Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn

[leftchick]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/02/12/iran_is_prepared_to_retaliate_experts_warn/

WASHINGTON -- Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the options are airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations or covert action to sabotage the Iranian program.

But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence report described as ''more confident and assertive" than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.

''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about , I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage them," said John Pike, director of the think tank GlobalSecurity.org, referring to Iran's religious leaders.

[Cary]

1. Lovely

Could Osama have lured Bush in any more cleverly?

[HeeBGBz]

2. Huh?

What does Osama have to do with Iran?

[EFerrari]

6. Osama reportedly wanted what Monkey Boy wants, WW3. n/t

[HeeBGBz]

8. Oh okay

I think I got it.

[megatherium]

16. Osama doesn't want WW3.

He wants us to get the hell out of the middle east. (Stop supporting Israel, stop supporting the Saudi royals, immediately stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) He probably hopes his faction will then overthrow the military dictatorships and repressive theocracies of the region, and then control the oil wealth. His stated aim is to restore the caliphate long since destroyed by the European colonial powers.

[EFerrari]

37. Right and in order to get there, they need to fight a war.

And I said reportedly because I personally am not sure he's not CIA.

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. Osama and Al CIAda

are definitely in league with the BushCo faction of the CIA.

[TankLV]

48. Osama and his couple of henchmen. There is no "alqueda".

It is a Neocon MYTH.

There's a BBC link somewhere that does a thorough debunking of THAT lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. -snip-

A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

[Megahurtz]

109. That wouldn't surprise me at all. n/t

[ixion]

4. Osama is a CIA tool

IMO.

Remember that he worked for the CIA when Russia occupied Afghanistan in the 80's.

And you know what they say about working for the CIA: You never really leave.

[megatherium]

21. too far-fetched for me.

bin Laden learned an interesting lesson in the 1980s: a determined band of asymmetrical warriors can humiliate a superpower and force it to leave Muslim lands. Indeed, bin Laden believes this played a critical role in the destruction of the atheistic Soviet regime. Now bin Laden thinks 9/11 or similar efforts will have the same effect on the US: force us out of the middle east and ultimately cause the collapse of our decadent society.

His break with us happened after the 1991 gulf war (when we remained in Saudi Arabia in permanent bases).

[jwirr]

72. It wasn't the humiliation that ended the USSR. They went broke.

That is the lesson bin Laden learned and he is using it to break us. * just falls into line with his plan so that the corporations can take over after we fall.

[megatherium]

80. Of course, and that is bin Laden's plan. nt

[pauldp]

73. So you think Le Figaro is lying?

I guess it comes down to who you believe, a respected French newspaper or the CIA?

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Ladin_Hopital.htm

Plus Bush told the FBI to back off on the Bin Ladens prior to 911

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=0

CIA assets, then and now IMHO.

[megatherium]

79. I wouldn't know what the truth is.

But the Le Figaro report claims that bin Laden was treated in Dubai before 9/11. That would be shocking; bin Laden was supposed to be a wanted man for his attacks in Africa and the USS Cole. Le Figaro might have been lied to by their source. The source evidently wanted us to distrust our own government; if the source were hostile to the US, that would be a good piece of misinformation to use against us. (People over there don't like us, you know. Of course, the way we have behaved, is that any surprise?)

Not that I trust Bushco, I certainly don't. But I don't find MIHOP/LIHOP to be a parsimonious explanation for 9/11. But I do believe in the theory of "Exploited It On Purpose," meaning that 9/11 surprised them but they quickly made use of it to sell their pre-existing plans to do Iraq.

[WinkyDink]

114. How about: Dubai firms to guard U.S. ports??

[Zhade]

89. Keep in mind that the Carlyle Group aquired a nice chunk of Le Figaro.

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/geo/casestudy-755.html

Knowing their influence, and their board members, I'm not sure what to think of Le Figaro anymore.

[pauldp]

101. Interesting. Thanks for that link.

[Zhade]

102. Sure thing. Always happy to spread the word.

NT!

[Megahurtz]

110. G-r-e-a-t!

:sarcasm:

[Zhade]

88. Er...is there a reason you need to say "atheistic Soviet regime"?

What does that have to do with the discussion (especially since it's inaccurate - the USSR's religion was the State itself, and nothing was done in the name of atheism itself).

I find that comment odd and a bit disquieting.

[bemildred]

32. More likely the CIA is an Osama tool.

I would bet on Osama having the suit-droids in the CIA figured out, rather than the other way around.

[High Plains]

57. They're all tools.

[bemildred]

59. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[jackbourassa]

46. Have you guys ever read Tom Clancy's "Sum of all Fears?"

About this terrorist group that incites war between the Russians and Americans with the hopes of taking over once the two "superpowers" destroyed themselves.

I am beginning to think that George W. Bush fell into such a trap by Osama bin Laden.

[RazzleDazzle]

74. Nah

Not really.

Check out some of the links in this remarkable thread for the REAL story:

An Interview with Retired CIA Agent Robert Baer
He's the author of "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War Against Terrorism" (Crown Publishers, 2002), which was the basis for "Syriana."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x380159
Link:http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2006/02/news/index.php

[Gman]

95. Watching the movie on CBS right now

seen it a bunch of times before.. Very relevant to today.

[saltpoint]

3. I'm no expert on Iranian military capacities but I wonder if Iran is more

capable than Iraq of retaliation. Does anybody know? The hype about Saddam's magnificent military in the first Gulf War may have been media-spread but it was administration-planted, and it was total bullshit. A Cub Scout troop could have "saved" Kuwait.

I wonder how Iran compares in retaliatory powers to 1990s-Iraq, and if the Bush administration could be dramatically underestimating the consequences of pre-emptive strikes.

[ixion]

5. misunderestimation is the hallmark of the Bush Cabal

and whether by plan or by fluke, will certainly be the undoing of our republic. :cry:

[saltpoint]

11. Greetings to you, ixion, and while I love your post on this topic I'd

like to also praise your signature quotes. Absolutely superb, and thank you for putting them before us.

All good wishes.

[Genki]

47. Signatures

Could anyone please tell me why none appear on my screen?

[saltpoint]

50. Hi, Genki. Not sure about this, but go to the top of your DU screen,

select 'Options.'

On that screen, choose 'Preferences' over on the left. I think the third choice down is a yes or no question about signatures being displayed.

If that doesn't work, post the same question in the DU Lounge. People here are great helping each other navigate the boards.

[Genki]

58. All Is Revealed

Thank you so much.

[ixion]

77. thanks, Old Crusoe

much appreciated. :hi:

[leftchick]

7. read the whole article and you get an Idea of what a disater this would be

and then there is the oil. $100.00 a barrel anyone?

<snip>

Intelligence officials also point out that Iran controls a small island at the mouth the Strait of Hormuz and could use missiles and gunboats to temporarily shut off access to the economically vital Persian Gulf, sparking an oil crisis.

[HeeBGBz]

12. I guess I need to invest in a team of horses

That could pull my little rv/camper around. Kinda like Road Warrior meets Wagon Train.

[saltpoint]

14. And I was thinking of possible longer-range missiles aimed at Israel --

not as a pro-Israeli issue per se but for the young people in a grade school somewhere in Tehran.

This is not their quarrel and BushCheney et al should not be endangering them with their war games.

Your point on the oil is paramount, and I buy your viewpoint. The danger is as real as you suggest it is.

[LostinVA]

10. Yes, they are

Just for starters: they have a real army and a real Air Force.

[saltpoint]

15. That's what I feared. Every bully eventually gets his due. I would

cheer BushCheney getting their due also except that it means damage to my country and to nnocent people elsewhere.

These are not good times, are they.

[mom cat]

20. Iraq's military was crushed by Gulf War 1 and sanctions and 10 years of

bombing before Gulf War #2. Even with all of that, the US is bogged down in a no-win situation.Iran has a much stronger military and a much stronger economy with a larger population that has more intense religious fervor than Saddam's secular Iraq.

[saltpoint]

27. Hi, mom cat. Thanks for that info. With Rumsfeld and Rice and

Cheney et al riling up the rabble on Iran's nuclear program, I'll be listening even closer to voices in the two chambers demanding diplomacy and peace.

[mom cat]

44. We need to be e-mailing, faxing, phoning etc on Iran every day.

Tell them strong:
NO MORE WAR!

[saltpoint]

51. Agreed, emphatically. I send frequent emails to Dick Lugar,

the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Not my favorite senator, but the senator who heads a key committee.

A lot of the balance of war and peace is in Lugar's office.

[mom cat]

53. Good target.

[blackhorse]

22. Better than pre-1990s Iraq ...

at least in some ways. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, Iran recovered from the initial shock of invasion and was besting the Iraqi military by the end of the war.

As a creditable opponent for modern western armies in a conventional war ... no.

The problem here is, again, the potential for asymmetric warfare. The U.S. failed to seriously consider the possibility of an insurgency when it invaded Iraq. I would guess the potential in Iran is at least as high as it was in Iraq for such an event to happen.

Shutting the down Irani nuclear facilities will probably not be that hard to do. The problem will be keeping the Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz free for shipping. Keeping the ships underway means the Persian coastline will have to be seized, and probably the passes over the Zagros Mountains as well.

So, if the U.S. opts to strike, they can conventionally strike and then have to fight another insurgency in the Iranian coastal regions ... or they go nuclear and hope nobody else pulls the big trigger. Given the current degree of global destabilization, the nuclear option is IMO very high risk.

BH

[saltpoint]

28. Have to agree. Always a risk and lately a very high risk. / nt

[qazplm]

43. The Iran-Iraq war was a study

in how poorly run the Iraqi army was, and how numbers can beat quality.

But I agree with your assessment that they wouldnt win a traditional war against us, but the resulting guerilla war would make iraq look like a pillow fight because:

1. Iran is 4 times bigger
2. Iran is unified ethnically and have a long proud millenia long history of existence as an independent entity
3. Iranians are fiercely patriotic

We would be left with no political or social entity like the shites in Iraq willing to work with us.

[reprobate]

62. Right, blackhorse. And there's the danger of Iraq insurgancy joining Iran

Al Sadr has already stated that if U.S. attacks Iran the Shia Iraqis will join Iran in the fight against the occupation. I tend to believe that if that happens, the Sunni and Shia factions will put down their differences for the moment and join as Muslims against the infadel invader.

Why do I suddenly see a new version of the Great Arab Revolt of 1916? All this situation needs is another Sharif Hussein to unite the area, and the U.S. will replace the Ottoman Empire as the Great Enemy.

Thanks George. Get ready to be tried for treason. Or stupidity.

I finally figured out this neocon bunch's problem. They never heard of the Law of Unitended Consequences.

[Boojatta]

42. 'A Cub Scout troop could have "saved" Kuwait.'

Is the government of Kuwait now taking steps to ensure that there is no red tape impeding the establishment of cub scout troops in Kuwait? It's unfortunate that there were no cub scout troops in Kuwait when Iraq invaded.

[saltpoint]

115. My point had to do with ferocity of resistance to the U.S. assault. /nt

[rucky]

68. it's called China...maybe Russia

Afghanistah? ok, we had to get 9/11 out of our system.

Iraq? not good, but America's own mess to clean up.

The next invasion will prove the Neocons to be a global threat. Alliances will form. There is not doubt this will spark a world war.

[RazzleDazzle]

75. Alliances have already formed

It remains to be seen what they are, what they entail, when they will be triggered.

In truth, though, the USA could be brought to its knees probably nearly overnight economically, since China and several other countries own so much of our debt. Or so I'm told.

And as for retaliation by Iran? The Bushies are praying for that, so they can go nuclear. I can feel their itch to go nuclear from where I sit. They are world-class destroyers, and nothing would suit them better than a nuclear holocaust. I do believe they'd even risk nukes falling on our soil. After all, chances are they'd be safe, with Cheney and his secret bunker and all. (And just why DID he think he needed that, anyhow??)

[freefall]

90. I agree. They are aching to pull the nuclear trigger. n/t

[jpak]

69. Iran has enough SCUDS to wreck Saudi and Kuwaiti oil terminals etc.

and seriously threaten oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

They could really fuck things up if they chose to...

[coalition_unwilling]

111. They have 850,000+ in their army (for starters)

And they have sympathizers throughout the region (and world), e.g., Hezbollah (Southern Lebanon), al Sistani and the Badr Brigades (southern Iraq).

Try this on for size: we attack Iran, they send 5-6 mechanized divisions across the border of Iraq and roll up our 140,000 troops still occupying that land. Think it can't happen?

[savemefromdumbya]

9. They would have done it years ago

why now do you ask?

[babylonsister]

17. Because the US is preparing a military blitz?

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

[KoKo]

13. The Chimp/Cheney and the NeoCons scream "Bring it On!" as they laugh

themselves silly thinking of the carnage and all the Saudi Companies that will benefit...

[fshrink]

18. There's something

that needs to be said: Iraq and lots of US concentrations, including Baghdad, are a few hours away from Iran. US forces are so spread out and encapsulated, relying only on air transport for their supplies that it's not even funny. Wouldn't take much time for an Iranian force to invade part of Iraq and aviation or infantry might not scramble fast enough to prevent some incursion. What if, say 5,000 US troops were trapped somewhere? That's the way French were defeated in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu. Not to mention rockets, like in the 70s.

[Chrisduhfur]

25. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

But I do not think that Iran would strike first if that's what you're getting at. They know that it would pretty much give the US the go-ahead to attack. Also, the US has a lot of firepower in that area right now. While we may not be able to invade Iran and occupy it we could easily pound it into the stone age. Umm, but I am just pulling that out of my ass, but it sounds right. :P I am sure someone more qualified can give a better analysis.

[Mikimouse]

33. Speaking of Stone Age...

The Iranians are not the ones thinking and acting like Flatheads.

[Chrisduhfur]

36. They aren't?

"flatheads"? Hmmm, never heard that term but I am assuming it means one of two things A) something similar to Neanderthal or B) you're being creative with the use of "tool". I am going to go with the former though, although I may be wrong in both my assumptions.

In all honesty I think they thinking like 'flatheads' as much as our leaders. The only difference is, is that they do not have as much of an ability to project their 'flathead' thinking. I also suppose you missed the events taking place in the mid-east over the cartoons.

[Mikimouse]

108. It was a reference to Neanderthal behavior, but...

not a very good description (I snatched it from from Jean Auel's novels). Think about the implications, though. I am not arguing that nobody else is guilty of doing the same, only that our leaders, who proclaim this nation to be 'the greatest nation that world has ever seen"-(Note: see my sig. line for effect)have no business behaving in any type of sophomoric manner, and that includes saber rattling, name-calling, provocative denigration of other cultures, etc. That's why I highlighted the leaders of this country as acting as 'flatheads.' As far as the cartoons are concerned, I think that some of them were in very poor taste, and the response to them was a stretch as well, but on the other hand, I have to wonder what would happen if the entirety of roles was reversed. If We were the ones invaded for no reason, had our culture denigrated by the oppressors, were treated like children because of our beliefs, and then, on top of it all, had such cartoons drawn about the God in which we believe. Collective behavior is not based on a single issue, it is a phenomenon which has multiple facets.

[bemildred]

38. Yup. N. Korea has no chance against us, neither does Vietnam.

And Iraq lies supine before our big swinging dick now.

[Chrisduhfur]

52. There are always two wars.

There is the military part and then there is a the political part. It's the political part that is often times the hardest. Knocking a country down so that it can not fight is simply a matter of bombing it to hell. The problem comes in when you attempt to take over a country(Iraq) or when you allow political motivates to dictate how a war is fought. Look back to world war two. The allies won that war because they were willing to do whatever it took. The Russians threw millions upon millions of men to their death so that they could defeat the Germans. The Americans & Brits bombed civilian targets and also sacrificed huge amounts of men. The US has not really fought a war in that manner since WW2. They have all been limited for one reason or another. I mean, look what happened in Fallhuja. The US military used white phosphorus civilian population, that is the type of actions that are taken to actually win wars. That is why going to war is such a horrible thing, because in order to actually win you have to do horrible things.

Anyways, I am not saying that we should doing that but I simply saying that if we did then the situation would be different. Although I am sure we can agree that the best solution would be to not even be in Iraq.. or maybe later, Iran. I personally say we let the Iranians do whatever they want with their nukes. If they use them then they would obviously be punished by the world... you know, like with sanctions. ;)

[bemildred]

60. There is only one war, and if you lose, you lose.

The notion that you can win the "military part" lose the "political part" is horseshit. War is the use of force to obtain political ends, and if you fail to obtain those political ends, you lost, no matter how much shit you blew up, and you are a moron to boot.

[Chrisduhfur]

61. Well ain't you a nice fella.

I think you just like to argue. I was not disputing anything you said, and I didn't say anything contrary to what you stated. Do you need a hug or something?

[leftchick]

67. bemildred

is an outstanding fella. Stick around and observe and perhaps you may learn that as well.

[Chrisduhfur]

76. That may be, however...

I feel as if he is attacking me without merit. Which is fine, but I will point it out. I am sure he is a great guy though, but I think he was a bit too hostile for no apparent reason. Hell, I wasn't even disagreeing with him, I was just pointing out some of my views things. If he thinks I am wrong that is fine, if he wants to call me a moron that is fine, but he could at least state why. :D

[leftchick]

81. he did not call you a moron

reread the post and see who the moron is.

[bemildred]

84. Aw ....

:hug:

[leftchick]

86. ....

:hug:

:)

[bemildred]

83. If you in any sense felt I was calling you a moron, I apologize.

I was saying if you pick a fight and lose you (rhetorical "you") are a moron.

[leftchick]

85. I knew exactly what you meant

I can not imagine why it was taken that way. :eyes:

[happyslug]

96. YEs, that is Correct

The best example is the Two Invasions of Mexico in 1848 and 1862. The Americans did attack from the north but that was unimportant to the attack on Mexico (The US also attacked New Mexico and California taking both from Mexico with minimal resistance except for the Attack from Texas into Mexico proper), but the main US attack was to follow the path of Cortes from Veracruz to Mexico City. In 1862 The French attack on the same path. The Americans won their war, the French lost theirs. Why? America only wanted to take areas Americans had been moving into since the Spanish pulled out of Mexico in 1821. Those areas were Texas, New Mexico and California. With minimal population of Mexicans in those areas (The real movement of Mexicans into the US Southwest is a late 19th and 20th Century development, through sizable Mexican Populations lived in US Southwest since Cortez's time). Except for the Rio Grande Valley, and Southern California American outnumbered the Mexicans in most of the US Southwest BEFORE the Mexican War. Thus the US political objective was NOT to take over areas with Mexican populations but areas that had more Americans or Indians than Mexicans populations (Except for the Rio Grande Valley, up to and including the Modern State of New Mexico, and Southern California). The Rio Grande Valley was seen as a Natural Border (and the excuse for the War so it had to be "kept") and San Diego was viewed as a Port for any east-West Railroad that went from New Orleans through Texas and New Mexico (the Southern transcontinental Railroad). How little either side knew of the area can be seen in that when the Peace Treaty was signed, the US did NOT get the best route to build a railroad through, instead had to go back to Mexico in 1854 to buy the "Gadsen Purchase" to get the needed valley for the Railroad. Santa Anna was in his last position as President of Mexico and needed the Money so he sold the land and lost power within a year.

Unlike the Americans in 1848, the French in 1862 wanted to Rule Mexico. This was the big difference. The US only wanted to rule areas where Americans lived, not where Mexicans lived. Non-Mexican Indians were acceptable to live in the US do to their low population density, but Mexicans were farmers with a sizable population density behind them, thus could man an army and fight off any Americans moving into Mexico Proper. To the French this was NOT problem for instead of settling in Mexico the French intended to just rule. The problem was the Mexican people identified themselves as a People and wanted to rule themselves and thus did what the Iraqis are doing to the US Army in Iraq today, a slow but steady guerrilla war that slowly wore down. This slowly built up but not enough to drive out the French till the US finished its Civil War. At that time the US threaten to invade Mexico and drive the French out (Mexico is OUR fellow North American Country to invade not the object of an EUROPEAN Invader). The French facing a deteriorating situation in Mexico do to the Guerrilla Campaign, the promise of a US Invasion (which would have been Supported by the Mexican People for the Mexican knew the US would not stay in Mexico) and the built up of Germany under Bismark left and the Mexican took back their Country (and the US did not have to invade so did not).

My point here is the US Political Objective in 1848 was to force the Mexican Government to accept the US taking over of what is Now the South West of the US. The did not need the support of the Mexican population for the area taken had very small Mexican Population compared to other areas of Mexico AND in the areas taken. The US had no other political objective in 1848 (and NEVER ever planed to rule Mexico, through some idiots did advocate such a rule).

The French on the other hand wanted to Rule, to Rule you need the Support not only of the Government but the people of Mexico. To obtain such support the French Army did the same things we are doing in Iraq, raiding potential "terrorists", killing such "terrorists", making sure any money goes to them NOT the natives etc. You can NOT get a people to accept your rule by the use of Force except for short time period or overwhelming numbers (i.e. making sure their were more Americans in the areas of Mexico the US took from Mexico BEFORE we took those areas). The French NEVER had that level of Support and could NOT keep down the Mexican Population. A stalemate settled in from 1862-1866. The ending of the US Civil War changed the Stalemate, and the French facing certain defeat left.

