The New Iraq NIE

[David_Simmons]

@OttoDaFe

I doubt that this strategem would convince as many people as it did when LBJ did it (and it may not even take in the redoubtable 26-28%), but that’s not the point. From then on, everybody would be so busy trying to cope with a Middle East / Persian Gulf in cataclysm that impeachment would become a sideshow.

It really doesn’t matter whether or not people are convinced. GW is charged with the security of the US as he has said many times. Didn’t ne say in a speech recently that he relies on God to direct him in that task?

You can’t argue with that.

[BrainGlutton]

A former CIA operative who still has ties to insiders says the U.S. is poised to attack Iran.

BOB Baer, the former Middle East CIA operative whose first book about his life inspired the oil-and-espionage thriller Syriana, is working on a new book on Iran, but says he was told by senior intelligence officials that he had better get it published in the next couple of months because things could be about to change.

Baer, in an interview with The Weekend Australian, says his contacts in the administration suggest a strategic airstrike on Iran is a real possibility in the months ahead.

“What I’m getting is a sense that their sentiment is they are going to hit the Iranians and not just because of Israel, but due to the fact that Iran is the predominant power in the Gulf and it is hostile and its power is creeping into the Gulf at every level,” Baer says.

He says his contacts have told him of his book: “You better hurry up because the thesis is going to change. I told them submission is in January but they said, ‘You’re probably going to be too late’.”

[Ravenman]

Which reminds me, I’m still looking for takers for my bet that the US will not attack Iran within the next 12 months.

[elucidator]

From your lips to the Ears…

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

Which reminds me, I’m still looking for takers for my bet that the US will not attack Iran within the next 12 months.

Given that I’m the one making so much of the noise about the possibility that this Administration just might bomb Iran, I feel like I ought to explain why I don’t consider this a decent betting opportunity.

I’d say it’s a good deal more likely than not that Bush won’t bomb Iran - if I had to bet, I’d say the odds are probably about 3-1 against such kaboomery occurring between now and 20 January 2009.

The reason why that’s no comfort to me is, of course, that the consequences would likely be huge. A small but nontrivial risk of a major disaster is still something you want to get out of the way of - and I very much do.

But there’s still a pretty big gap between a 25% chance of its happening in the next 17 months, and a 50% chance of its happening in the next year. That gap is the reason for my not taking you up on that bet.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Which reminds me, I’m still looking for takers for my bet that the US will not attack Iran within the next 12 months.

Define “attack”.

As for the NIE, it’s just same ol’ same ol’. While Bush is still in the WH I can’t imagine an NIE that declared we needed to exit Iraq, at least not until Bush himself decides he wants to. Sometime between now and the end of the year, though, I would not be surprised if Bush announced some limited withdrawal plan. Very limited, and not anything that will satisfy the Dems, but just enough to take some of the more vulnerable GOP Congresscritters off the hook, and entice them to stick with him.

I should mention that my track record on making predictions about withdrawal plans is not good…

[Ravenman]

I have no problem laying odds. If I win, I get a bottle of decent Irish whiskey; if I don’t win, I have no problem with buying 3 bottles of decent liquor. If we begin another war in the Middle East, I think even teetotalers will start hitting the bottle pretty hard.

As far a definition of attack, I think any use of force that is intentional, targeted at Iran, and is either acknowledged by the US or unambiguously our work would suffice. Chasing AQI and mistakenly ending up in a firefight in Iran wouldn’t count, and a mysterious carbomb in Tehran wouldn’t count, unless there comes to light some convincing evidence (read: not some blog conspiracy theory) that the CIA was responsible. If there’s any doubt as to what constitutes a US attack on Iran, I think putting the case to the Teeming Millions on IMHO is a reasonable last resort.

[Der_Trihs]

@OttoDaFe

Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion / sinking feeling that it may have the opposite effect. If these clowns sense that the hounds are starting to close in, it wouldn’t surprise me if we start getting reports of USN ships being attacked by [DEL]North Vietnamese[/DEL]Iranian gunboats in the [DEL]Gulf of Tonkin[/DEL]Eastern Med, and then it’s off to the proverbial races.

You have a point, but it’s the only thing I can think of that might work. I consider an attack on Iran a near certainty; my main uncertainty is how far Bush will go. At the very least I’d expect bombing and missle strikes. I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses nuclear weapons on Iran’s supposed nuclear weapon facilities.

And I consider it a fair possibility that he’ll order a ground invasion, despite the lack of adequate forces, and demand more support for the troops ( and more troops ) when they get bogged down and Iraq starts breaking loose because of troops being diverted to Iran; the idea being to lock us into a ground war with Iran before he’s out of office, regardless of the cost. It’s not like he’ll be punished for it, after all.

[marshmallow]

If we bomb bomb bomb Iran, I’d expect it to be done late 2008. The speculation in past years (which seems to point out an attack will be within the next! six! months!) hasn’t really made sense to me. It’s all about domestic political gain, so why would they do it in the middle of 2005 or 2007 or whatever? One could make a case for 2006, but they’re saving it for the important election if they’re going to do it at all. Of course, I’m pretty sure a bombing of Iran won’t see the U.S. electorate run to the GOP side en masse…but maybe, just maybe if it’s close enough it could tip it. A pretty ballsy gamble, really, but when you stack up all the idealogical reasons which Cheney will be whispering in Bush’s ear for the next year…

@Der Trihs

I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses nuclear weapons on Iran’s supposed nuclear weapon facilities.

I think that’s a little nutty.

[Der_Trihs]

@marshmallow

I think that’s a little nutty.

Why ? They’ve had a fetish for nukes, what with wanting “nuclear bunker busters” and making a point of refusing to take them off the table.

And they are nuts.