 10:49 am 15. Thomas:

There is a quick way to end all of this posturing in Iran,

a cruise missile on every
well-head,
offshore rig,
pipeline,
holding tank,
and refinery in Iran…

that’s it they will be eating themselves inside of two weeks…

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:11 am 16. The David Factor Commentary:

Iran’s Pres. Mahmoud “Ahmadine-jihad” has publicly stated numerous times his desire (which is the desire of some 28 other Islamic nations) to wipe Israel off of the map. Add this to his public announcement in 2007 in which he claimed he is the prophet who will bring about Armageddon. Read the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the last book of the Bible, to learn what this means. Basically, Armageddon means the end of life as we know it on earth. Many scholars interpret this to mean that a nuclear exchange will leave 2/3 of the world dead and destroyed and the rest uninhabitable. “Ahmadine-jihad” said, after an Iranian plane crashed killing over 100 people, that Iran should follow their example into martyrdom. This is “their“ version of Kennedy’s speech to ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. The Ayatollah Khomeini said he would martyr all of Iran to further Islam.

Why some people say the US is the sole superpower in the world, I don’t understand. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, are all large nations with nukes and other capabilities. Why do people assume because some nations don’t have a missile capable of delivering a nuke half-way around the world, they have no planes that could do that job the old way like we did to Hiroshima? Don’t these countries fly large payload jet planes? Don’t underestimate what these countries are capable of. The USA was called the “Sleeping Giant” after we entered WWII.

Israel is well within their rights to make a pre-emptive strike when threatened not just verbally, but knowing they will be nuked if they don’t do something first. Many scholars believe that the US will have no involvement in Armageddon once that begins. Read the Book of Daniel about the eagle (that’s the US). Read the rest of the Bible to learn how to personally get out of the way of this whole mess. Or go to http://www.gideons.org/TGI.Web/TGI.Web.PublicWebSite/pages/Become_A_Christian.aspx

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:21 am 17. TallDave:

“Dragging the U.S. into a war that cannot be won”

I don’t know why anyone would think we can’t quickly and decisively defeat Tehran’s military the same way we did Hussein’s in 1991. Cutting off the Strait of Hormuz would be considered an act of war by all those Sunni-dominated Gulf states that hate Iran anyway, and the world community would likely back us in that event.

It’s a fight Iran can only lose. The biggest problem is oil prices in the short term.

An occupation of Iran, otoh, would be difficult to manage and politically impossible to sell, but decimating their military is certainly within our capabilities.

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:42 am 18. J.E.Rendini:

The Iranian people, while perhaps not our friends, are alienated from their fellow Muslims and in proximity to two potentially hostile, greater powers, i.e., Russia and China. Their long-term interests would indicate a strategic alliance with the U.S., which is sufficiently powerful to help them ward off the Russians and the Chinese but sufficiently far away to appreciate their help in maintaining “stability” in the Middle East. The Shah, for all his faults, recognized this political fact of life. Unfortunately, he has been succeeded (thanks in part to the Carter administration) by a murderous, fanatic, corrupt, retrograde, theocratic oligarchy with an ambition for world conquest. Now, the best thing for all concerned would be for the Iranian people to overthrow these bad characters on their own, but they show no signs of being able to pull it off. The Mullahs have their collective foot on the collective neck of the Persian people.

Therefore, the ball is in our court. We can’t allow these madmen to go nuclear and kill 6-7 million Israelis. We can’t allow them to hand out brief-case nukes to their terrorist surrogates. We just can’t allow it, no matter how high the price of the action taken to stop it. We can’t trust to sanctions because they don’t hurt enough and there are too many ways around them, given the non-cooperation of Russia and China and the plethora of little rogue states out there. So what do we do?

We could allow Israel to hit the Iranian nuclear sites. The Israelis have good history of doing such things successfully and the fact that they think they can do it is probably a good indication that they can. But this will leave the Iranian military and its surrogates intact and invite a second round of hostilities in the Middle East and beyond. It also leaves the Iranian economy intact, which leaves the Iranians capable of rebuilding their nuclear capacity. Besides, despite Israeli optimism, expertise and courage, given the nature of the nuclear sites - hardened, secret, buried - it’s hard to be certain such a limited strike will be effective.

The other alternative is to cut the sinews of the Iranian war-making machine. All the Mullahs’ military and terrorist activities require money. The most irresponsible thing the West had done in the last forty or so years has been to transfer large amounts of money into the hands of irresponsible political actors in the Middle East. We have also been irresponsible in swallowing the ridiculous notion that the terror masters are shadowy, hard-to-identify figures with no hard targets to attack. Their organizations may be shadowy - although they seem to advertise on Al Jazeera - but their sources of funding are some of the most exposed hard targets in the world. The production and transport of oil is something the U.S. military can disrupt at will.

By the wholesale destruction of Iran’s ability to pump and transport oil, we rob them of the ability to finance their nuclear project and their terror surrogates. We destroy their reputation as a reliable energy supplier. We limit their ability to retaliate. We create the type of economic and social chaos in Iran which will loosen the Mullah’s hold on power (and we have not needed to kill very many Iranians to do it). We dry up sources of foreign investment in Iran. We also teach a salutary lesson to the Russians, the Chinese and the Saudis about the futility of “asymmetric” conflict with the U.S., a lesson which will lead to a more cooperative and peaceful world.

Of course, there are those who will complain that such a strike will send the price of oil skyrocketing. In the very short term this might be the case. But with oil already at $140/bbl, even the medium term price cannot go much higher. We are very close to the point at which coal liquification becomes economic. And when we hit that point, the U.S. goes from being an energy importing to an energy exporting nation.

Taking out the Mullahs is worth the risk or marginally higher oil prices.

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:43 am 19. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: I Like…

…the way Tom Clancy describe our more ‘extreme’ option, as stated by Chavez in Executive Orders

“All we have to do is turn the place into a parking lot and after things cool down, send in the Marines to paint the lines.”

However, I’m likewise reminded that as in Clancy’s classic, all this is the result of a few overbearing megalomanics with delusions of godhood. It is not the people of Iran; many of whom oppose their self-inflicted regime. [Note: We're talking SERIOUS unintended consequences here.]

In Executive Orders the WMD was ebola. Here, it is regular nukes. And, as US doctrine goes, a bug is a gas is a nuke; all same-same. And since we don’t use the first two, our only REAL response is the third.

Maybe Bush will do what prescient Clancy predicts….revoke the Executive Order against killing a maniacal head-of-state.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where are Clark and Chavez when we REALLY need them?]

Jul 3, 2008 - 11:51 am 20. GK:

I agree with TallDave. People are getting carried away with their gross overestimations of Iran’s conventional military strength.

Iran’s military was tested twice in the last 28 years.

1) 8-year war with Saddam.
2) 1988 Naval confrontation with the US (Operation Praying Mantis).

In 1), they could only manage a stalemate with Saddam’s Iraq (which the US quickly defeated twice). In 2), they lost half their navy while the US lost virtually nothing.

Iran already has an aging population with a birth rate below replacement levels. These are not the demographics of a risk-loving society.

Iran would do no better in a conventional war with the US than Saddam did in 1991. Period.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:09 pm 21. ZEITGEIST:

[...] FADHIL: How Iran plans to drag the U.S. into war if Israel dares to attack its nuclear program. We should make sure they regret that, if it [...]

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:19 pm 22. tim maguire:

I roughly agree with Dark Helmet. The Iranian regime is one of our greatest enemies, but the Iranian people are one of our greatest allies. Work with them to do the job for us. It takes longer, but it’s cheaper and less messy.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:32 pm 23. Al Reasin:

The Iranian government threatens the Jewish state just as Hitler threatened the Jews in Europe. Few listened then and it appears that history is repeating itself. The world refuses to place a total economic blockade on Iran or to even stop the sale of gasoline to express the desire that Iran not develop a nuclear weaponds capability.. Iran imports 60% of its gas, mostly from the Gulf Arab states.

We fought Iran during the 1988 Tanker War, which many have forgotten. In our war with Iraq in 1991, we did not finish the job and as with Iraq, we may now have to finish the job at a much higher cost. Somehow letting a government, which uses suicide attacks as a part of its military operational methods, obtain nuclear weapons is not beyond the reasoning of Western leaders. I abhor the thought of war, but the alternative appears to be a nuclear armed Iran and the destruction of Israel and blackmail of the West.