The US in Iraq is in the same position as the French in 1864, the US can NOT defeat the Resistance, but the Resistance can not drive out the French. All the Resistance has to do is survive till something goes wrong. In the case of the French in Mexico that occurred in 1865 with the End of the US Civil War, in the Case of Vietnam in was the Recession and Yom Kipper war that tied up US supplies to Israel and securing Middle East Oil that lead to the US Withdraw from Vietnam. In the Case of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan it was the peak production of Oil in the old USSR and the subsequent lost of foreign exchange as the old USSR no longer could sell oil in no longer produced.

The same will happen to the US (as it did in 1973/1974). It might be a recession, it might be a change in the World Military balance. This is what the Iraqi Resistance is waiting for. Bush wants to end the Resistance but unlike the French in 1865 he has decided to ATTACK the country supporting the Resistance he is fighting. The problem is this will make the situation worse for the US. Iraq has the ability to cut off its own oil Export, causing world wide oil shortage by itself, Iran has the capability to launch attacks (Commando or Missile attacks or both) on Saudi Arabian oil terminal, as while as Kuwait's and the United Arab Emirates. Iran can also block the Straits of Hormuz by just sinking a ship (any ship) in the straits. This will lead to a huge jump in the price of Gasoline leading to a Recession leading to a run on the Dollar.

The best solution to Bush's problem is to pull out of Iraq, but unlike Napoleon III he is incapable of pulling out of Iraq. Bush is gambling that by expanding the war to Iran, that the US can Stop all supplies from going to the Iraqi Guerrillas (Through I fear Bush's real plan is to grab Iran's Oil). I fear Bush will fail and the Persian Gulf will STOP shipping all of its oil to market (and that is over 1/3 of total world oil production).

[bemildred]

100. Yes. Napoleon I's failed invasion of Spain is very instructive, also. nt

[fshrink]

107. Let's remember that the French

also had to deal with episodic revolutionary riots on their soil at that time, as well as a work force in the process of organizing itself along marxist and anarchist lines. Not to mention colonies in North Africa to control. With such cost,there was not enough to squeeze out of Mexico. In the end, only domestic constraints rein in capitalism's need for profit and control. Nothing else. Which is not to be seen anytime soon here...

[caledesi]

104. Very well put. nt

[freefall]

91. Just to clarify -- The Iranians don't have nukes. They are several years

away from having an actual nuclear weapon.

[davekriss]

93. Yes, so we have several years...

...to "exhaust all diplomatic means" before we need to even consider a military action.

[Tesha]

106. Do they have friends with nukes? That can be just as useful.

Or do we have covert enemies with nukes who just might
supply a few to "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists"
in a pinch?

I can think of a country or two that might be convinced.

This is a chess game, and it goes on a lot longer than
the games of Texas Hold-Em that seem to be the limit
of Shrub's intelligence.

Tesha

[freefall]

117. I'm not sure I know what the term "friend" means when we are speaking

about nations. It seems people can be termed friends one year and enemies the next.

However, Iran has recently signed agreements with China and India to supply them with oil. Neither country is going to be happy if we cause their oil supply to be cut off. When we invaded Iraq they lost on contracts they had signed with Saddam. Both have nuclear weapons. They may not use them, but is it smart to be upsetting them?

China won't attack us -- they don't have to. All China has to do is stop lending us billions every day to keep our economy afloat. They don't want to do that because we are the biggest buyer of their goods but just how far can they be pushed before they decide enough is enough and start to use their economic clout to our disadvantage?

Pakistan, an incredibly volatile state in which the weapons could easily fall into the hands of fanatics, has nuclear weapons and those fanatics aren't going to appreciate us preemptively attacking yet another Muslim country.

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace was on Fresh Air w/Terry Gross last week. It is worth listening to if you have time. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5196002

Peace,

freefall

[Tesha]

121. Thanks for the link! (NT)

[freefall]

122. You are more than welcome. I am terribly worried about what the

neo-cons will have us do next and am happy to spread the truth when the opportunity arises. I saw the movie "Why We Fight" over the weekend and Joseph Cirincione is in that as well. A powerful statement.

Peace

freefall

[davekriss]

92. MAD

Chrisduhfur says: "I personally say we let the Iranians do whatever they want with their nukes. If they use them then they would obviously be punished by the world... you know, like with sanctions." He says this with sarcasm. But I'd like to point out that if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is not highly likely that they would use them. Just as it is not highly likely that any nation in the nuclear club would use theirs. Let me remind, the U.S. is still the only nation to ever drop the bomb.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of most nations would serve as the "poison pill" deterrent. If another nation were to invade, say for imperial designs on Iranian oil, then Iran would use these defensive weapons on that nation, rendering the imperial adventure fairly costly and, thus, serving as a deterrence.

Iran might therefore feel more emboldened to arrange their internal affairs as they see fit without the interference of outside entities. They might, for example, feel secure in a decision to sell their oil in euros instead of dollars, assured that other nations, given a presence of defensive nuclear weapons, might be deterred from exercising force to prevent them from doing so.

If, on the other hand, Iran used nuclear weapons to engage in aggressive invasion of surrounding nations, then they know they'd be bombed into oblivion, that nothing of their current civilization would survive. A variant of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): In the presence of defensive nuclear weapons, only a madman would engage in nuclear-escalated aggressive war.

So ... the threat to George Bush ... is that, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, the US/uk oligarchy would be denied a lever of influence as Iran says f*ck off and does -- internally -- what they will. And to prevent that the Bush Regime would fight a "preemptive" war of aggression, sending our children forward to serve as cannon fodder while their children dance the night away on a petrodollar floor.

[fshrink]

39. I wasn't thinking about 1st strike.

The point is that US forces are very vulnerable in a classic way. Perhaps thinking that air supremacy says it all. This base of ours in Baghdad, with about 30,000 personel, is about 100 miles from Iran.

[Strelnikov_]

56. The Article Alludes To This

The only credible initial threat outlined in this article, IMHO, is the Iraq gambit.

My belief is that Iran's recent belligerence is due to our weakened ground forces and tenuous position in Iraq. The majority of our ground forces are bogged down fighting 8 M Sunni's. What happens when the 16 M Shia erupt into open conflict?

I don't even think, now, that they will try to close the Strait of Hormuz initially. If the hit comes, they are going to take it, use the attack to sway internal and external public opinion, and ramp up their efforts in Iraq.

Chindia and Russia are more than willing to take a back seat on round one. With Chindia's massive trade surplus, they will simply outbid us on the world oil market. As the saying goes, if the enemy is destroying themselves, don’t get in the way.


Meanwhile, Iranian agents and members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, widely believed to have a large presence in Iraq, could attempt to foment an uprising by the their fellow Shi'ite majority in Iraq or join insurgents in directly attacking US troops there, Negroponte warned.

He reported that Tehran has ''constrained" itself in Iraq because it is generally satisfied with the political trends in favor of the Shi'ite majority and to avoid giving the United States another excuse to attack Iran. But that could change if Iran were targeted militarily. A leading Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose militia has clashed with US troops and rival Shi'ite groups, vowed in a visit to Tehran last month to defend Iran if it were attacked.

. . .

Government and private analysts assert that Iran's intelligence apparatus and Revolutionary Guard Corps could cause serious damage to US efforts to pacify Iraq.

''The Iranian ayatollahs may deploy an 'asymmetric' answer and incite a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq," the respected Russian military publication ''Defense and Security," warned last month, referring to a military strategy that employs such tactics as guerrilla warfare. ''That would be disastrous for the United States."

[coalition_unwilling]

112. Think of Iraq at Bush's Stalingrad (n/t)

[coalition_unwilling]

113. Correction: Should have read "Think of Iraq as Bush's Stalingrad"

[leftchick]

19. Joe Cirincione's Lone Voice of Reason Regarding Iran:"No Military Options"

Now why isn't Joe on the Sunday blabber fests rather than the warmongers from the WH?
:grr:

<snip>

Do they reflect the thinking of senior officials closely aligned with these political currents? No official has indicated that they do. But just one year ago, Vice President Cheney seemed to be thinking along exactly these lines when he told radio host Don Imus on Inauguration Day, "Iran is right at the top of the list." Cheney came close to endorsing military action, noting that "the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

There is no need for military strikes against Iran. The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs. Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and University of Maryland assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs.

This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis. US Ambassador John Bolton has correctly pointed out that this is a key test for the Security Council. If Iran is not stopped the entire nonproliferation regime will be weakened, and with it the UN system.

But it will have to be diplomats, not F-15s that stop the mullahs. An air strike against a soft target, such as the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan (which this author visited in 2005) would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government and jeopardize further the US position in Iraq. Finally, the strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17922

[rooboy]

26. I'm sorry, but that article is wrong.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has NOT broken any international law. Therefore there was no need to go to the UN Security Council - it was the US who wanted to drag the issue there so they could commence the countdown to war in a plausible fashion.

Until last week, the UN had proper monitoring arrangements in place to ensure that it was impossible for Iran to create nuclear bomb components from their reactor. It was the actions of Bolton and the Europeans which triggered Iran's aggressive response. If Bolton and the Europeans pulled their heads in, there would be no crisis.

[leftchick]

31. I was wondering about that

I heard Joe say this same thing on NPR last week. Now how can it go to the Security Council if there has been no violation?

[davekriss]

94. It's an old familiar model...

...provocation, reaction, followed by escalated provocation and ignored attempt at reconciliation, followed by claims of causus belli -- it's a chess game except the victim nation plays without the benefit of queen and bishops and therefore doesn't have a chance. The USG is triangulating its way to yet another aggressive war.

[hadrons]

23. neo-cons plan on having Iran lay down and take it .....

amazing, these idiots believe that will happen

[spanone]

24. Why oh Why should we just our intelligence??? NOthings changed.

[PATRICK]

29. They expected and hoped Hussein

would lash out and he didn't. They expect Iran won't follow that fatal lead, but even if Iran restricted its targets to military and strategic targets there would be a fake nuke hysteria whipped up here and Vavoom! The mother of all push button escalations. If Iran was blameless the Bush US would edge in anyway to the oil fields.

Only in small places of lucidity like here, where even the potential of this happening is disagreed on by many, does the sane realization, devoid of preventative power, keep any of the inevitably escalating steps from happening.

Do the experts think think it can work, we can win, we can end up in a successful outcome, we can avoid a general conflict with all the people, if not the governments of Islam?

Between the Bush regime and total war lies the enslaved but unknowing American people. Once more into the fray.

[tocqueville]

30. sounds to me they are overdoing it "a little" as usual

like "WMDs in 45 min".... heard that before

"cruise missiles that could reach Italy with nuclear warheads" ?

first they need to have a nuclear warhead (an one so little you can put it in in cruise missile), and obviously they won't have any before 10 years.... and reaching Italy ? (the Pope I imagine)... I doubt it...

chemical weapons in missiles ? so far none has been tested. It's a very complicated process because you have to have some kind of device spreading an areosol at a certain distance from the ground before the whole shit burns up without any effect...

much easier to tell the Shiites to have a general uprising in Iraq and blow up some tankers in the Gulf so the oil price goes to $170 a barrel....

IMHO the painting of the "terrible Iranian army" reminds of the propaganda against Saddam. It motivates the use of excessive force, when a little coercion would result in the same effect...

[G_j]

34. and Rumsfeld cares...why?

mayhem and chaos are dear to their little stone hearts.

[no_hypocrisy]

35. On the other hand, Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are not at all

prepared to fight an adversary whose motto is "The first rule of war is there are no rules". Can't make a logical strategy and predictions of progress. You only can assess the damage, death, and futility of the war theatre.

[caledesi]

105. Yeah, because when you have mayhem and chaos, you can steal! nt

[Bushwick Bill]

40. War Game Shows Options Are Limited

"The Atlantic Monthly magazine recently arranged a mock war game to examine U.S. options if military force is used to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. As NPR's Michele Kelemen reports, the exercise showed how limited the options are."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4145036

"Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game-with sobering results.

Throughout this summer and fall, barely mentioned in America's presidential campaign, Iran moved steadily closer to a showdown with the United States (and other countries) over its nuclear plans."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904C.shtml

"How Iran Will Fight Back"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL16Ak01.html

[truth2power]

41. Iran is not a nuclear threat to us...

We feel threatened by their plans to open a euro-based oil trading exchange (bourse) sometime around the end of March. I can understand why there's NOT ONE WORD about this in the corporate Media, but I don't understand why everyone persists in giving so much credence to the story that (booga-booga) we need to attack their so-called nuclear weapons facilities.

The media won't talk about it. We should be countering the blathering of every pundit with a demand to discuss the REAL issue. See this article:

Doomsday for the Greenback

here

"America’s capital is not in Washington DC. In fact, it is not geographic location at all. It is the greenback, the epicenter of the global rule. The dollar is the cornerstone upon which the mighty pillars of empire rest."

<snip>

"At present, the greenback serves as the world’s reserve currency, the main medium of exchange. This allows the US to pile up enormous debt while avoiding the pitfalls of skyrocketing interest rates or hyper-inflation. The $2 billion of borrowed wealth that props up the faltering empire every day comes primarily from the exporting powerhouses Japan and China. This means that America’s profligate spending is financed by the labor of some of the most poorly paid workers in the world."

<snip>

"As the empire extends its withering grip to the world’s last resource-centers, the dollar is coming under increasing scrutiny. It is the dollar that facilitates the perennial war and the vast expansion of military force; just as it is the dollar that binds together the constellation of American colonies that function exclusively in the interests of their Washington overlords. The asymmetrical warfare that is approaching will put the greenback squarely in the crosshairs; the weal-link in America’s coat of mail."

<snip>

"Hugo Chavez knows this, as did Saddam; that’s why he switched to the euro 6 months before “Shock and Awe”. Now, Putin is trading oil in euros and Iran will open an oil bourse in petro-euros in March. For Iran, its actions are tantamount to a declaration of war. Already, America’s proxy Israel has threatened to attack in March. Is it merely coincidence that Iran’s oil bourse is scheduled to open at the same time?" Empahsis added.

[AX10]

49. Iran has a standing military and money to fund the usage of that military.

.

[michiganbuckeye1970]

54. I'm not buying it...

Sounds like another strange claim to WMDs to me. It doesn't add up. If Iran had such capacity, why would they risk the prospect of losing it before they could use it? Even if everything written in the article with regard to Iran's military strength is true, their military would be no match for the US military (tech based weapons alone could keep Iran at bay while destroying with little carrying capacity they have). The US knows this and Iran knows this. If they had weapons that could cause mass destruction on Israel, I think they would use them.

I think this build up is following formula for justifying war that this current administration uses. Talk your enemy up, make them appear to be on the verge of destroying the very world which spins around the sun, and then invade, invade, invade.

I don't doubt for a second that when/if we invade Iran that the losses will be huge for us, but I just can't buy the argument that Iran is as big an inter and intra regional threat as is being presented.

Again to the argument floating around that they would not start something because they know they will be crushed, I would argue that at this point they know that being crushed in inevitable. Why would they risk not ever being able to use such fire power, if in fact they have it....?

[retread]

55. Many must perish to protect the repug majority in the 2006 and

2008 elections.

[BattyDem]

63. Since when does BushCo listen to experts?

:eyes: :scared:

[poskonig]

64. I'm not afraid of Mig29s with no parts.

Iran will get stomped if they escalate this.

[Spankydem]

65. You're kidding, right ?

who would "stomp" them if they escalate this ?

[Pavulon]

66. The 5th and 6th

fleet so start. Could pull in the 7th fleet Assuming this escalates into an open war. Which it won't (imho)

The USAF would use b2 and f117 aircraft to blind them. Along with cruise missiles from ships and subs.

After their air defense was wiped out the naval and land based fighters would maintain air superiority over the country while the now idle air force bombs targets at will. They have no navy and no ability to fight an air war.

Any escalation by Iran would lead to a war where no invasion is required. Only a terrible loss of life and destruction by air strikes.

Any nuclear, biological, or chemical strike would end horribly for them.

Iran has zero reasons to start a war and zero chance of sustaining one.

[PinkUnicorn]

97. Possibly

If it was your typical 'stand up fight' the US would win, simply because they can throw more firepower than Iran. Even then things could be interesting as shown recently by the Indian air force (consisting of MiG-21s, Mig-27s and Su-30s) cleaning the clocks of the US during exercises, and during numerous naval exercises the US regularly loses carriers (mainly incapacitated, not sunk). The loss of even one carrier in a real situation would have massive political fallout. But I agree it wont escalate into open war, as is generally thought of but neither will they sit back and 'suck it up' if they are bombed.

You do not need a traditional navy when a high speed motor boat with a few shoulder launched missiles, or even simply packed with explosive is just as effective as a standard battle wagon. Destroying fixed missile facilities is easy, destroying mobile facilities is a lot harder (remember the great scud hunt?) and mobile radar/SAM facilities have a lot of places to hide especially in the mountainous terrain around the straits. Sink a few oil tankers in the straits main lanes and you have blocked them for some time, permanently if you pick off any salvage operations. As for the various claim of Sunburn system, it doesn't matter in the end - simply fire enough of them (or even a swarm of exocets) and some will get through even if half the claims about new anti-missile systems are true (echoes of patriot).

The US is also barely in control of Iraq at the moment, so imagine what would happen if Iran opened its armouries in a 'all you can carry' day for the Iraqi groups. No more IED or RPG attacks, but a full array of anti-tank weapons, AP mines, man portable SA missiles, etc. Any flights launched from Baghdad airport would be shot down in a second and any uprising would further drain resources from a threadbare military force. Sure the US could retaliate by bombing in return but that would merely inflame things further, possibly bringing in Saudi Arabia or even Egypt.

While the mullahs rant, rave and act like morons on TV I do think at least some of them, and definitely some of the military know what their capabilities are, and they have had more than enough opportunities to observe how well/badly the US did things in Iraq and to formulate alternatives. The war games strategy during the Iraq war games by a retired general (can't remember the name) show that it was entirely possible for a defeated, 10 year sanction country to inflict severe damage.

While any initial US attack may prove a resounding success, it's the Iranians counter strategy which will prove interesting. And if they don't 'fight fair' and instead use what is popularly called 'Asymmetric warfare' the US is probably in for a world of hurt - not from a single attack, but a hundred little stings.

[hogwyld]

118. Are you kidding???

There's no way we can fight a 3 front war. The first front is in Iraq, where we're stuck, and slowly dying from a 1000 paper cuts. Iran has a much more capable military that could not only bring the entire world to economic collapse, but could absolutely cripple us in a fight. The third front everone seems to overlook, is that India, and mainly China won't look to kindly to us killing off their oil supplies, and will react in a manner that will not favor us. China has a first rate military, and will protect their interests. GWB has a vision of a new world order, he just doesn't know yet that the NWO doesn't include a sovereign U.S.

[mogster]

70. Please read this info about Iran

Some background, some thoughts, some new information.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x395249

[cassiepriam]

71. Is it Armageddon time yet? nt

[confludemocrat]

78. A bear shits in the woods, experts say

But truly this is something that should be being talked about by mainstream media and demo politicians, that this is not your fathers Iran, which we failed at in 1980 at successfully penetrating even covertly.

We will be defeated in another war-the true Vietnam of the 21st Century

[buddysmellgood]

82. No attack until October....elections.

[dubya_dubya_III]

98. Affirmative

YOU can't be opposed to us mercilessly destabilizing and annihilating precision bombing Iran, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia and Libya like criminal cowards from the edge of outer space with depleted uranium dirty smart bombs to protect the theft of Jerusalem Library Tower from these mad Palestinian Freedom Fighters Terrorists !!!

How unpatriotic of you, We and our unappreciated, unwanted and unwelcome occupying forces are being counterattacked! Think of our poor troops.....

[Deja Q]

99. Somebody needed a fuckin' EXPERT to say that?!!

Iran's own comments make it damn obvious Iran would retaliate. Hell, Iran's own comments make it damn obvious they'd make their own "pre-emptive strikes" too if they got the opportunity. (the fact they haven't yet used what Russia sold them on Israel (yet) is almost as interesting as the comments coming from their leader's big mouth...)

[fujiyama]

103. Breaking News:

Country attacks, defends itself!

No shit!

[humbled_opinion]

116. So it begins...

Warnings that Iran will retaliate.. Capable of causing great harm to the U.S.... Recent history in repeat...So beats the drums of war...

[JNelson6563]

119. Iran is no Iraq

That would be a nasty situation. Look at how they botched Iraq and have left Afghanistan uncompleted and short of resources to do more. Yes, let's stretch our military even more and take on a more dangerous country!

These people are idiots and will get us all killed.

Julie

[Bridget Burke]

120. So don't attack Iran!

They don't have nukes yet. So let's continue using non-military options.