Bush Admin planning post-Labor-Day "product rollout" of war-with-Iran hysteria?

[XT]

@vibrotronica

Why should they go out of their way to open their program up for inspection after what we did to the Iraqis?

BECAUSE of what happend in Iraq of course. The Iraqi’s never fully came clean about their program…and in fact did a hell of a lot to further the image that they had WMD. By the time Saddam decided to make the attempt to look open it was too late…our troops were already being deployed. At that point nothing short of Iraqi unconditionally surrender and Saddam leaving power would have been enough.

Iran still has the chance to open up completely. The Euro’s are practically begging them to do so (and offering some nice juicy prizes if they do). Such a move would completely cut the legs out of anything Bush might be planning (not that I think he’s planning anything wrt Iran at this time).

@vibrotronica

Nothing they do will ever be enough. The goalposts will keep moving until the bombs start falling. Just like last time.

Bullshit. The two situations are not similar…and even in Iraq’s case they had options they chose not to excersize until it was too late. By the time we are moving troops into the theater its too late…you want to excersize your options BEFORE it gets to that point.

@vibrotronica

I am aware of the claims made by the current administration about Iran’s nuclear policies

The Euro’s and others are also concerned…are they lieing too? If Iran has only peaceful motives why hide anything? Under the NPT they have the right to peacefully pursue nuclear energy. There is no NEED for secrecy…unless they have something to hide of course.

@vibrotronica

It is not a strawman argument.

In this case no, its not. I disagree with your assessment, but its not a strawman…nor is it insane. I very specifically pointed to the parts of your various posts that WERE strawman attacks. Thats why I quote you and then comment, ehe?

I think that its reasonable for anyone these days to distrust anything that Bush et al say or do. You will be shocked I’m sure to know that I distrust pretty much everything they say and do. If they attack Iran tomorrow based on the current situation I’ll be fucking furious. Want to march on the White House? I’ll have my plane ticket in hand…you bring the signs. I just don’t think its a high probability of happening at this point. I think Bush et al are just trying to get through the last of their lame duck and fucked presidency and get out with a whole hide. I also see some signs of trying to brighten up the ‘legacy’ and rewrite history (I see that on both sides to be honest), to paint Bush in a better light than he deserves.

[marshmallow]

I hate to belabor the point, but you guys need to stop talking about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapon program for which no one has provided any evidence (if so, give it to the IAEA and the CIA). Or Iran’s minor involvement in the Iraqi morass. It’s academic, at best. It’s a red herring. If any of those lose traction with the American public, others will be found and promulgated. They all serve the ultimate goal: regime change and regional transformation.

[XT]

Iran’s nuclear program is as plausible as this supposed Bush media blitz to drum up war hysteria against Iran. I would have to say its actually much more plausible based on the available evidence we DO have than this CT about Bush. YMMV of course…but I think the fact that its not JUST the US who thinks Iran is up to something speaks volumes. Whereas afaik no one not wearing tin foil is really buying into the whole post-labor day ‘product rollout’ of war hysteria thingy. Pointing to Iran being in the news in a negative way after the president of Iran comes over too the US and makes such a spectacular fool out of himself is not exactly the best evidence, ehe? The gay issue alone would be enough to bring on the flames for ANY national ruler/nation state that has the attitude they do…no?

-XT

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John Mace

… Let me just add, this whole thing started because I just want other people to define what they’re talking about instead of using terms like “it”, when discussing anything from a 2 day bombing campaign to a 5 year all-out war. Otherwise, it’s hard to talk about the probability of “it” happening.

So no, there isn’t any kind of “rhetorical” victory being sought. Just clarify of intent.

“It” was alluded to in the previous sentence, which you did not quote. (No problem, it was just a misunderstanding). That is, “It” referred to the US (or Israel as it happens) bombing Iran, since that’s the Inttrade bet that I’ve been harping on for the last 3-5 pages. No matter, though: let’s circle back to the OP:
Barnett Rubin heard rumors from 2 sources: he didn’t know what to make of them and presented the information with caveats and caution, rather than hysteria.

Emphasis to be added:
Rumor had it that following the Labor day weekend there would be a, “…heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained.”

That did not happen.

Almost immediately after Labor Day, Spencer Ackerman tracked down the Deep Throat of the AEI and clarified that Cheney was leaning on the Joint Chiefs. So there would be no big public propaganda offensive.

Now the contractor was another character: he was getting cost estimates relating to some sort of regime change operation.

My response: I’m glad that the Pentagon has decided that post-invasion planning is a good thing, particularly before said invasion actually takes place. But contingency planning does not alone imply intent.

---

But what about a plan to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? As I noted earlier, that would not involve 1-2 targets: it would have to be a fairly sustained air attack, if you believe the Atlantic article referenced in the OP. Would I consider that a type of “irresponsible military adventure from the Cheney-Bush administration” as referenced in the Rubin post? Um, yes.

Rubin was reporting a rumor: such whisperings by their nature are ambiguous and imprecise.

---

There’s a further substantive question: what would Iran do following, say, a 3 day bombing campaign on their country? They would almost certainly step up attacks on US soldiers in Iraq and they would probably mull over their asymmetric retaliation options. But frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to work out how the resulting moves and counter-moves end in a regime change campaign, absent a WMD attack on a US city.

[Ravenman]

More grist for the mill: NY Times. (reg may be req). The article basically says that the Administration wants to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in a big way. Relative to this discussion, it also includes this:

Yet in interviews, American diplomats, White House officials and military officers acknowledge that the strategy [the current sanctions] has been largely ineffective.

So have veiled threats of military action. While President Bush and his aides insist that “all options are on the table,” senior officials say there is little enthusiasm in the White House or the Pentagon for military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, though they acknowledge that such war plans are always being refined.

The officials say the Iranians fully understand that while the United States could destroy Iran’s major nuclear facilities, it would be far harder to manage the probable response, which could include heightened attacks on American forces in Iraq, possible retaliation on Israel or the destabilization of governments from Lebanon to Pakistan.

I’m sure to most of the folks here, this is simply more confirmation that Bush is crazy and that he’s even more determined to attack.

[RedFury]

For the supposedly “enlightened” crowd that inhabits the SDMB the amount of sheer lunacy posted in this thread clealy puts said notion to rest.

‘Lobbing a few bombs on a nation that’s done NOTHING to you ain’t really war’

Holy chorizo! And I thought I’d heard it all!

Beyond the stupidity of said remarks, as has already been mentioned it is NOT up to the Mighty US of A to determine how Iran will retaliate to such an unprovoked attack – but, and jeez, you needn’t wonder why looking at Iraq, I have this gut feeling that they’ve been preparing for just such an event for the better part of this decade and beyond. And retaliate they will. Won’t be pretty either.

Here have a read by some people that are actually grounded in reality and unlike some here, really know what they are talking about:

Bush, the Bomb and Iran

Please don’t just read the article – click on the provided links.

Then come back an tell us about a “dropping a few bombs ain’t nothing.”

In xt’s long-standing tradition of non-speak: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

For the supposedly “enlightened” crowd that inhabits the SDMB the amount of sheer lunacy posted in this thread clealy puts said notion to rest.

‘Lobbing a few bombs on a nation that’s done NOTHING to you ain’t really war’

Well, I don’t know who has said that, but it wasn’t me. It ain’t war as defined in the OP’s link. How fucking hard is that to understand???

Now, is it “war” by any definition? Maybe. It’s certainly an act of war and something that could lead to war. But that is not what the OP is proposing.

[RedFury]

@John Mace

Well, I don’t know who has said that, but it wasn’t me. It ain’t war as defined in the OP’s link. How fucking hard is that to understand???

Now, is it “war” by any definition? Maybe. It’s certainly an act of war and something that could lead to war. But that is not what the OP is proposing.

Did you READ the LINK included in the OP? Will Iran Be Next?. Certainly doesn’t limit it and/or define it as ‘an all out war including ground troops.’ What it does, in fact, is rebut your own “drop a few bombs and it’s all cool” absurdity.

[Ravenman]

It says the propaganda effort is intended to raise public support for a war “that can be maintained.” It clearly isn’t talking about a one-off bombing, but a sustained conflict.

[vibrotronica]

A one-off bombing will lead to a sustained conflict. “Don’t worry, it’s just a little bombing,” is a lie designed to sucker the gullible. Just inch forward the idea of a war a little at a time, and then when the shit goes down big-time, those pushing the lie can say “Oh, I never expected THIS! But now that we’re in a war, we’ve got to fight it to win!”

[marshmallow]

Scott Ritter recently penned an editorial on the subject of Iran.

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

It says the propaganda effort is intended to raise public support for a war “that can be maintained.” It clearly isn’t talking about a one-off bombing, but a sustained conflict.

Beaten to response.

Honestly, the naïveté and/or willful ignorance around here is simply astounding.

[RedFury]

PS-I’d also recommend reading Ritter’s article…

[XT]

@vibrotronica

A one-off bombing will lead to a sustained conflict. “Don’t worry, it’s just a little bombing,” is a lie designed to sucker the gullible. Just inch forward the idea of a war a little at a time, and then when the shit goes down big-time, those pushing the lie can say “Oh, I never expected THIS! But now that we’re in a war, we’ve got to fight it to win!”

I’m guessing you still don’t see the irony in the fact that you provided links to two instances where this wasn’t the case. Truely your intellect is dizzying…

-XT

[Ravenman]

@RedFury

Beaten to response.

Honestly, the naïveté and/or willful ignorance around here is simply astounding.

So is the short-term memory around here. You said that the OP was talking about a one-off bombing, and I pointed out that the OP said the propaganda effort was aimed at sustaining a public commitment for war. You can’t have it both ways.

And, for that matter, I’m still puzzled why you continue to link to articles dating to 2004 when we’re debating the situation as it stands in 2007. It is as if your internet connection has a a three-year lag when downloading diatribes.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ravenman

And, for that matter, I’m still puzzled why you continue to link to articles dating to 2004 when we’re debating the situation as it stands in 2007. It is as if your internet connection has a a three-year lag when downloading diatribes.

Exactly how is the wargaming scenario reported in the Atlantic Monthly in 2004 out of date now?

[XT]

Er…well, its 3 years old? Could that be the reason?

-XT

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

So is the short-term memory around here. You said that the OP was talking about a one-off bombing, and I pointed out that the OP said the propaganda effort was aimed at sustaining a public commitment for war. You can’t have it both ways.

Nope. You’re obviously wrong. The OP is divided into two parts.

1-The blog quote predicting an increase in anti-Iran hysteria/propaganda after Labor Day.

2-The link to The Atlantic piece, which if you’ve bothered to read, once again, rebuts the notion that a “one-off” bombing à la Israel vs Iraq circa June 7, 1981, would have any realistic chances of success as it did then.

Taking the second point, the War Games analysis done by the military/regional experts at The Atlantic, the situational difference between then and now, not only greatly differs from the 27 year-old Israeli attack, but it also involves intricacies that are as relevant now as they were in 2004 – as opposed to the irrelevancies of the '81 attack. For instance:

When Gardiner called an end to this segment, there was little objection to the most modest of the military proposals—being ready, if need be, for a punitive strike on the Revolutionary Guards. The participants touched only briefly on the Osirak-style strike during the war game, but afterward most of them expressed doubt about its feasibility. The United States simply knew too little about which nuclear projects were under way and where they could be destroyed with confidence. If it launched an attack and removed some unknown proportion of the facilities, the United States might retard Iran’s progress by an unknown number of months or years—at the cost of inviting all-out Iranian retaliation.

– bolding mine. Which I have been stressing all along this thread. They are ready – NOW – to cause all sorts of military acts, that short of you nuking them, would make Iraq appear as a cakewalk – and as we all know, some “cakewalk” that has been. After all, here we are talking about a country aproximatedly four times bigger/more powerful, that the “little” one you’re currently stuck in – with some powerful allies to boot (Russia and China).

Might want to think your ‘dropping a few’ and carry on as if nothing had happened as nothing but a pipe-dream. At least four times the size of Iraq’s miscalculations BTW. But hey! You’re the Mightyy US of A. You can do anything with impunity, right? We shall see, because I certainly don’t think so. In fact, again, short of nuking, an attack on Iraq is only going to help deteriorate your nation even more (New French Poodle and all) – if that’s possible.

In any event, please do try reading what your responding to in your next post. If that’s not too much to ask.

And, for that matter, I’m still puzzled why you continue to link to articles dating to 2004 when we’re debating the situation as it stands in 2007. It is as if your internet connection has a a three-year lag when downloading diatribes.

One article from the OP and one relevant one amongst at least six or seven cites I’ve quoted and you’re calling me “outdated”? Hell’s bells what would you then call PNAC’s plans laid-out and carried forth from a decade ago?

The Flintstones? 'cause that exactly what the results have been like.

Seriously, keep reading and keep abreast of the current US/Iran chess match. Trust me or not, there are no check-mates either way. Unless, of course, nukes are involved. And them you tell me, you honestly, really think the world is going to sit idly-by while the US conquers 80% of the world’s remaining oil reserves?

If so, I have beach-front property in Arizona I’d like to show you.

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

So is the short-term memory around here. You said that the OP was talking about a one-off bombing, and I pointed out that the OP said the propaganda effort was aimed at sustaining a public commitment for war. You can’t have it both ways.

Nope. You’re obviously wrong. The OP is divided into two parts.

1-The blog quote predicting an increase in anti-Iran hysteria/propaganda after Labor Day.

2-The link to The Atlantic piece, which if you’ve bothered to read, once again, rebuts the notion that a “one-off” bombing à la Israel vs Iraq circa June 7, 1981, would have any realistic chances of success as it did then.

Taking the second point, the War Games analysis done by the military/regional experts at The Atlantic, the situational difference between then and now, not only greatly differs from the 27 year-old Israeli attack, but it also involves intricacies that are as relevant now as they were in 2004 – as opposed to the irrelevancies of the '81 attack. For instance:

When Gardiner called an end to this segment, there was little objection to the most modest of the military proposals—being ready, if need be, for a punitive strike on the Revolutionary Guards. The participants touched only briefly on the Osirak-style strike during the war game, but afterward most of them expressed doubt about its feasibility. The United States simply knew too little about which nuclear projects were under way and where they could be destroyed with confidence. If it launched an attack and removed some unknown proportion of the facilities, the United States might retard Iran’s progress by an unknown number of months or years—at the cost of inviting all-out Iranian retaliation.

– bolding mine. Which I have been stressing all along this thread. They are ready – NOW – to cause all sorts of military acts, that short of you nuking them, would make Iraq appear as a cakewalk – and as we all know, some “cakewalk” that has been. After all, here we are talking about a country aproximatedly four times bigger/more powerful, that the “little” one you’re currently stuck in – with some powerful allies to boot (Russia and China).

Might want to think your ‘dropping a few’ and carry on as if nothing had happened as nothing but a pipe-dream. At least four times the size of Iraq’s miscalculations BTW. But hey! You’re the Mightyy US of A. You can do anything with impunity, right? We shall see, because I certainly don’t think so. In fact, again, short of nuking, an attack on Iraq is only going to help deteriorate your nation even more (New French Poodle and all) – if that’s possible.

In any event, please do try reading what your responding to in your next post. If that’s not too much to ask.

And, for that matter, I’m still puzzled why you continue to link to articles dating to 2004 when we’re debating the situation as it stands in 2007. It is as if your internet connection has a a three-year lag when downloading diatribes.

One article from the OP and one relevant one amongst at least six or seven cites I’ve quoted and you’re calling me “outdated”? Hell’s bells what would you then call PNAC’s plans laid-out and carried forth from a decade ago?

The Flintstones? 'cause that exactly what the results have been like.

Seriously, keep reading and keep abreast of the current US/Iran chess match. Trust me or not, there are no check-mates either way. Unless, of course, nukes are involved. And them you tell me, you honestly, really think the world is going to sit idly-by while the US conquers 80% of the world’s remaining oil reserves?

If so, I have beach-front property in Arizona I’d like to show you.

[RedFury]

PS-Sorry for the double post. Feed the hamsters, Masters.