Remember Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he expects the Shiite messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam, to return and wipe away oppression and the enemies of Islam. He will appear when the world is in great turmoil. The sooner the world is in turmoil, the sooner his appearance.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:32 pm 24. Mark Buehner:

Iran could make life difficult in the straight of hormuz with their anti-ship missiles and fast attack boats, but meanwhile we would retaliate by destroying anything that can roll, fly, or float in the Iranian inventory. I think the Iranians may have a dangerous misconception about what a war with the US would have to look like. A single US boot might never enter Iran yet still we could inflict a decisive defeat. And if Iran threatens oil, they put a rather large target on their own oil infastructure. We can afford to rebuild ours in a few weeks. Iran would be set back for years or longer.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:37 pm 25. Barf:

Thank goodness Jimmy Carter got rid of that Shah, since human rights weren’t flawlessly perfect in Iran.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:04 pm 26. Ric Locke:

It isn’t clear to me why anybody would expect Israel to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The mullahs don’t have the bomb yet, and they have hardened their sites to the point where specialized equipment is necessary to have any slightest chance of a reasonable effect. Oh, they could set Bushehr back a year or two, but it’s hard to see how they might do significant damage to Esfahan with anything but a one-way mission, which they don’t do much any more than we do.

On the other hand, a few sticks of conventional smart bombs on the tanker terminals at Bandar ‘Abbas and Bandar-e Emam Khomayni, plus (perhaps) a strike on the refineries at the latter port, would cut Iran’s hard-money income to a third or less and eliminate half their motor fuel production (which is already ‘way below par), plus make it impossible to insure a tanker headed for an Iranian port. Nuclear development is expensive. Chop away the money.

Tough on us and the Europeans when gas goes to $10 a gallon, but why should the Israelis give a s*t?

Regards,
Ric

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:23 pm 27. Armchair Linebacker:

It is really amazing that so many armchair quarterbacks here have forgotten to examine Iran’s real, not overplayed, capabilities. Iran is indeed very capable of delivering a bloody nose to the US Navy. If the US or Israel attacks, the US fleet(s) can expect to face a wall of the following:

AM-39 Exocet
SS-N-22 Sunburn
SS-NX-26 Yakhonts

No navy on the planet has the capability to stop the entirety of Iran’s anti-ship missile cache. As a previous poster noted that Iran’s explosive packed suicide attack boats could also pose a serious issue in that they number nearly 1000. Again, stopping all of the missiles and boats converging on the US fleet in the Straits of Hormuz is a task that no navy is capable of.

I’d like to believe that America’s leaders will listen to reason and accept that war with Iran is not desirable and could very easily escalate to a much larger, far more deadly full fledged nuclear conflict.

Furthermore, it does not escape reason to assert that the US is being drawn into such a situation to finish off the last superpower, entirely on purpose. Russia and China would like nothing less. Guess who gave Iran this advanced missile technology in the first place?

These assertions must be added to this conversation, no matter how unpopular it may be. The lives of thousands of US sailors are at risk, a risk they are aware of. How can anyone really say they support the troops unless they consider all of the possibilities war with Iran might entail? America’s troops deserve better than to have their lives squandered in such an obvious trap.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:36 pm 28. DiscerningTexan:

Yes, the Iranian people can be construed as (for the most part) sympathetic to the US for many of the reasons mentioned above. But an internal insurrection–especially a successful one–is highly unlikely to occur before Iran has the nukes it desires. At that point Tel Aviv is at risk, as are hundreds of thousands of US troops in bases in Iraq and other “friendly” countries.

The Iranians are not going to back down diplomatically. The quickest way to defeat them would be to destroy their only two oil refineries and blockade any incoming shipping to Iran. They would run out of gas very very quickly.

I do like the idea of keeping Russia and China at bay by offering to provide Nukes to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, etc. The Russians flipped a rod when Bush even talked about ABM’s for Eastern Europe… This is the hardball that must be played if Russia and China are to be kept from intervening in a conflict which unquestionably would broaden somewhat should Iran be attacked (and if it really carried out its threats–keep in mind that when the Syrian nuke site was hit last year they did….nothing.).

It also makes sense for this to take place:

1) BEFORE any potential Democrat-Marxist consolidation of power after January, 2009.
2) BEFORE Significant US troops are removed from the vicinity (i.e. in Iraq, with the success of the surge there will be increasing domestic pressure to bring troops home faster, although arguably continued intense fighting in Afghanistan might prevent an immediate “mass migration” of our troops out of theater.
3) WHILE gas prices are still high–think about it: if the prices were to go up another 100-200% in the short term because of an Iranian escalation after Israel were to take out their nukes, the Congress would almost be FORCED to implement an agressive exploration/drilling soloution to dampen the zeal of oil speculators. They could not afford to merely sit back and regurgitate the same tired “new technology” arguments, etc.

Sorry but this EU/UN Negotiating regime is not going to deter Iran in the least. I just don’t see it. Yes I can see them “promising” to stop like the N.Koreans did (in exchange for OUR money of course), but like NK they will never abandon this program voluntarily. Sanctions are useless-they are merely an excuse for the EU-topians to avoid what must be done.

Unless there is an internal coup d’etat where the Mullahs are tossed out VERY SOON (unlikely, despite the public mood there), military action will be the ONLY means to prevent Iran from producing (and likely USING) Nuclear weapons.

It will be up to Bush to have the cojones and historical perspective to do the right thing and support an Israeli attack (if that is how it goes down). Obama certainly would not have this level of courage and McCain is as big a question mark as Bush.

I think there will be an attack, and that it will be THIS YEAR. Buckle your seat belts, and ensure you have food, water, weaponry, CASH ON HAND and other essentials stored away for a rainy day. Because I can envision Iran using its Hezbollah proxies to launch disrupting attacks in the US, especially against computing infrastructure, financial institutions, and/or power supply.

Ready or not, it is coming. I truly believe this.

That is the reality as I see it.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:45 pm 29. Whitehall:

The Battle for the Hormuz Straits will block tanker traffic for one to six months. US boots on the ground in Iran, at least locally, will likely be required to suppress anti-ship missile batteries and prevent resupply.

Iranian missiles will reach the cities and industrial installations of our allies around the Gulf. Will biological weapons be used by the Iranians?

Their military will be defeated. The theocracy will be shaken but will it be replaced?

A proper military analysis might refine these numbers but there definitely will be profound global economic impact lasting a year or more.

We’ll wish that Congress had continued to fill our SPR.

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:50 pm 30. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mark Buehner
RE: Why….

“Iran could make life difficult in the straight of hormuz with their anti-ship missiles and fast attack boats, but meanwhile we would retaliate by destroying anything that can roll, fly, or float in the Iranian inventory. I think the Iranians may have a dangerous misconception about what a war with the US would have to look like.” — Mark Buehner

…am I suddenly reminded of that scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The one where the more evolved [oddly enough by Intelligent Design] primates confront the lesser evolved primates over the waterhole rights? The more evolved having Weapons of Massive [cranial] Destruction? And all the lesser primates—shall we call them ‘monkeys’—do is hoot and holler and gesticulate….up until the boldest of their number gets his skull caved in by—for all intents and purposes—the jawbone of an ass.

Hairy Ahby reminds me of the lesser evolved ‘monkey’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hollywood predicts Reality.]

Jul 3, 2008 - 1:53 pm 31. J. B. Layne:

The sensible thing to do with Iran is to (a)strike at the infrastructure, eliminating bridges, the electrical generating capacity (can’t run centrifuges without electricity), port facilities, airports, and so on and (b)eliminate the palaces of the mullahs and ayatollahs, as well as military, police and government buildings. Do it all with missiles.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:16 pm 32. Bubba:

Nuke ‘em, period.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:17 pm 33. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Armchair Linebacker
RE: What You’d Like

“I’d like to believe that America’s leaders will listen to reason and accept that war with
Iran is not desirable….” — Armchair Linebacker

I doubt if any ‘reasonable’ person REALLY thinks ANY war is ‘desirable’; that is in the sense of ‘fun and games’. As General Robert E. Lee put it, “It is good that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it.”

I notice your nom des blogs, with which you hide your true identity, isn’t ‘Armchair General’, because you obviously lack a level of military expertise necessary to discuss this sort of thing at the level you’d like.

“…and could very easily escalate to a much larger, far more deadly full fledged nuclear conflict.” — Armchair Linebacker

And from whence would come the nuclear weapons from the ‘other side’? Iran? Russia? China? Pakistan? Hezbollah?

“Furthermore, it does not escape reason to assert that the US is being drawn into such a situation to finish off the last superpower, entirely on purpose. Russia and China would like nothing less. Guess who gave Iran this advanced missile technology in the first place?” — Armchair Linebacker

It’s a reasonable suspicion. However, where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Just that Iran has been buying Silkworms from Communist China? They’ve also got F14 Tomcats. Guess where they bought those. Are you suggesting we conspired against ourselves?

“These assertions must be added to this conversation, no matter how unpopular it may be.” — Armchair Linebacker

No. You’re wrong. They don’t HAVE to be ‘added to this conversation’. But you’re welcome to muss over them and invite others to join you in your dark forebodings.

“The lives of thousands of US sailors are at risk, a risk they are aware of. How can anyone really say they support the troops unless they consider all of the possibilities war with Iran might entail?” — Armchair Linebacker

Better still….

…how can anyone say they ‘support the troops’ when they really hate them in the first place?

We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.

“America’s troops deserve better than to have their lives squandered in such an obvious trap.” — Armchair Linebacker

Please provide your evidence that it’s all a ‘trap’.

I suspect I’ve got better evidence that Senator Obama is a ‘trap’ than you have of a conflict with Iran is one.

In a real fight with Iran, Iran would go down in the second round, if they started it. If US started it, they’d go down within 24 hours into the first round. Think ‘Shock and Awe’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know yourself and know your enemy and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War; mandatory reading at Benning School for Boys]

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:32 pm 34. David Ross:

Armchair Linebacker brings up some good points about keeping our Navy from unnecessary risk. But the US can get around this pretty easily: just move anything big and expensive of ours out of the Gulf. For our part, the targets we’re talking about in Iran are its installations along the Gulf and we don’t need a Navy to take them out, just missiles and perhaps a few bombers.

We *would* need a Navy if we’re there to take over the refineries, with Marines, and declare the whole of the region an independent state - “Khuzistan”, “New Elam”, whatever. Iran’s portion of the Gulf is, like the rest of it, peopled by Arabs and not Persians. Mind you in this case we’d need to make it a protectorate like the various parts of Iraq.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:34 pm 35. robotech master:

Armchair linebacker… While yes those weapons are a threat to the US navy…

1. The US navy had counter measures for them(though not 100% effective)
2. The unless ambushed none of those weapons will be able to attack a US navy ship.
3. We really don’t need the US navy in the early stages because we will have tons of airfields to fly out of. The navy can safely sit out at sea out of range and wait until every fixed position is destroyed and every aircraft knocked out of the sky.
4. The most effective way to employ these anti-ship missiles is via air… and iran’s airforce is pathetic… which means that they won’t be getting any where near the navy to even launch the missiles… and fixed emplacements are going anywhere.

While these weapons systems if used by say china’s airforce would be threat… iran having them is more annoying then threatening.

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:45 pm 36. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David Ross
RE: Unnecessary Risks

“Armchair Linebacker brings up some good points about keeping our Navy from unnecessary risk.” — David Ross

I can’t think of anyone I know in the Armed Forces that REALLY wants to get themselves (1) horribly embarrassed forever in history books or (2) killed. And, as far as I know, none of them are thinking they’ll get 70+ virgins to diddle in the ‘afterlife’ if they opt for the latter course of action.

AL’s point, from your perspective, is ‘moot’.

You even point that out in that we are not anchored in the Persian Gulf. And I do believe that a number of our upper-echelon commanders can think ‘out-of-the-proverbial-box’.

For one think, we don’t need to stand in the Persian Gulf. All we need to do is (1) sink everything the Iranians have that could sail into it and interfere with shipping therein, (2) destroy any land-based systems that could likewise interfere with shipping therein and/or (3) destroy their entire air force.

It’s relatively easy, compared to doing such with the Soviet Union of the 1980s.

And people wonder why we’re so interested in developing the F22 Raptor and other high-tech weapons systems…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 'magic'.]

Jul 3, 2008 - 2:50 pm 37. Ric Locke:

Meanwhile we have to deal with egotistical jingoists like Armchair Linebacker, whose assertions amount to the notion that only the United States is capable of starting a war. Their position appears to be that the only thing the US should respond to is an amphibious landing in force, whereupon the local P.D. or sheriff’s department should be sent out to arrest the “invaders”, being sure to read them their Miranda rights individually.

The mullahs are appealing to Iranian pride (their technologists are as good as anybody’s, which is true) and patriotism (nobody in the world thinks it’s a good thing to have their country invaded). It is quite true, unfortunately, that saber-rattling tends to help them do that. One can hope that things are happening under the radar with the help of the Kurds and possibly the Turkmen. Note, too, the recent deployment of newly-trained Iraqi troops to the southeastern provinces, right across the dotted line from Iranian facilities at the head of the Gulf. Ahmadinejad may have jihad in mind, but the Iranian general staff has to be looking at a repeat of Saddam’s invasion, this time with troops trained (and certified competent) by the Americans.

The ideal outcome would be to have indigenous Iranian forces cap the mullahs and sue for peace, which would be granted instantaneously. As long as the mullahs are being bellicose and the Iranian military is willing to go along, we have no choice but to treat them all as belligerents.

Anybody who actually wants a war is a loon. But the correct answer to The Question — “What if they gave a war, and nobody came?” — is that the ones who don’t show up lose, where “lose” may very well mean “die”.

Regards,
Ric

Jul 3, 2008 - 3:09 pm 38. James:

seriously all we need is the hardliners mullahs out of power(ok im from the south so prefferably hang em…what can i say its in my nature my ppls where occupied 150yrs ago!!!! lol), a secular gov, and 10,000x better human rights most iranians accually like americans……plus i hear they have hot women…..THEY MUST BE LIBERATED!!!

Jul 3, 2008 - 3:43 pm 39. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Additionally

I think Armchair Linebacker DOES bring up an interesting point, albeit indirectly.

That point is in two parts.

First part: AL is projecting. He probably thinks that all high-level, i.e., as we call it at the division-down-to-company levels ‘echelons above God’, cretins would behave as he would on the modern battlefield; air, land and/or sea.

Second part: I’ve, personally, know officers like that. I’ve known them to be promoted to general officer and beyond. I’m thinking General (retired) Wesley Clark; who I knew as the battalion commander of 1st Battalion 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), in an earlier life where all I wore was green. He achieved his highest grade during the Clinton administration. When I knew him, he was nothing more, nor anything less, than an overbearing megalomaniac with delusions of godhood. He’d fit in FINE in present-day Iran, if he just took the ‘pledge’.

He, in my opinion, would be of the mentality that Armchair Linebacker is very much worried about. He, in my personal experience, gave not a wit of thought to the men under their command. And he would, in my honest opinion, do exactly what Armchair Liberal….er….Linebacker would suspect of him. [Note: This form of projection leads me to believe AL would do the same, given the opportunity...and a Democratic Administration and stars on his shoulders.]

But I know that Clark is not alone. I had one battalion commander of my own that was cut from the same bolt of cloth; made three-stars. I had a neighbor who declared HIS battalion commander was not disconnected from ‘reality’; he was pro-actively redefining it for his command. And I’ve seen others in action or inaction, depending upon how you look at it.

Maybe all these are of the ilk that Armchair Liberal….er….Linebacker is worried about.

RE: Getting to the Point

What’s my point here?

I think AL has a point. But I hope to God that we’ve weeded out the generals and admirals of that sort since the Clintons left the White House. It’s been eight bloody years!

If we haven’t there WILL be ‘hell to pay’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who is "General Failure" and why is he reading my disk?]

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:11 pm 40. TallDave:

No navy on the planet has the capability to stop the entirety of Iran’s anti-ship missile cache.

You aren’t reading Jane’s. Phalanx is a decade-old technology now.

Besides, they probably won’t even get to fire anything as we can hit more targets in a week than the Allies hit in all of WW II and you can’t hide a boat. Precision targeting is a huge game-changer.

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:13 pm 41. Roark:

Iran is in for a well deserved spanking, and is going to get it, too.

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:24 pm 42. BLF:

“All the other Families will line up against us. That’s all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood… You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.” - The Godfather

Clemenza wasn’t the smart one, but he had a point about stopping things at the beginning and getting rid of bad blood. This business with Iran has gone on since 1979 and the Mullahs have only gotten worse and worse.

Maybe it’s time to move like Michael, to “answer all the questions and solve all the problems.” We have to “settle all family business” with the leaders of Iran.

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:28 pm 43. John Samford:

“Why some people say the US is the sole superpower in the world, I don’t understand. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, are all large nations with nukes and other capabilities.”

It takes more the military might to be a super power. According to Dunnigan, the USA has about 75% of the World’s combat power. We are the ONLY ones with deployed Stealth aircraft and warbots. We are at least 1, perhaps 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world and pulling away.
Then there is the economy. AFAIK, the USA with 5% of the worlds population produces about 33% of the worlds GDP. That changes quickly, so I could be wrong. Considering that the rest of the world’s economy is in the tank, it might be higher today.
Then there is culture, which, being a soft power is harder to measure. Who is the top Movie Star in China and how many tickets did they sell world wide last year? There is claimed to be a McDonalds in EVERY Nation on the face of this Earth. You could probably fit all the humans who don’t know who Brittney is in a phone booth. Not that anyone remembers what a phone booth is. Who is the leading rock group in Russia? I once saw a UN list of the 10 most famous people. 7 were Americans. I could go on with Levis, Michael Jordan, Micheal Jackson, Et.Al. but there shouldn’t be any need to. It is no accident that the Nobel prizes in science are dominated by Americans.

That is what makes a super power.

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:42 pm 44. Dan R.:

You people thinking that Iran is ever going to voluntarily give up their nuclear program are dreaming.

Tere are two choices here:

1) Accept that fact that Iran is going to acquire nuclear weapons

2) Destroy their nuclear program

There is no third option. All this talk of sanctions and diplomatic solutions only gives the Iranians more time to achieve #1 above.

The mullahs want their bomb. Period. Either we let them have it, or we take away their ability to get it. It’s quite simple really.

Iran is the head of the snake. War with the current Iranian regime is inevitable, so let’s get it over with.

Jul 3, 2008 - 6:54 pm 45. Alex:

My plan, which could avoid a full-scale invasion or even air strikes:

1. Send the mullahs a notice that attempting to assemble what appears to be a nuclear bomb will be a causus belli.
2. Build up the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Air Force to way beyond pre-1991 levels. Give them M1 tanks, Apaches, F-15s, F-18s, Bradleys, Strykers, and all of our latest missile and smart bomb technology.
3. Just like the Soviet Union responding to US military buildup in the 1980s, the Iranian regime will be forced to spend more and more money on their military while their regime crumbles from within, with Kurds and PMOI causing dissent.
4. Step up the economic sanctions. With Sarkozy at the helm of the EU now, this might not be too hard. Let China know that if they want to sell weapons or if they want to buy oil, Iraq is fully open for business.
5. Sanctions plus forced spending on defense sends Iran into huge debt and national bankruptcy. The power of the mullahs is diminished, and a group of concerned citizens escort them from their offices.
6. Win.

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:20 pm 46. GW Crawford:

Want to know what is going to happen?

Iran is not going to back down - they have no reason to

America appears poised to elect a lame duck liberal who will ‘feel their pain’ and acquiesce to their demands

Obama is a man who will handily abandon allies (Israel, Canada, Mexico, Colombia) to sup with enemies because it’s ‘progress’

America does not have long term staying power in the face of adversity - never has, never will

He will likely impose some kind of sanctions on Israel for being ‘threatening’ and ‘destabilizing’ the region

In the end, as Britain and the Czechs, so America and its Israeli and Kurdish allies

I wish I could say better of the Americans but I remember the first Gulf War. I saw the footage of a Kurd fleeing with his family and, when he saw the camera, he pleaded ‘America where are you?’. When the Chinese students stood at Tianemen Square, did they have posters of Che or hammers and sickles? No, they had Lady Liberty

I said it before and I will say it again: How can American be so big and Americans so small?

Jul 3, 2008 - 7:58 pm 47. Dark Helmet:

GW Crawford….

America has the power to stay as long as needed, no matter how loud the moon bats howl. We’ve been in Korea for more than 50 years. Not a freaking inch further have the commies gone. Not one inch.

One thing is the absolute truth, and that is we will never know the whole truth.

God bless America and the ideals of personal freedom for which She stands.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:15 pm 48. fred:

Israel faces a dire existential threat from the mullahs’ new toys. Some people on this thread want to go at this problem by economic sanctions or diplomatic pressure - none of which change the threat. Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons, use them on Israel, and simultaneously threaten the West through nuclear blackmail. They believe in their marrow that they are the heirs to the Sword of the Prophet. If they can pull it off, the entire Muslim world must submit to their authority. So the Iranian government has its eye on the ball and will not be thrown off their game - not for any incentive or disincentive. No one knows this more clearly than the non-Leftist Israeli politicians and citizens. It’s their country and their lives in the hazard, so to try to stall for time really is wishful thinking.

They know that when Obama takes office in January their ability to defend themselves against these weapons dives dramatically. I speak of his ascendant rise to the Presidency in certain terms because I am certain he will win in November. It is that reality which makes this attack all the more likely. The Soros-picked policy adviser team of Obama’s are, in varying degrees, Jew-haters. Don’t let that recent AIPAC shuck and jive fool you. Realistic Israelis are not as foolish as liberal/Leftist American Jews.

President Bush knows that the greatest emerging threat to civilization now is the Iranian nuclear weapons’ program. My guess is that he will flip the expression finger at the NIE, the CIA, the State Department, and Congress and command his military to do a joint operation with Israel to take out these multiple and hardened sites. It will be a complex operation. The first step will involve the luring out of the Iranian air defenses. Next will be the destruction of Iranian air forces, including naval forces and capabilities. That means the Iranian electric/diesel subs purchased from Russia will be stowed in Davey Jones’ Locker.

If he does not do this job, his successor most certainly will not. And when both fail, it will be the Devil to pay and a horrific butcher’s bill down the road.

Can Iran do some damage in the wake of a successful, joint Israeli-U.S. operation? I’m sure they can. And we can prepare for their response in a way that would harm its effectiveness. However, the most important thing right now is not to be shaking in our boots and soiling our underwear over the thought of Iranian retaliation so much as we should be soberly considering what the far greater cost will be if we just kick this can down the road.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:21 pm 49. don L:

After reading much the considered and thought out concerns above -I only dream of an ability (not to shoot down their incoming missiles)to be able to turn all their missile back to their source. now there’s a weapon we need to develop. sorry just dreaming.

Jul 4, 2008 - 5:05 am 50. Steveoh:

MATTHIAS KUENTZEL - AHMADINEJAD’S WORLD - THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE BASIJI IN THE MINE FIELDS SHOWS WHAT ONE CAN EXPECT FROM THE MULLAH-REGIME, 7.30.06
By • Matthias Kuentzel, Germany

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=878

This is how truly insane the Iranian regime is. Much of the above commentary is well thought out and fairly accurate in it’s range of possible scenario’s but one must read Ahmadinejad’s World to really understand the full picture.

Jul 4, 2008 - 5:37 am 51. Jerry:

The poor long-suffering majority of the Iranian people must be utterly sick and tired of the mullahs and their nonsense. Could it be THAT difficult to provoke a regime change ? If that were to happen, I’m sure the majority of the Iranians would see the Americans as the best friends they could have………

Jul 4, 2008 - 5:49 am 52. John Samford:

Could it be THAT difficult to provoke a regime change ?

YES! Bodies vs. Machine guns ALWAYS ends up with hte machine guns winning. At the Battle of the Somme ( 623,907 total casualties, 146,431 were either killed or missing ), The best part of a generation was destroyed by machine guns. Estimates are that 60,000 died on the first day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme_(1916)#Casualties

As Mugabe just showed the world, when you have all the guns, you win the election. If the opposition doesn’t like that, skip the election and go right to the war.
Every single instance of a despot being overthrown in the last half of the 20th century happened because that despot couldn’t find the troops that were willing to use machine guns on their own people. Marco, the Shah, the Soviets, S, Africa Etc. In all those cases, the army refused to shoot.
When the army did shoot, ( China, Iraq, Kosovo, Sudan, Syria, Etc.) the despots kept power, until and ouside force with greater military power intervened. Mostly the USA. In cases where there was no intervention, a Despot still holds power. It might be a different despot, if there are any differences beyond their name.
The ;esson here is that regime change requires going in and hanging the Despot and taking care of those would would replace him. Iran has LOTS of guys who would slit their own mothers thorat, if Allah told them to. Rumors were that the Quds force flew over student demonstrators in Helios shooting at random into the mob.
No, the Iranian people have one hope and that is for America to remove the Mad Dog Mullahs. It is delusional to think they can do it themselves.

Jul 4, 2008 - 11:22 am 53. Sam:

America needs to join with Israel to eliminate the Iranian threat.

I give 6 months to the Iranian people to do it themselves and destroy the mullahs or we will be forced to.

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:14 pm 54. Sam:

If the Iranian’s limit Gulf transit in any way or activate terrorist groups globally as part of their response to an attack by Israel then we should formally declare war and do whatever is necessary to destroy their military and government utterly.

It is time for the carpet shop games to end.

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:32 pm 55. mwl:

The way to beat Iran is similar to the way we beat the Soviets: Bankrupt them. Interdict their ability to produce and export oil, and eventually the regime will collapse under its own weight. We would have to use the SPR and domestic production to ride it out, and I doubt this Democratic Congress has the stomach for such a course. The President would have to force their hand, and I’m not sure how much leeway he has under the War Powers Act.

I expect the Navy would be able to keep the Persian Gulf open for U.S. and other shipping, but it wouldn’t be as cheap as Operation Praying Mantis (some good reading, thanks for pointing it out). But the Iranians have had 30 years to prepare since then. We’ve had time to prepare as well; I expect there are plenty of Patriot and Standard missile reloads in place. However, if Iran does manage to bloody our nose (God forbid), then the Left may tie our hands before the job can be finished.

I wouldn’t count too much on the Iranian people. The mullahs have had control of the education system in that country for 30 years. They may well be almost as radicalized as the Palestinians.

I have no doubt that we have the ability to beat the Iranian regime. The essential question is, have we the will?

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:42 pm 56. Brian H:

Nick and John;
You really should have read all of Larry’s post. The reason China and Russia would play ball is that if they don’t they get the same sanctions applied to them (as does any country not co-operating). I.e., they get to choose: trade with Iran, trade with the U.S. Pick one.

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:45 pm 57. mwl:

Praying Mantis was in ‘88. That’s 20 years. Sorry for the typo.

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:53 pm 58. Chuck Pelto:

TO: John Samford
RE: Somme?

“YES! Bodies vs. Machine guns ALWAYS ends up with hte machine guns winning. At the Battle of the Somme ( 623,907 total casualties, 146,431 were either killed or missing )….” — John Samford

I think a more recent and more apropos example would be Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989; students vs. machine-guns. And the Communists are STILL in control, after almost 20 years.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:03 pm 59. Chuck Pelto:

TO: John Samford
RE: Spot On!

“Every single instance of a despot being overthrown in the last half of the 20th century happened because that despot couldn’t find the troops that were willing to use machine guns on their own people.” — John Samford

This was true at Tiananmen Square. The Communist Politburo brought in non-ethnic Chinese units to ‘execute’ their orders to gun down the Chinese students.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:27 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Omar Fadhil, et al.
RE: The Scenario

“The most likely starting point is a quick and intensive Israeli air strike targeting Iran’s uranium enrichment plants and other nuclear facilities crucial to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. What would follow remains unclear right now. However, a logical path can be deduced from the initial action given the declared and implicit policies, fears, and ambitions of Iran.” — Omar Fadhil

I see this scenario…

[1] Iran continues it’s efforts to (1) build nukes and (2) destroy Israel.
[2] Israel does what it has so oft done in the past…bomb the facilities into the Earth; Iraq and, now, Syria.
[3] Iran, if it’s REALLY ’stupid’, goes ‘ballistic’ and (1) tries to close the straits and/or (2) attacks US-Coalition forces in Iraq.
[4] This draws US into conflict with Iran.
[5] US forces, especially aviation assets, beat the ever-lov’n shiite out of Iran.

I’m not a big fan of this scenario. My brother-in-law is an Iranian expat. But that’s the way I see it going down.

There could well be additional terrorist activity, incited by Iran, but we can deal with that too. It would be painful, but US would survive all of that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Question: How do you oppose a group of people determined to kill you or die trying? -- a fellow M who took the 'pledge' [to become a Muslim] while he was stationed in Shah-run Iran.

Answer: One well-placed bullet at a time.

Response: Total silence.]

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:35 pm 61. Eric:

To defeat enemies abroad we have to also defeat enemies at home. Most of them are in the Democrat party.

Jul 4, 2008 - 1:56 pm 62. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Eric
RE: Heh

“To defeat enemies abroad we have to also defeat enemies at home. Most of them are in the Democrat party.” — Eric

And the so-called Major Media.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I defeat the latter by not paying ANY ‘real’ attention to them, except to point out their obvious failings.

Death! Death to the New York Times!

May its assets be seized and sold to the highest bidder. May its owners and staff responsible for disclosing national security issues be arrested, charged, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced harshly.

Jul 4, 2008 - 2:18 pm 63. John Samford:

“trade with Iran, trade with the U.S. Pick one.”

This ultimatum places the fate of the USA in the hands of Russia and China. I don’t think that is such a good idea. Suppose they pick Iran? Then what?
The USA likes economic sanctions because that is what would hurt America the most. That is why the diplos are always wanting to put sanctions on rogue nations. The diplos fear the sanctions, so the project that the despots fear them also. That is wrong. Sanctions are only effective against democracies. So any sanction war would hurt the USA and not bother the Mad Dog Mullahs.
It is politically impossible for the USA to place sanctions on China. The President that tried would face impeachment. Russia might be doable, but then again, there are better ways to handle Russia.

Jul 4, 2008 - 6:57 pm 64. naes:

i dont know if this has been mentioned yet or not on this comment page but, why dont we (the US) just wait till their next stupid military parade in tehran? these idiots always like to show their shit of, thinking they are tough as nails. just send a shit load of cruise missiles there and take out all their leaders (mullah’s and military) and a bunch of military hardware. seems real simple to me. talk about cutting off the heads…

Jul 5, 2008 - 7:18 am 65. Trent Telenkotrent:

Armchair Linebacker,

I suggest you go read about the reliability of current generation Russian anti-ship missiles in Indian Navy service at the link below before you start shouting about their lethal threat to US Navy ships:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20080704.aspx

Then consider for a moment that Indian Navy technicians are far better than Iran’s.

Jul 5, 2008 - 8:57 am 66. Iran (part. 3) « Raumzeit:

[...] (part. 3) …  and the Coming War by Omar Fadhil via Pajamas [...]

Jul 5, 2008 - 6:37 pm 67. harry:

Mr. Samford,

Do you really have any doubts about who China and Russia might pick Iran or the US? They are business people without conscience and who makes the better customer? Iran buys a 5 cent piece of gum while America buys virtually everything you’ve got for sale, which customer are you gonna keep and which are you gonna show the door. They may back Iran now but they would just as easily do business with Iran’s next leaders in case Iranian leadership were deposed.
But have no fear because there will be no US invasion as long as Bush is President and if Obama becomes the next President it won’t happen either. Israel is the world’s only chance of stopping Iran’s nuke membership. If Israel does it you will hear condemnation from the usual people but nothing else. Actually a great sigh of relief will emanate from them.

Jul 5, 2008 - 9:11 pm 68. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Weapons in the Coming War

Anyone here catch the report that Iran is buying a LOT of monkeys?

Either they’ve suddenly developed a craving for chilled monkey brains as a cool dessert OR they’ve been reading Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders.

Three guesses…..first two don’t count…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life imitates Tom Clancy novels. First it was Debt of Honor and 9/11. What next?]

Jul 6, 2008 - 11:02 am 69. Ali Chin:

It seems that Omar Fadhil is a Muslim name. But it seems that this writer Omar Fadhil is not a Muslim since he is siding with the enemies of mankind - the US and Israel, and fighting against the savior of the humankind from West’s oppressive system. Omar, please don’t be hypocrite - a Munafiq. Munafiq is in the lowest level of Hell.

Jul 6, 2008 - 11:44 pm 70. Ali Chin:

All of these commentators above also are a bunch of barbaric ignoramus. They do not realize that war is against anyone. They want to perpetuate the system of Rothschild. Do they know about Rothschild, anyways? Then that’s the proof of their being ignoramus if they do not know Islam, or even just the Rothschilds. Research, guys. See not only the tip of your nose, huh?

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:38 am 71. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ali Chin
RE: [OT] Heh

I suspect I know more about Islam than you know about Christianity. But that’s all off-topic.

RE: On-Topic

Here we’re discussing what we think of the coming war with Iran; as in who will start it, how will it be fought, who will finish it and other related issues.

Care to stay on-topic?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 7, 2008 - 7:43 am 72. Chuck Pelto:

P.S…..

“All of these commentators above also are a bunch of barbaric ignoramus.” — Ali Chin

Try not to project your particular proclivities on the rest of US. It only makes you look like the people you’re trying to describe.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:03 am 73. Noam Leviton:

Has anyone accounted for the possibility that Iran has placed nuclear weapons in Southern Lebanon or the Gaza Strip?

Jul 7, 2008 - 4:58 pm 74. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Noam Leviton
RE: Iranian Nukes

“Has anyone accounted for the possibility that Iran has placed nuclear weapons in Southern Lebanon or the Gaza Strip?” — Noam Leviton

All things ARE possible. But this one seems to me to be a bit unlikely. Otherwise, the Israelis would have moved already to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. Just like they moved earlin in Iraq and more recently in Syria.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 7, 2008 - 6:19 pm 75. John Samford:

harry,
Yes I do. You are looking at Russia and China as if they are capitalists with the bottom line bing their main concern. It isn’t and even if it was, bringing down America would be a short term loss followed by a very large long term gain.
With no America, the despots can go back to their normal power games. Who else can stop them?

Jul 7, 2008 - 10:43 pm 76. John Samford:

Iran will nuke either New York or L.A. that is because they are both major ports with large populations.
That makes them juicy, low hanging fruit. The Jihadists don’t want to kill all Americans, they want to convert us to Islam. Read plan B that was posted here not long ago.
Thr Muslims are required by the Koran to take over the world. That is what the two house thingie is about. They know that the only thing keeping the godless ones ( communists in Russia and China) from cleaning their clock is the USA. At the same time the USA is the greatest threat to Islam because of our culture. So they have to deal with the USA without being weakened to the point were they become a tasty morsel for the godless ones.
The solution is convert the west to Islam. Then they will have enough power to deal with the communists as well as ending the cultural threat.
You convert the West by creating great amounts of fear. Sine Westerners have a morbid fear of death that eastern cultures don’t, it is seen as a weakness. What would create more fear then nuking New York or L.A.? Nuke one and promise to nuke the other and you will see one ‘ell of a traffic jam as everybody tries to get out of town at the same time. Plus they could kill 5 or 6 million Americans, which would tilt the kill ratios in the favor by a bit.

Jul 7, 2008 - 11:03 pm 77. Arthur:

The FUNNY PART IS THAT I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY DONT YOU GREAT AMERICANS CANT ACCEPT THAT ITS THEIR RIGHT TO USE THEIR OWN NUCLEAR FACILITIES TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY ? HAS ANYONE OF YOU SEE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPON IN IRAN ?! FORGET ABOUT THE FOX NEWS ! I REMEMBER I HEARD THE SAME THING FROM MEDIAS IN US FOR THE IRAQ WAR , BUT THE FACT IS US ARMY COULDNT FIND ANY CHEMICAL WEAPON YET , WE DONT NEED TO KILL PEOPLE OR START A WORLD WAR III , IRAQ , AFGHANISTAN , PALESTINE , IRAN !? WHOS NEXT !? WE HAVE OUR OWN PROBLEM ! MORTAGES ! HOUSES ! EDUCATION ! UNEMPLOYMENT ! INSURANCE ! MEDICINES ! GAS PRICES … ! LETS SPEND SOME MONEY ON OUR COUNTRY INSTEAD OF KILLING PEOPLE !

Jul 8, 2008 - 11:09 am 78. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Arthur
RE: Heh

I guess you missed that bit a day or so ago about (1) all that yellowcake we’ve finally moved out of Iraq and (2) that Iran seems to have developed a remarkable hankering for either chilled monkey brains or material in which to grow some hemorrhagic disease in mass quantities.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 8, 2008 - 12:29 pm 79. A Dissenting Voice:

Isn’t it obvious? If we hit them, they will hit israel as hard as they can and those two will go at it. Israel will very likely nuke them as a result. the gloves in the gulf will come the fuck off and every American EVERYWHERE will be a target and at risk. people will get kidnapped and killed all over the fucking place at any target of opportunity that arises. lebanon will literally explode. israel will have a real deal fight on one flank with hezbollah and on the other with hamas. lots of folks will die. and this is the kicker: iraq will become the total and complete clusterfuck we worry about and act like it already is. basically we haven’t seen nothing yet if we think it is or was bad before. and that’s just the immediate short-term implications…

we’ve been very lucky recently that conflicts have been able to be contained. this is one of the ones with a possibility for escalation and much, much more widespread effect because of how focused on the energy producing areas it is. when the world’s most powerful country makes a forceful play on two of the top five energy producing countries in the world let’s just say that won’t go over very well and really risks pulling others into it.

Contrary to some of the thoughts of some posters here, there is no cake at the end of this walk.

Jul 8, 2008 - 2:56 pm 80. Chuck Pelto:

TO: A Dissenting Voice
RE: Every American

“….every American EVERYWHERE will be a target and at risk.” — A Dissenting Voice

In case you haven’t noticed, EVERY American HAS been at risk. Or have you been asleep all this time?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 8, 2008 - 6:21 pm 81. Chuck Pelto:

TO: A Dissenting Voice
RE: Additionally

“iraq will become the total and complete clusterfuck we worry about and act like it already is. basically we haven’t seen nothing yet if we think it is or was bad before. and that’s just the immediate short-term implications…” — A Dissenting Voice

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

When did YOU graduate the US Army Command and General Staff College, General Panik?

“….we’ve been very lucky recently that conflicts have been able to be contained.” — A Dissenting Voice

Luck has had nothing to do with it. All the jihadis have been going to Iraq and getting themselves whacked as not-so-smart bombs. And good riddance. It’s interesting that their murderous efforts to kill any living being, including their fellow believers in Islam is turning the Iraqi people against them.

“Contrary to some of the thoughts of some posters here, there is no cake at the end of this walk.” — A Dissenting Voice

Few wars have been ‘cake walks’; notable exceptions being Grenada and Panama actions. However, it is pretty obvious you don’t seem to grasp anything except your security….errrr….rather panic blankie.

Please don’t shake it in my direction, it probably hasn’t been into the washer since you got out of diapers.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If anyone makes a first strike, it will probably be the Israelis. Not US, as you’re misbegotten fears lead you to believe.

Care to place a little wager on that?

Jul 8, 2008 - 6:38 pm 82. kabud:

the major problem in it is unfortunately our bad policies coming from Washington:

they always had a legislative and executive leverage to

1.prevent 9-11 attacks

2.build methanol fuel alternative industry to substitute ALL OIL AND NATURAL GAS usage in USA, effectively striping oil/natural gas of its strategic importance

3.provide a vast political and moral support to IRANIAN opposition to speed up regime change

From the analysis of past actors and their roles in it it seems that people responsible for our failed policies are draging us into abyss.

My suspicion lays on Ms Condoleezza Rice as a main foreign policy adviser in Washington to our executive branch

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:16 pm 83. Vince P - Chicago:

I was thinking about the Twelver eschatology a little bit and I have a question… But first , I believe Twelver Eschatology is the plan Iran is following.

The Twelvers believe the Mahdi will reestablish the Caliphate and its capital will be in Jerusalem. So if that’s the case, why would Iran use nuclear weapons in Israel?.

Wouldn’t that make Jerusalem a problematic capital city?

Is it not possible that Iran’s talk about nuking Israel is a bluff.. and the primary target is the US and maybe Europe too?

A few years ago Ajad gave a speech at an event called “World Without Zionism”. At this event is a very striking poster of Israel , represented as a ball, falling through an hourglass.

Laying at the bottom of the hourglass is a ball representing the US. This ball is already shattered.

Go to Google Images and search for “World Without Zionism” and see it for yourself.

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:36 am 84. A Dissenting Voice:

I’m sorry Chuckles, but I guess I should have made it clear that I meant there would be a seriously increased threat to Americans everywhere.

So, because I come to a different assessment of the risks involved I’m being panicky? I never said the sky is falling. What I said is the risks of this conflict escalating are significantly greater than you and many others want to admit. So i’m guessing you’re claiming to have graduated from the US Army Command and General Staff College? I didn’t know that was a prerequisite to think about or have an informed opinion on anything involving foreign affairs. How many of the people who are so excited about this possible Iranian conflict graduated from the US Army Command and General Staff College? Are you suggesting that ALL people who did are in support of this? I highly doubt that to be the case.

In a sense you’re right, luck didn’t have much to do with it. I’ll admit that. I guess it’s not luck that we haven’t been involved in any recent conflicts with anyone of real substance who might be able to strike back. My point is that this isn’t one of those circumstances. While their capabilities are not the likes of Russia or China, they DO have the capacity to make this much more difficult than you want to admit. Not respecting your adversary’s capabilities and resources are the first step towards being harmed by them. You want to win you assume and prepare for the worst. Surely they taught you that at US Army Command and General Staff College, right??

As for a security blanket. You’re a funny guy. Does having someone disagree with your ‘Almighty’ opinion frighten you? Just because someone disagrees with your assessment doesn’t mean they’re scared. It just means they came to a different assessment of the situation.

As for whether the first strike is Israeli or US. Come on. I’m assuming you’re smarter than that! Those will be US-made planes and missiles. It cannot and will not happen without our giving it the green light. The Iranians and the world know that just as well as we do. If an Israeli first strike happens it will be taken as though we did it ourselves and we WILL become engaged in the subsequent conflict. It would be impossible not to. This isn’t Iraq in ‘81 or Syria last year. This is Iran and they’ve had 20 years to learn from our last significant encounter.

You seem to have read my post to suggest i’m against striking the Iranians. I am not. I have a bloodlust for revenge for our Marines in lebanon and our hostages. They got away with giving us a black eye [Reagan cut and ran!] and I have never forgotten or forgiven it. However, when we strike I simply want it done correctly and not half-ass like we did in Iraq. And perhaps more importantly I think it paramount that it be explained to American public and the world at large just what we’re getting into. Tough talk about surgical strikes and teaching them a lesson won’t suffice. This will be a much more extensive and bloody engagement than we’ve seen recently and people need to be prepared for that.

Jul 9, 2008 - 7:14 am 85. Chuck Pelto:

TO: A Dissenting Voice
RE: Seriously Now

“I’m sorry Chuckles, but I guess I should have made it clear that I meant there would be a seriously increased threat to Americans everywhere.” — A Dissenting Voice

“Seriously” is a qualitative term. Not quantitative. I would prefer the latter form, as expressed in ‘significantly’.

As for the increase of the threat, well….it’s going to increase anyway.

I’m certain that there were people like you around while Hitler was coming into power and they said exactly the same thing about the rise of Fascism; “Oh! Don’t challenge them. It will only make them MORE dangerous.”

And, as a result, how many ultimately dead? Tens of millions? Instead, if we hadn’t been so isolationist and the Brits so pacificist, that wouldn’t have happened.

You don’t care to learn from history….what little they apparently taught you under the vaunted American public education system, that’s a matter of your ignorance. Not mine.

RE: Different Assessments

“So, because I come to a different assessment of the risks involved I’m being panicky? I never said the sky is falling.” — A Dissenting Voice

You certain come across like that with your frequent use of the F-word.

“What I said is the risks of this conflict escalating are significantly greater than you and many others want to admit.” — A Dissenting Voice

Any increase in hostilities of the magnitude of two more nation-states going to war with each other, let alone three, is ‘significantly greater’ than the current state of affairs. What’s you point? Or are you just happy to be pointing out the blatantly obvious to those of us who already realized that?

“So i’m guessing you’re claiming to have graduated from the US Army Command and General Staff College?” — A Dissenting Voice

You are correct in your estimation.

“I didn’t know that was a prerequisite to think about or have an informed opinion on anything involving foreign affairs.” — A Dissenting Voice

Foreign affairs is one thing. Your talking military affairs here. And, based on better experience I think you’re overly agitated. But ignorance can lead to that. I was that way myself before I learned better.

You’re entitled to your opinion. And the free expression thereof, thanks the the milllions of men and women who have given up so much just so you can do it without fear of retribution. But that doesn’t mean others can’t express themselves vis-a-vis your opinion, now….does it.

“How many of the people who are so excited about this possible Iranian conflict graduated from the US Army Command and General Staff College?” — A Dissenting Voice

Depends on what you mean by ‘excited’. So, what DO you mean?

Most of those I’ve known over the last 38 years were not all that keen on going to fight. Especially amongst the officers. A good number of the enlisted men I served with in my first tour in the 82d had a flair for it, but some of them were former Hells Angels types. But the officers were more professional and many of them married with children. So they weren’t too keen on leaving their families to go to war.

SO, what’s your point here? All those people are slobbering, knuckle-dragging, blood-lusting war mongers? Hardly. They’re more like Gary Cooper in High Noon, but not quite so all alone, because they’ve got a lot more Cooper-esque ‘marshals’ with them instead of the sniveling cowards of the town.

“Are you suggesting that ALL people who did are in support of this? I highly doubt that to be the case.” — A Dissenting Voice

Please re-read the previous three paragraphs…..I’ll wait…..

RE: Luck???!?!

“In a sense you’re right, luck didn’t have much to do with it. I’ll admit that. I guess it’s not luck that we haven’t been involved in any recent conflicts with anyone of real substance who might be able to strike back.” — A Dissenting Voice

“My point is that this isn’t one of those circumstances. While their capabilities are not the likes of Russia or China, they DO have the capacity to make this much more difficult than you want to admit.” — A Dissenting Voice

“Not respecting your adversary’s capabilities and resources are the first step towards being harmed by them. You want to win you assume and prepare for the worst. Surely they taught you that at US Army Command and General Staff College, right??” — A Dissenting Voice

You’re preaching to the choir, reverend D. Voice.

I’m very much aware that one should not underestimate a potential, or real, adversary. But at the same time one should not over-estimate their capabilities either. Otherwise, you become too apprehensive. Too fearful. You’re afraid to do ANYTHING. And this puts you on the defensive. And, has been proven throughout history, the logical conclusion of defensive warfare is defeat.

Look at the South’s approach to the Civil War. Look at France in 1940. More recently, look at Iraq, 2003 (from Hussein’s position), 2004-2007 (from the Coalition perspective), and after the Surge, which is the opposite of defensive war.

Taking the fight TO the enemy puts THEM on the defensive.

Your fears and trepidation make you appear weak in the eyes of your enemies. And your enemies are not US. They are the Islamo-fascists. They’ll hate you whether you fight them or appease them. It’s a no-win situation for you. But not for the rest of US, who’ve learned our history lessons better than you.

RE: Security/Panik Blankies

“As for a security blanket. You’re a funny guy.” — A Dissenting Voice

We’re trying. Sometimes VERY trying.

“Does having someone disagree with your ‘Almighty’ opinion frighten you? Just because someone disagrees with your assessment doesn’t mean they’re scared. It just means they came to a different assessment of the situation.” — A Dissenting Voice

I am hardly ‘Almighty’. After all, I’ve not appeared in a movie titled Chuck Almighty. BUT….

….considering our personal experiences, I suspect I’m better prepared to address issues of the military nature than YOU are. This does not mean I know all the answers. Indeed, I am not consulted by the Puzzle Palace on such matters anymore. After all, I’m of the ‘retiring’ nature, these days.

As for being ‘scared’. Yes. Disagreement does not mean, in and of itself rabid, mindless fear. But other things added into ‘disagreement’ CAN indicate a level of fear that is ‘inappropriate’ to the perceived threat. Don’t you think?

“As for whether the first strike is Israeli or US. Come on. I’m assuming you’re smarter than that! Those will be US-made planes and missiles.” — A Dissenting Voice

You must be one of those ‘idiots’ that think Colt is responsible for every gun-weapon-related death wherein one of their products is used.

That’s like saying the Russians are responsible for the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 because their weapons provided the plans for the Communist Chinese government to build similar weapons that were used to slaughter the students.

This is illogical. And you are too….apparently. How so? Because if someone used a broken bottle to slash someone’s throat in a bar-room brawl, should we blame the guy who invented glass for that death?

I should think not.

Rather, it is the person to used the weapon who is to blame for the improper/inappropriate use of the weapon. Otherwise, whoever invented the hammer is responsible for the [unsolved] serial murders using hammers in Denver in early 1980s.

Do you have such a weapon at hand? Do you need to get a license to purchase such a weapon at Home Depot?

RE: The First Blow

“It cannot and will not happen without our giving it the green light. The Iranians and the world know that just as well as we do..” — A Dissenting Voice

Not my problem. And, personally speaking, I think it would happen with or without our ‘blessing’/’green light’. The Israelis, God love em, think for themselves.

“If an Israeli first strike happens it will be taken as though we did it ourselves and we WILL become engaged in the subsequent conflict. It would be impossible not to. This isn’t Iraq in ‘81 or Syria last year. This is Iran and they’ve had 20 years to learn from our last significant encounter.” — A Dissenting Voice

So what?

If the Iranians wish to take umbrage with US at an attack that was instigated by the Israelis, they’re more ‘stupid’ than I suspected. But throughout my studies in history, part-and-parcel of being a professional, I’ve noticed that religious fervor can lead to that. Especially on the battlefield.

“You seem to have read my post to suggest i’m against striking the Iranians.” — A Dissenting Voice

In a word….Yes.

“I am not. I have a bloodlust for revenge for our Marines in lebanon and our hostages. They got away with giving us a black eye [Reagan cut and ran!] and I have never forgotten or forgiven it.” — A Dissenting Voice

You might make a decent rifleman in an infantry company. Possibly an NCO. But certainly NOT a commissioned officer. See my observations/comments above.

“However, when we strike I simply want it done correctly and not half-ass like we did in Iraq. And perhaps more importantly I think it paramount that it be explained to American public and the world at large just what we’re getting into. Tough talk about surgical strikes and teaching them a lesson won’t suffice. This will be a much more extensive and bloody engagement than we’ve seen recently and people need to be prepared for that.” — A Dissenting Voice

A ‘correct’ strike, by your lights, as I understand it, would NEVER happen. Even after a nuke—generated by Iran—went off in New York City or some similar municipality.

First off, there is no such thing as full information on what the enemy is doing. Generally speaking ‘enemies’ do not tell you what they are intending. It’s a fact of ‘reality’.

Therefore, there is no such thing as ‘not half-ass’. Everything you do in a competitive environment is ‘half-ass’. Why? Because the other side doesn’t tell you what they are up to. You have to figure it our for yourself, as best you can, with limited information and a LOT of ‘speculation’.

As for ‘surgical strikes’, the Israelis seem to have turned such into their trump card.

Regarding ‘tough talk’, that all depends upon (1) how it is expressed and (2) who it is [mis]understood. Take how the US ambassador to Iraq expressed US position to Hussein in 1990…..think stupid invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War I; 100,000 Iraqi dead.

With respect to body counts…

I don’t think it will nearly as bloody as you fear. I think there is a high probability that the Iranians will, after 100,000 dead at the hands of US Air Force and US Navy pilots, think 1991 - Highway of Death, and they’ll likely overthrow the Mullahs and Monkey Ahmy.

They won’t love US. But they WILL respect US….while they establish a true democracy in their own country…

….and so the dream of self-determination, a.k.a. democracy, grows; one country at a time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 9, 2008 - 10:35 am 86. kabud:

Strategically speaking the best approach to deal with any conflict that Israel is involved would be:

US should have let Israel do whatever they want to secure their nation:
if they want to finish all totalitarian regimes in the region from Libia to Saudis - let them have it done in any way, including but not limited to nuclear.

US should have done it back in the 60s, buy withdrawing all official support to Israel and staying neutral. As for the arms: we can sell them to Israel on free market basis as far as Israel is not an enemy to us.

Today we would’ve have a totally sterile Middle East

I may be wrong but it looks like the best policy even today.

US distance itself from Israel, secretly giving it even more support, but officially condemning Israeli massive advances to the arab territories all around the region up to the soviet borders AND beyond.

Jul 9, 2008 - 10:46 am 87. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kabud
RE: Israel & US

“US distance itself from Israel, secretly giving it even more support, but officially condemning Israeli massive advances to the arab territories all around the region up to the soviet borders AND beyond.” — kabud

Heh…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who bless you, I shall bless. Those who curse you, I shall curse. -- God speaking to Abraham, Genesis]

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:05 am 88. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Omar Fadhil, et al.
RE: What Was That Credo?

“How Iran plans to drag the U.S. into war if Israel dares to attack its nuclear program.” — Omar Fadhil

Who Dares, Wins! — British Special Air Services (SAS)

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God send the right!]

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:08 am 89. kabud:

To Chuck:

may i suggest you some reading on strategy besides Art of War: check out Golitsyn books

I have contacts in Israel with people who *KNOW*

Not sure about today but in the past they stressed that US `support` is the only obstacle for Israel not to take the region as a whole under their control

What we have in Wash., DC is enemy agents right in the executive branch. I suspect the failure of our policies will be devastating unless we investigate Ms Rice. Only under the condition she is put behind bars IMMEDIATELY

We risk our nation may seize to exist

Jul 9, 2008 - 11:43 am 90. A Dissenting Voice:

Chuckles,

First, I’d like to thank you for your service. As you correctly point out, such sacrifice allows us to have a spirited debate on major issues without fear of retribution or political suffering. The best part being we’re free to agree or disagree about whatever the hell we want and say so whenever the hell we want! It’s just one of the many things that makes our country so great. Many thanks.

Now, on to the issues:

Qualitative or quantitative. The point is the same: the threat to Americans will be much more than it is currently. The reason I bring that up is because hitting Iran over their nuke program is being touted as decreasing that threat when in reality it will increase it. As I noted before, I don’t think this is a reason NOT to do so but I do think it’s something to be honest with people about in order to prepare them for it.

As for the Hitler statement…You’re still suggesting I’m against hitting them. Not true. Far from it. But I want it done right. Not so that we have to go back in 5 years or 10 years like we did in Iraq. And yes, I understand that was different but the point is the same: if there is a threat, let’s REMOVE the threat not just weaken it. This is what I mean by ‘half-assed’. As to what you’re asking about regarding ‘excited’: Do those Gary Cooper types think we (or the Israelis) should bomb the hell out of Iran? Change the regime? Do they express any concern that this won’t spread to a larger conflict? Do they express any concern whether this will even solve the problem as intended?

I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts regarding taking the fight to an adversary and how avoidance of such a fight makes you appear weak in their eyes. However, HOW you take the fight to that adversary is much more important than just doing so. Coming at them the way they want you to and the way they’ve prepared for you might not be best.

No, I don’t think that the maker of a weapon is responsible for the actions of a user of that weapon. But it’s fairly clear and safe to say in this circumstance that Israel’s actions will not be interpreted or acted upon as though they were independent of us. The iranians have said as much. Maybe they’re bluffing but it’s probably prudent to go ahead and prepare as though they aren’t. It’s not fear, it’s just a realization that it’s very likely our forces will become engaged in the conflict. I happen to think that’s a good thing because it means we won’t have as many restraints on our actions in response.

“A ‘correct’ strike, by your lights, as I understand it, would NEVER happen. Even after a nuke—generated by Iran—went off in New York City or some similar municipality.”

A correct strike, would prevent the possibility you mention from ever occurring in the first place. Also, I’m not sure where you get this ‘understanding’ from anyway. As I’ve noted several times, my concern is HOW we do this not IF we do. I want it done so we don’t have to go back and redo it since I think the cost for doing so will be much higher than you and others seem to think it will be. Like I said in my first post: ‘there is no cake at the end of this walk’. I think it does a disservice to the country when people take this lightly or suggest that it won’t be difficult and costly to achieve our objectives.

“I don’t think it will nearly as bloody as you fear. I think there is a high probability that the Iranians will, after 100,000 dead at the hands of US Air Force and US Navy pilots, think 1991 - Highway of Death, and they’ll likely overthrow the Mullahs and Monkey Ahmy.

They won’t love US. But they WILL respect US….while they establish a true democracy in their own country…

….and so the dream of self-determination, a.k.a. democracy, grows; one country at a time.”

We simply disagree here. It’ll be bloody. As for them respecting us and establishing a democracy in their country: hogwash. that sounds a lot like being greeted as liberators in iraq. ain’t gonna happen. they’ll fight and we’ll have to kill a lot of them before they give up. but as you noted above about religious fanatics being stupid on the battlefield, it’ll take a lot more than bombing to get a true democracy there. I think it’s certainly the correct goal but it’ll take an iraq-style engagement and effort (actually much larger) to achieve such a change in iran. I don’t see anyone discussing that here and I think it’s a little disingenuous to think it’s gonna happen without a much more significant effort.

Jul 9, 2008 - 1:13 pm 91. kabud:

Iran regime change:
highly recommended to anyone interested in what to do about IRAN

http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/Homayoun%20Interview.mp3

Jul 9, 2008 - 2:34 pm 92. A Dissenting Voice:

Chuckles,

I forgot one other point. You said “Foreign affairs is one thing. Your talking military affairs here. ”

Military affairs are but one aspect of foreign affairs. While it is without question an exceptionally important aspect it is not the only one and focusing on it exclusively to the detriment of the other aspects will entail the same type of damage and failure as ignoring military affairs and only focusing on the other aspects would. A nation that ignored it’s economic affairs to focus solely on it’s military will lose just as surely as one which focuses only on it’s economy while ignoring it’s military.

It is very important to look at a situation in the context of it’s total position in and effect on the foreign affairs of a nation and not just it’s military one. That’s another part of my concern about the nature of and preparation for our engagement with Iran. It will not happen solely in a military vacuum in the middle east. The repercussions will be economic, diplomatic, political and cultural and they will be felt globally. We need to be prepared for that and honestly consider the price.

Jul 9, 2008 - 2:57 pm