War with Iran on the worst terms

[bemildred]

A really cheerful fellow here. Seems, at least, to be paying attention, but I would question some of his assumptions.

---

Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Its peasants and urban poor gave an overwhelming electoral mandate to a government with imperial ambitions. The government cannot be overthrown, and cannot be derailed. But it can be beaten handily. A few hundred, or at worst a few thousand, sorties by US aircraft at this juncture could put an end to the matter now.

Why is Washington unwilling to take expeditious action? Iran's influence in Iraq is sufficient to throw the latter country into civil war should the United States attack the Islamic Republic. On October 25 (A Syriajevo in the making?), I warned that Iran kept Iraqi Shi'ite militias under its control in readiness to blackmail the United States. US intelligence, I observed, has accused Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of sponsoring the Shi'ite radical leader Muqtada al-Sadr. "If Washington believes that Muqtada is Khamenei's dog, then Khamenei can credibly promise to muzzle him," I wrote them.

US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte spelled out in essence the same scenario before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 1. Negroponte accused Tehran of arming Shi'ite militants in Iraq, warning that Iran has the capacity to broaden the conflict into a wider regional war.

The peace camp, meanwhile, hails Muqtada al-Sadr as the arbiter of civil peace in Iraq. Juan Cole, whose website (juancole.com) offers a running denunciation of the administration of US President George W Bush, reported on February 12 that the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament determined the choice of Ibrahim Jaafari as Iraq's new prime minister.

Asia Times

[gordianot]

1. Wonder how much the American taxpayers paid for this piece of work.

Without our permission.

[patrice]

2. So, who would Iraq attack?

The Kurds or Iran? The Kurds would just leave Iraq alone if it doesn't attack them, so Iraq would do better to "attack" Iran, right? Or Someone(?), attacks Iran or Iraq, tactitical missiles probably, and Iran or Iraq gets blamed for it so "We", on the average perceptually we are involved in this on the grounds that we've BEEN involved in it for a LONG time. Because We are addicted to Oil. And that's how they are going to sell their PNAC-ian Economics, chapter 2.

[tocqueville]

3. I think that he is wrong on one key point

I don't think that Iran can be "beaten" that easily. Even if in a conventional intervention, the West is vastly superior, they'll found themselves rapidly in an "Irannam". Same story as ever. Look at the terrain of Iran it's perfect for guerilla. Besides I think that the Iranians have a far better capacity of "regular" defense compared to Saddam and most of all have motivation.

One thing the US tend to forget is that Saddam's army didn't want to fight. Under the Gulf War they surrendered by thousands after the first incursion of the lightly armed French/American division Daguet, without practically firing a single shot. When there were no troops they surrendered to journalists. With the Iranians it's going to be another story...

So Spengler is right, the US are not very keen of invading in that case (unless there are REAL nutcases - not only amateurs - in the Pentagon and the Administration).

Occupation of Iranian territory is out of question unless a couple of Chinese divisions are required. Bush isn't smart enough to do that and it's not sure the Chinese would agree (anyway it would mean the loss of Taiwan).

So Washington is going to bomb from the air as usual, probably with the help of a NATO/Sunni Arab coalition under UN mandate. If they don't and do it alone again, the consequences are really going to be horrible in the whole ME.

This will not be very efficient, the Iranians are going to keep on building their military and will retaliate by proxy in the ME and maybe beyond.

As usual the US has painted itself into a corner for ideological reasons. Iran wanted to play the "big guy" in the region and having nuclear power was the way of doing it. They should have been allowed, that's all they wanted. Their, in the end eventually manufactured 3 nukes, would have been useless anyway. Just for show.

[bemildred]

4. That's one, there are others.

He is neocon-like in his assumption that all it would take is a bit of bombing, and his history is fanciful. His previous piece, which he provides a link to, on Iranian politics and demographics, is also interesting, and as here he get his facts right, but then there is this imaginary superstructure that would be called conspriratorial if it were coming from a "leftist".

Here, this one: Asia Times

[AndreiX]

5. Astounding...

Like I've said before, it's astounding just how bold and cocksure this administration has become in its warmongering and oppressive actions around the world despite opposition from the majority of the world, from all strata of society.

Here is a good article about U.S. ambitions in Iran: http://rwor.org/a/033/us-threats-against-iran.htm

[teryang]

6. This article is ridiculous

We are the insecure power facing potential decline. Iran has nothing with which it can compete economically? This is complete horseshit. It is the economic emergence of Iran as a center of Asian economic and political power which we and Israel seek to forestall. The purpose of a peaceful nuclear power program in Iraq is to leverage its economic power by freeing up more energy resources for export. It is the prestige aspect of nuclear power that appeals to national pride because it avoids the "muslims are living in the dark ages" jingoism. The power and influence to be derived from nuclear power doesn't need to have anything to do with nuclear weapons. This is just camouflage for Anglo-American propaganda.

A bombing campaign will not result in civil war or regime change in Iran, it will solidify opposition and be militarily and politically diastrous, whenever it occurs.

This fool makes strained analogies to European events. Russia is commited to Iranian independence. So is China. The balance of power is not equal or anywhere near equal. We are operating on the other side of the earth IN ASIA, with a few non-commital allies for all practical purposes. They will be fighting in their neighborhood, with relatively limitless committed manpower. The Iranians and the Iraqis for that matter are not like the Serbs at all. The Serbs, in the 90s, collapsed under a bombing campaign when their electric air conditioning was interrupted and their food in the refrigerator began to rot. The toughness, if not the skill, of the average middle east combatant and people, is not to be compared to Iraqi draftees in 1991. As for the Balkan analogy from WWI, Bismarck knew the day he signed the treaty with Austria-Hungary, he was dealing with a doomed state on the wrong side of the power balance. There was no balance and he knew it. The same lack of balance triggered WWII. Hitler knew Russia and the US were continental powers. If he did not achieve the same "continental" status, he feared being left behind. Accordingly, he went for broke, confused, as the author above, by his ideological lens.

[bemildred]

7. Oh, come on.

The Persian Legions will be marching on Richmond soon if we don't bomb now ...
They will get their hands on a bit of enriched Uranium and it will make them cocky and disobedient.
There is no time to think, we have to act now.
:hi: