:eek: yourself. It’s not “sponsoring terrorism” if we’re “supplying arms and intel in support of fighting a counter-insurgency.” Whenever the US winds up in one of the world’s sand traps, TWAT is our Mulligan. Didn’t you read the playbook?
I guess the thing is, if Iran wants to stir up a rebellion in another country, they should know we can easily do the same within theirs. I don’t like it either, but it’s reality.
Sure, US troops are strained, but it’s not outside the realm of comprehension. We’ve got three carrier groups over there, increased troop strength in Iraq and ready reinforcements coming up through deployment, not to mention the “secret army” training in the Jordan desert.
The Coalition doesn’t necessarily need to foot the bill for this one, though. God knows Iran wouldn’t want a devastating (albeit ineffectual) incursion like the July War, so they’ve really got to play it cool right now. If Ahmadinejad keeps pokin’ his skinny little engineer’s fingers at us, there will be consequences, either our way or Israel’s.
OK, this has turned from a slanging match into something that is actually interesting. Damn.
What do we would be the consequences for Israel if Israel got involved in anti-Iran airstrikes? Would they lose the complicit acceptance of the Arab Union? I consult Stratfor’s latest Geopolitical Intelligence Report and find:
And furthermore (in the context of the abduction of Iranian diplomats):
I still don’t think you’re right about the short-and-curlies, but I concede that you’re less wrong than my initial take on your position.
Actually, I’m not sure that’s true. Sure, we can attack them, but AFAICT the willingness of the Iranian people to resist or rebel against their own extremist leadership is inversely correlated to how pissed off they are at foreign adversaries, namely us.
Financial pundit James Surowiecki had an interesting article in the New Yorker recently, arguing that Ahmedinejad is stirring the shit in order to drive up oil prices:
In other words, Ahmedinejad is indulging in belligerent posturing because when the US responds to it threateningly, it drives up the risk premium on oil and pumps more money into Iran’s coffers. So maybe a better thing to do would be to focus on the diplomatic-negotiation side, reassure the traders that we’re not about to shut down Iran’s oil supply with acts of war, and watch the risk premium disappear and the price per barrel plummet and the Iranian domestic unrest explode. Now that’s the smart people’s way to “stir up a rebellion in another country”, eh?
Doubtful. There is no serious potential rebel movement in Iran at present, however much the neocons might want to pretend otherwise. Ahmadinejad’s popularity is declining and so is the mullahs’, but opponents apparently want to work on gradual political reform instead of revolution – and nothing would be better calculated to make them all rally 'round the flag than hostile U.S. action, overt or covert. Nor is there much chance we can exploit Iran’s ethnic divisions; even the Kurds are relatively quiet in Iran. The Arabs of Khuzestan are the most restive, but the government appears to have them under control. See this thread. Furthermore, the situation in Iran is nothing at all like in Iraq; Iran has a strong, stable and effective government, and a military force that has not been weakened by years of sanctions. Trying to “stir up a rebellion” there would be a waste of time and money.
It sure is. Too bad there aren’t any reality-based smart people running things, eh? But then, dealing with the Iranians that way would deprive Our Leader of another “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier photo op, and we can’t have that. Wouldn’t want to see the presidential flight suit gathering cobwebs, would we?
Yeah, I love the way that happens on the Dope: two posters start out furiously ripping the stuffing out of each other and it degenerates into a rational argument. If only US-Iran relations could work the same way.
That depends entirely on the kind of airstrikes they apply. If they’re Ilan-Ramon-style offensives, I think the Israeli position is fine. Blind strikes on civilian hot zones, not a chance. Barring some kind of crisis or catastrophe directly and solidly linked to Iran, surgical strikes on reactors is the limit of Israel’s potential air offensive.
Seems like more of the old dog and pony show. We have named the Saudis as secondary actors in Iraq, so Larijani goes to Riyadh to make overtures to a Coalition Proxy about nukes. This is what makes me think an Osirak kind of threat is indeed on the table.
Mr Bush is going to paint the detained Iranians as Qods, when for all we know they are nothing more than a group of diplomats.
As for Stratfor, no offense, but another intelligence system just like it was also founded in 1996: Feith & Franklin. They’ve been marking time on this whole misadventure since the Clinton Administration. Now they’ve got a nice drumbeat.
You must have missed the part about about bombing the shit out of them, arresting their leaders, firing the Revolutionary Guard and generally forking with their infrastructure. Otherwise, you’re right on target!
See, the best thing about the US Mideast and Asian foreign policy is its simple, brutal message: “If you screw with the US or our favored allies, we will fuck you up royally. Just look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Do you want that to happen to you? Are you willing to risk your people on a pissing match with a global bully?”
The bombing of the Revolutionary Guard is simple proof of the seriousness of our threat to Iran. If Ahmadinejad keeps pushing, he will ultimately end up in a civil war. And we have the resources in Iran. Personally, I agree with former Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who said in 2005 the US has been actively recruiting in Iran; based on his and Sy Hersh’s information by now we will already have built plenty of infrastructure and likely groomed hundreds of grass-roots operatives in Bam alone.
Ahmadinejad is in a vise. No matter how he shouts or wriggles or cries, his sac just gets flatter and flatter.
tagos: All of a sudden, I agree with you. With very limited samples, I agree that one can diagnose another person. From your posts in this thread, I see that you are clearly insane. Good day.
:eek: Guh, wha’? I certainly did miss that part: I thought you were talking about “stirring up a rebellion” on the part of the Iranian people. Not launching a full-bore war of aggression and conquest on the scale of “Iraq: The Sequel”.
IMHO, that level of belligerence just won’t work indefinitely; in fact, it isn’t really working now. We simply can’t go on roaring through the Middle East overturning unfriendly regimes without having any clear idea of what to do with the leftovers. Calling something on that scale a “rebellion” would just be ineffective window-dressing: it wouldn’t change the fact that in reality it would be our war, our attacks, our destruction of lives and property, and our responsibility to restore stable government and civil society after we’re done trashing the place. I can’t really see anybody outside of the most militant hard-liners sitting still for that prospect. Not even US voters; perhaps especially not US voters.
I’m not sure we’re using this word to mean the same thing. What do you mean by “infrastructure”?
Implicit in the US’s diplomatic stance and explicit in my #2 to jjimm up above.
What if instead of our sending a message to Iran, we are really sending a message somewhere a little eastward? I am talking about Mideast and Asian policy.
What would you think if a Chinese company donated a buttload of materials, volunteers and talent to rebuild and manage our Hurricane Zone after Katrina and Rita – isn’t that considered “infrastructure?” Also, doesn’t Intelligence/Propaganda have infrastructure?
“A little eastward”? You mean, eastward of Iran? Isn’t that Afghanistan? I thought we already attacked Afghanistan, a bare five years ago or so. Have they forgotten the “message” already? How often are we going to have to keep reminding them, and how much is it going to cost?
Launching aggressive wars to implement regime change that cost tons of money and end up killing tens of thousands of civilians sounds like about the most expensive way possible to send a routine political “message” along the lines of “Don’t screw with us”. How long can we keep that up before we stretch ourselves so thin that we actually make it easier for people to screw with us? And at that point, will there be anybody left in the world who doesn’t wholeheartedly want to screw with us?
Not even the biggest guy in the bar can go around indefinitely pre-emptively punching the faces of the other drinkers to make sure they don’t mess with him. People will tolerate out-of-control bullies for just so long.
That’s what I thought. So you’re saying that the US is currently actively building “plenty of” physical infrastructure in Iran? Um, where and how?
It’s actually rather beyond that limit. The Iranians learned from Osirak. The reactors in question are carefully hardened against aerial bombardment. (We’ve been over this in several GD threads.)
There was a huge earthquake in Bam in 2003; much of the aid and manpower for the recovery and law enforcement came from abroad. There was and is much goodwill toward the US in that region.
Arresting their leaders? Firing the Revolutionary Guard? That’s the sort of thing we can only do after invading, conquering and occupying the country. IOW, it takes ground troops, and more than we can spare, indeed, more than we have. I think you are also underestimating the Iranians’ ability to defend themselves against air assault. Iran does have an air force, you know.
:rolleyes: Yes, that probably is the best thing about U.S. Mideast and Asian foreign policy, which ain’t saying much.
No, he won’t. See above. This is on the order of expecting the Iraqis to greet our troops as “liberators” back in '03.
I’d like to see a cite for all of that and some hard figures.
One would think attacking the generator complex would be sufficient. I mean, doesn’t a BAD THING happen when a fission reactor runs out of electricity? Unless of course each reactor has infinite generator fuel, which is truly miraculous and Mahmoud must be the Messiah.
Cut the juice, control his diesel and he’s got two weeks tops – 3 Mile Island standard – before China Syndrome. Five days if they’ve got a Chernobyl setup.
If only US-Iran relations could work the same way.