In and of itself, no.
As others have said, bombing is unlikely to make the Iranians play nice. As they escalate following the few lobbed bombs, so the conflict will be dragged out.
Furthermore, the Rubin post also referred to an, “irresponsible military adventure from the Cheney-Bush administration”, which pretty much covers a Sunday afternoon’s bombardment.
Substantively though, there’s a sharp distinction between launching a few cruise missiles at Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia c. 1997 and doing the same to Iran in 2008. The latter action is far more likely to lead to escalation, since Iran can plausibly retaliate with accelerated WMD development.
That was a nice NYT link btw. My take is that something was afoot in Aug 2007. That something turned out to be
- accelerated military planning for a regime change operation in Iran,
- lots of not-especially-subtle sabre rattling, including #1,
- an inside the beltway propaganda offensive, aimed at the joint chiefs,
and now - a push for stronger international economic sanctions against Iran.
Note that #1-#3 could conceivably advance #4 by focusing the minds of our European partners.
That’s the optimistic story anyway. I sure hope Cheney-Bush are not seriously considering surgical strikes or other exercises in wishful military thinking.
Thank you Ravenman for confirming my preconceptions. 
… designed to increase public support for a prolonged fight with Iran. That’s what the OP says. This “heavy sustained assault on the airwaves” aimed at supporting an invasion of Iran hasn’t occurred.
Perhaps you missed my link to a story that said that the current Administration thinking is – quite reasonably – that airstrikes would lead to greater violence in Iraq, Israel, and other places. Which of course is supported by the Atlantic piece. And yet you continue to argue that the White House doesn’t think an airstrike will lead to anything worse… which, of course, isn’t supported by the Washington Post article I linked to earlier today.
I think there’s been quite a few people predicting for more than three years than an attack on Iran is imminent. The term “chicken little” comes to mind. Seeing as how your support for this conclusion that Bush et al is laying the groundwork for war RIGHT NOW is only supported by opinion pieces (like the bare assertions in the Nation piece you linked to today) with apparently no knowledgeable sources provided, I simply see no reason to believe your allegation that war is just around the corner.
I asked you about your links to stories in post number 228 and 225 about 2004 stories about MEK/MKO terrorists and what they had to do with today. You did not respond. Then you link again to the Atlantic article from 2004, but again displaying the tendency for some not to read and understand their cites very well, it also contains three major points which are apparently are lost on the “oh my gods Bush is going to attack soon!” crowd.
First, the article concludes that participants in the wargame unanimously thought that the President would know that the military option was too dangerous, but that rattling sabers may help diplomacy. (I disagree to some extent, but hey, you’re the ones saying how great the article is.) Your response seems to be that Bush is preparing for war anyway, which sets you at odds with the people who conducted the wargame that you think is so great.
Second, there have been statements that Iran isn’t actually seeking nuclear weapons, so Bush is essentially going to lie again to get us into war. Again, this is at odds with the participants of the wargame. They unanimously believe that Iran is seeking the bomb and that they will get it.
Finally, and this is more of a philosophical point than anything else, is that wargames are not predictors of events, they are exercises to expose various things, such as weaknesses in plans, problems of uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and so on. I think a lot of you have the wrong idea of what a wargame is: one doesn’t run a wargame to determine what your enemy is going to do, you run a wargame to learn lessons about what you shouldn’t do.
A wargame isn’t going to show that an airstrike is going to lead to Iran doing this, that or the other. A wargame will show that one must take into account the risks that a particular action takes with it. It is intelligence, not wargames, that provide insight on what Iran might actually do if we bombed their nuclear facilities.
I get the feeling that some people didn’t actually read the whole article, because I think it is being represented as proof that an airstrike on Iran will cause a huge war. That’s something that the participants considered, but nowhere do I see anything in the article that claims to be a predictor of what is to come. In other words, the Atlantic article doesn’t seem to show what you think it shows.
Well, except for the fact that I’ve continually said that the US isn’t going to attempt to start a war with Iran, whether by bombing or invading, you might have a point.
U.S. Funding Armed Groups to Overthrow Iranian Government
Posted 3-17-2007. Trust that’s recent enough for you.
Other than that, AFAIAC our discussion is over – not going to get into an insipid semantic wrangle over what The Atlantic article actually and non-equivalently says. Though I would still suggest reading Ritter’s piece. Not the first time he’s been correct.
Well, if you can’t trust sources like the Assyrian International News Agency, who can you trust?
Sounds like a winner to me. And then there is Reese Erlich, an unimpeachable source, neutral and unbiased, a freelance journalist for the past 20 years who incidentally co-wrote 2003’s best seller (wasn’t it?) “Target Iraq”. And our all time favorite, Omid Memarian, another neutral and throughly unbiased observer:
I mean, if you can’t trust an Iranian national who has won the coveted Human Rights Watch Human Rights Defender Award, just who the hell CAN you trust these days??
I’d say you’ve definitely settled the debate with this one Red…knocked it completely out of the park! This is smoking gun proof that the US is in fact poised for a media blitz on Iran the likes of which have never been seen before by mortal OR immortal man (or women, sheep, goats or other animals too numerous to name here)!
Well done. ¡Que chinga! (for the mods, this roughly translates into thats heavy or What a heavy thing…well, roughly). I was going to provide Red with one of the touching sayings d’mi auelo, but as this concerned a donkey and a bull with a raised eyebrow, and as translations between Mexican Spanish and Spanish spoken in Spain can sometimes lead to misunderstandings I felt I should be better safe than sorry. Eh Red?
-XT
So, this fellow is of suspect nationality, and is admired by “human rights” organizations (yeah, sure, “human rights”, we all know what that *really * means…)
I will read Ritter’s article – haven’t had a chance yet – but please quote the part of the Atlantic article that predicts Iran’s behavior after an attack. The “CENTCOM general” talks about the “strategic risks” of various military options (pg 4), the wargame ends before there is a US attack of any kind, and concludes that the US “would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of [an airstrike].” (pg 6) The article cannot be read any other way. It does not make predictions.
Glad to hear you’ll read what Ritter has to say on this matter – as you know he’s been right before.
As for the second part of your query, I already did. Here. I even highlighted the relevant part for you.
I guess I missed that before, I did state my case too broadly, and that part of the article does indeed support your point.
However, I strongly believe that that statement is the result of a poor understanding of war games by the journalist rather than the intent of the designer and the participants. War games simply are not meant to be predictors. Let me quote from Wikipedia:
xtisme has not explicitly alleged that Reese Erlich is a hack. SDMB give and take aside, I’d like to note that Mr. Erlich is a “Real Journalist”:
Incidentally, there’s a possible private-sector rollout in the works. From today’s NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Former George Bush spokesperson Air Fleisher and Bush-Cheney 2000 PR employee Mr. Blakeman will be running the show. Since it’s organized as a nonprofit, they don’t have to report their donor’s list, but they are not allowed to coordinate activities with the White House or engage in partisan activities. So they will not do that.
Holy moley: Seymour M. Hersh of The New Yorker weighs in: Shifting Target’s: The Administration’s Plan for Iran.
I’ve only read the first page. The admin is rather clever, tactically speaking. Cheney and Bush have concluded that the public isn’t eager about an Iranian bombing campaign due to insufficient hysteria regarding nukes. Separately, the intelligence community thinks Iran is 5 years away from acquiring the bomb. Also, they are figuring out that Iran has won the Bush/Afgani/Iraqi War.
So they rewriting their plans. The Joint Chiefs have been ordered to find Revolutionary Guard targets: they threaten American Servicemen in Iraq.
The chance of an Iranian bombing is currently at 24%.
Well, I read the whole article… 3 years ago.
I mostly agree with your characterization of the wargame exercise: it’s about evaluating strategy and forcing the participants to think hard about the consequences of their proposed courses of action. Indeed, the first page of the article noted that the wargame was a 3 hour affair, not a 3 day one: its intent was to highlight the strategic and logistical essentials of a US-Iranian conflict.
But. The exercise also brought together a range of national security experts, and a rough consensus was reached among this group with hawkish leanings. Specifically, a bombing of some of the nuclear facilities won’t stop the Iranians, as the Osirak strikes stopped the Iraqis. And that furthermore, bombing would tend to increase their determination to secure nukes.
I call that a catastrophe, but perhaps that’s an overstatement: it certainly wasn’t characterized that way in the article.
Again, it’s at bottom a hawkish piece. Personally, I can deal with subtle diplomacy along with some shaking of the cutlery (elucidator’s concerns notwithstanding), but not from this admin. Cheney-Bush have a confirmed track record of wishful thinking and foreign policy incompetence. I’d prefer to wait for a Clinton/Obama/McCain/Romney administration.
Anyway, this week’s New Yorker article quotes the hawk Zbigniew Brzezinski: in his opinion striking at Iran would intensify, “the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”
General Petraeus just announced that Iran’s ambassador to Iraq is a Quds Force operative and – contradicting PM Maliki – that Iran is still arming the Iraq insurgents.
Well, I suppose it IS post-Labor-Day. This roll out sure is stealthy though…I mean, I expect that similar things were being said about Iran (i.e. that they were supplying insurgents, etc etc) BEFORFE Labor-Day…
Or…well, here is a thought. Maybe the OP meant NEXT Labor-Day? Perhaps the big roll out won’t be until next year. And if that doesn’t work, there is always the year after that…or the one after that! I understand that several doom’s day predictions have worked this way…
-XT
Yeah, Petraeus’ statement was just another liberal media lie! Thanks for setting the record straight, xtisme!
So if President Jenna Bush orders the first US attack on Iran during her first term in 2038, you’re going to consider the OP prediction vindicated? That will, after all, be post-Labor Day.
Sure hope your snarky sarcasm is warranted, I sincerely do. I hope that, a year from now, you and XT can host a gloating thread about how full of beans we silly, hysterical lefties were. Rub our noses in it all you like: as a pessimist, I love to be wrong.
But maybe its the effects of advancing age, or maybe all those drugs are finally catching up with me, but I can’t escape the odd feeling that we’ve had this argument before, its eerily reminiscent, like *deja voodoo * all over again.
But, go ahead, sneer away. After all, when have we ever been right?
Well…thanks for NOT setting the record straight there but for doing another hyperbolic strawman! Appreciated!
IOW, where exactly did I say that Petraeus’ statement was a ‘liberal media lie’?
-XT
Here’s a little prediction for xtisme:
You’ll keep denying there is a push for war until the bombs start falling. Then you’ll be all for the war, since it’s already started and now we have to support the troops and all.
And, in the spirit of these Nostradamus-like predictions, here is one for vibrotronica:
You will keep mischaracterizing what I say, building strawmen positions to portray what you think are my points, and keep wringing your hands until GW is out of office about this supposed attack in Iran…and then you will happily state that the only reason it didn’t happen was because of eagle eyed troopers like yourself were onto his plot so he couldn’t pull it off.
-XT