Two wars … and counting?

January 11, 2007

Over the course of the president’s 20-minute address last night, he used one word six times: “Iran.” As in:

* “Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads.”

* “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits…. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

* “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.”

* “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”

Much of this, frankly, sounded familiar. Like the rest of the speech, Bush has been using similar, if not identical, rhetoric about Iran and Syria for quite some time. That said, Nico noted an interesting tidbit of news.

The White House released a Powerpoint presentation (.pdf) with details about the president’s new policy. “Increase operations against Iranian actors” was listed in the “Key Tactical Shifts” section.

The New York Times notes, “One senior administration official said this evening that the omission of the usual wording about seeking a diplomatic solution [to the Iranian nuclear stand-off] ‘was not accidental.'”

And just to make things extra interesting, U.S. forces stormed an Iranian consulate in Iraqi this morning.

BBC reports:

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials. The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.

The raid comes amid high Iran-US tension. The US accuses Iran of helping to fuel violence in Iraq and seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies both charges. Tehran counters that US military involvement in the Middle East endangers the whole region. […]

Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits…. Iranian media said the country’s embassy in Baghdad had sent a letter of protest about the raid to the Iraqi foreign ministry.

Stay tuned.

And Adm. Fallon hasn’t even started his new job as the “Iran-bomber” yet…

  • There was a Kurdish representative on BBC this morning who said they considered this an act of war against Kurdistan by the US. Yikes.

  • Just because it’s Bush doing the reacting, it doesn’t mean that Iran is not acting in Iraq in a negative way with spying, fighters and nuclear development. Their president denies the Holocaust and makes threats like a little Korean dictator. Just because we dislike Bush, doesn’t mean Iran is a good-faith country. Iran is bad news.

  • In this morning’s presser with Condi, Gates and Co., a Faux News reporter kept trying to get them to say more about whether or not they’d attack the Iranian elements within Iran itself.

    I’m not sure if the reporter was for it (not a stretch, considering whom he works for) or just trying to get them to justify doing so, but it was something that stood out to me.

    Condi also said that if Iran dumped their nuclear ambitions she would meet with their reps “any time, any where.” She also kept stressing how the U.S. hasn’t had diplomatic relations with Iran for the past 27 years … kinda interesting, since that seemed like ssoooooo pre 9/11 thinking (to use their term).

    Now, the fact they attacked the consulate while all of this was going on, makes me wonder if going after Iran is, in reality, the plan. I’ve never bought into it, but I’m really beginning to wonder …

    If it is, may whatever god or gods exist have mercy on all of our souls …

    **shudders**

  • Just because it’s Bush doing the reacting, it doesn’t mean that Iran is not acting in Iraq in a negative way with spying, fighters and nuclear development. Their president denies the Holocaust and makes threats like a little Korean dictator. Just because we dislike Bush, doesn’t mean Iran is a good-faith country. Iran is bad news.
    –Dale

    Oh, without a doubt.

    But the question is this: If we’re struggling to succeed fighting the two wars we are now, how in the holy hell are we going to add yet another war against a very well armed, very well trained, and very well motivated country led by a very well documented nutjob?

  • Well, that explains the real reason for the troop surge. The US is going to launch and incursion against the sanctuaries in the Parrot’s Beak. That means the secret bombings across the border shoulud be starting some time this afternoon.

  • The very first condition for a war with Iran is the immediate resignation of the entire administration. It’s not negotiable. If they proceed without meeting this requirement, impeach the lot of them, and then turn them over to The Hague.

  • Bush is never happier than when he gets to play “war president” (sorta reminds me of Kaiser Bill). I think he thinks that the American people have a knee-jerk support of the leaders in “wartime” and he’s counting on that. Since the current war has gotten old and no longer fun and outlived it’s usefullness, it’s time to start a new one and make everything fun again.

    I don’t know if I should be in shock or in awe….

  • One other little tidbit from last night’s speech was Bush’s desire to expand the military (apparently by 92,000 troops according to Gates). It sure looks like he’ll try to get us into deeper ka-ka so that we will, in fact, be there for decades.

  • Unholy Moses- Actually, the issue is more ‘how can we possibly succeed in Iraq without dealing with the Iranian problem’? Sadr was trained in Iran, and receives his support from Iran. If we want him out of the way, we need to deal with the fact that Iran is intervening, arming and paying the Mahdi Army, among others.

    And just how will that confrontation play out? I don’t know. But, remember, Bush just put an Admiral in charge at CENTCOM, and ordered an Aircraft Carrier just off of Somolia (Grab a map, that’s just a short haul from Iran. Long enough to justify having it in place, and close enough to join the party)…

  • So now the monkey-man—–who believes he has a god-given right to open our mail, eavesdrop on our email and telephone conversations, and decide where we can go, when we can go, and how we can go—–wants to start playing his “you-need-my-permission-to-leave” nonsense—in Iraq?

    Hmmm. Let’s see now—breaking and entering, criminal trespass, grand larceny, felonious destruction of property, unwarranted detention of foreign CONSULAR PERSONNEL—sounds like the Swift meatpacking plants were a dry run for this one. Has anyone bothered to tell Das Boosh that his entire freaking, bunker-mentality “Green Zone” is within range of Iranian missiles? Does he not understand the significance of hardened missile-sites on the Iranian coast that can strike anything in the Persian Gulf?

    Oh, wait—he does. It’s already scripted out, too. “Shock and Awe: The Sequel.”

    The chimp’s going to cost a lot of Americans their lives in the not-too distant future….

  • the shrub’s speach last night reminded me of a 12 year old that “knows everything” and refuses to take advice from anyone…
    …Ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combination…

  • This is the standard procedure of the right wing. They advocate Policy X. Policy X is implemented or voted into law. Policy X fails miserably. The Righties go on talk shows and claim there’s nothing wrong with Policy X, it just wasn’t implemented right, or we didn’t do enough of it. Their solution to the blatant failure of Policy X is not Policy Y, but even more of Policy X.

    Best example of this to my mind is electricity deregulation in California, which they promised would mean more energy for less. Instead we got less energy and wound up paying through the nose. And it’s backers claimed we had rolling blackouts because we had not deregulated electricity enough. (There was a control group in that economic experiment — Los Angeles County. The DWP was not deregulated. It’s customers were not affected by blackouts, and their rates did not triple.)

    Now Policy X is war. And that war is failing dismally. True to form, their solution is not disengagement, but more war.

    And why not? What have they got to lose? After all, it’s not like anybody they know is going to fight in it…

  • Historical analogies:

    Vietnam = Iraq
    Cambodia = Iran
    Bush = Nixon

    What about the Somalian activities of late? Looking at a map of the overall region we seem to have military action taking place Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Connecting the countries on a map forms a very nice triangle with the Persian Gulf and Iran right in the middle.

    There is nothing in this whole picture that looks like anything but regional war on two continents. One war seems much easier to manage than three. The only question is who is Oceania, who is Eurasia, and who is Eastasia?

  • From AP:

    Iraqi officials said Thursday that multinational forces detained as many as six Iranians in an overnight raid on Tehran’s diplomatic mission in the northern city of Irbil….

    The forces stormed the Iranian mission at about 3 a.m., detaining the five staffers and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information….

    A resident living near the mission said the foreign force used stun bombs in the raid and brought down an Iranian flag that was on the roof of the two-story yellow house.

  • Castor–
    Oh … I’m well aware of the ships off the coast of Somalia and what that means. And unlike most Americans — and like probably everyone here — I can find Iraq, Somolia and Iran on a map. 🙂

    Also, I don’t disagree that something has to be done with Iran. But any military option is ludicrous. Period. There is no way in hell we could muster the manpower. Air strikes are an option, but nowhere near a good one—can you imagine what would happen if they went in and started taking out targets, only to have the inevitable civilian casualties?

    My gawd … most of the world already thinks our leaders are criminally insane, and any attack would turn the few holdouts against us. And at this point, that’s one of the last things we need because we need all the help and support we can get. To further erode the little support we have left would seal the fate of the entire region.

    I wish I had a decent solution to the Iranian problem, but I don’t … short of either building a fence/wall along the border … or trying to put a Soldier/Marine/coalition member every 100 yards … or … I dunno … building a moat.

    But an attack has to be out of the question.

    **shrugs shoulders, pounds head against wall**

  • [Clears throat]

    Afghanistan.

    Just a friendly reminder.

    Let’s see. Iraq for no reason, Somalia because a terrorist might be there, now MonkeyShines is rattling his tiny sabre at Syria and has smacked Iran across the face…just because.

    Yes, this will help build US-Middle East relations.

    Going to see what I can find out about the embassy here.

  • Juan Cole doesn’t think that Iran and Syria are big problems when it comes to the insurgency in Iraq. Further, he thinks that the plan that Bush announced last night shows that neither does BushCo.

    Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn’t that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you’d occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq.

  • Hey Moses, good luck building a moat over a mountain range! 🙂

    Seriously, the Iraq war is over, and Iran has won. They won the minute we went in. But who the hell cares if Iran gets control of the shiite areas of Iraq? I sure as hell don’t. Israel does, though, and that’s the problem I guess, since they do a nice puppetshow with the Dems even moreso than the Republicrooks. Another problem for another thread.

    The best thing we could do now to prevent a regional war would be to redraw the old line between the sunni and shiite areas of Iraq, and get all the people to move to their areas, and then partition the damn place back the way it was before the British fucked it all up.

    As for Turkey, tell them to stay out of Kurdistan, and if they don’t we’ll go carve out a huge hunk of them too. After all, the Kurds want their freedom too, right? Our buddies the Brits fucked them over and maybe it’s time to fix that too. Maybe we could get the Turks to sell the Kurds some land for a slice of the oil the Kurds have. They’ve got to be tired of the civil war with the Kurds, use that to make a deal that everyone can sign off on.

    But anyone who thinks Iraq’s three factions are going to be put together without a huge fight is a dreamer. Humpty Dumpty is dead, Jim. We need to figure out the least worst option, and make it happen as best we can.

    Iran isn’t going to quit meddling in Iraq’s Shiite areas, and we can’t take down Iran without using nukes, so the best we can do is to keep the regional war from erupting when the regional Sunnis step in to defend the Iraqi Sunnis.

    Of course the Bushites think nukes are an option, so please dear God, if you’re up there, give them all a clue or a heart attack, your choice.

  • Sadr is the anti-Iran force among the Shi’ites, he is also the main nationalist force and a central religious icon. If he was captured or killed it would be the ‘THE END’ for thousands of troops that would die in the popular uprising. Bombing Iran could have like results if we were to nail a shrine or the wrong holy man.

  • Unholy Moses (#4): “… the fact they attacked the [Iran] consulate while all of this was going on, makes me wonder….”

    An embassy or consular office IS part of the territory being represented by it. So we have already attacked Iran. Bush didn’t consult Congress, anymore than Nixon consulted Congress before fatally extending the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos. The parallel is chilling. Impeachment is called for … NOW.

  • Unholy Moses- didn’t mean any offense, was just being flippant (sorry that it came across poorly).

    And I don’t disagree that the military options are not great- but they are slightly better than most people might think. The Iranians are much more homogenous in their ethnic make-up (mostly Shiite, and of course the Kurds), so internal conflict is not very likely.

    The most likely thing that we would do is strictly an Air campaign- bomb the shit out of their airfields, strategic military locales, the nuclear sites (targets of opportunity, we couldn’t pass that one up), basically ground them. Then, we run one of those ‘no-fly/ no-drive’ bits, where anything that comes to the border gets bombed. Fairly clean, minimizes our losses (no ground troops), and cuts off the aid to the Shiites in Iraq. Then the CIA would probably be busy giving money to any insurgent groups in Iran to try to topple the government.

    Then, we allow the Sunnis to take back control of Iraq, turn a blind eye to their methods of controlling the Shiites, and make a few lucrative Oil deals on the way out of the country, having secured a couple of major airbases out in the middle of the desert, from which we can operate across the region.

    Not that I support that, but that is a definite possibility, especially in how we deal with Iran.

  • Racerx–
    Well, yeah, a moat wouldn’t work. But we could always fill the valleys with water … stock it all with some trout, a few largemouth bass, maybe some muskee …

    It’s official: I’ve lived in the midwest entirely too long.

    Castor–
    Absolutely no offense taken (thus the smiley). And while your plan would probably work, like you, I don’t support it. Sure, it would stop Iran from meddling in Iraq. But it could (or probably would) stir up such emotion in the Iranian people that instead of just having their batshit crazy leader against us, we’d have the entire nation galvanized, along with the entirity of the Shia world. Which, of course, would just add another problem to deal with later.

    You know … the more we all discuss this, the more I think a nice, quiet island in the middle of the Pacific away from all this madness should be my new home. Well, until global warming really kicks in, then I’d be under water and have nothing and …

    **falls on the floor, quivering in fetal position**

  • As for Turkey, tell them to stay out of Kurdistan, and if they don’t we’ll go carve out a huge hunk of them too. After all, the Kurds want their freedom too, right?

    I’ll assume that you weren’t being serious about this. Turkey is a long-standing NATO ally and a nation of 70 million+, with the second largest military in NATO. We aren’t just going to lightly tear apart NATO to appease the Kurds – or in a worst case dare bring in the Turkish military into the whole Iraqi mess and risk losing all of Kurdistan to the Turks. That’s one of the intruiging puzzles about this whole mess – because of the Kurdish/Turkish issue, we do have to step very lightly as far as advancing the interests of the Kurds. But extremely unrealistic to blithely speak of carving “a huge chunk” out of Turkey just like that – what are you – a NeoCon??

  • The U.S. has not only violated centuries of international conventions regarding the sovereignty of consulates and embassies, it has also stuck a big middle-finger in the eye of the Kurdish government who granted permission for the Iranians to be there in the first place.

    Is it possible to have screwed this up any worse than George has done it now? I shudder to think about it.

  • Unholy Moses,

    But it could (or probably would) stir up such emotion in the Iranian people that instead of just having their batshit crazy leader against us, we’d have the entire nation galvanized, along with the entirity of the Shia world.

    Exactly right and incredibly short-sighted. The demographics of Iran are clearly in our favor if we can just be patient. I don’t have the answer to how to stop Iran from continuing to support the shite extremists. Maybe a no-fly/no-drive zone on the Iraq side of the Iranian/Iraqi border via the carrier groups in the persian gulf and the air bases outside Baghdad would be effective? Yes, it would stop commerce and other legitimate cross-border activities, but it could work. Maybe a set of well regulated officially crossing areas could be created and maintained with the rest of the border being heavily defended. Frankly though, I have precious little idea of how many troops and related logistics it would take to make that work. Apparently, neither does the White House.

    Ultimately, my point is that the Iranian population by and large is pro US and young. If we can keep from provoking them, and instead win over their minds, ala the Soviet Bloc in the 70s and 80s, we have a good chance at having a good ally there in the future. Sadly, I think this is to nuanced and forward thinking (longsighted?) for the W administration.

  • Ultimately, my point is that the Iranian population by and large is pro US and young. If we can keep from provoking them, and instead win over their minds, ala the Soviet Bloc in the 70s and 80s, we have a good chance at having a good ally there in the future. Sadly, I think this is to nuanced and forward thinking (longsighted?) for the W administration.

    Edo in ’08!!!

    Seriously … that is an outstanding objective. Granted, how we get to that point is certainly difficult and up for debate, but those points are something I guess I didn’t consider (which is why I love this site!).

    Of course, to play devil’s advocate: if we cut them off completely, wouldn’t those currently-pro-U.S. youngsters turn against us? Sure, they may think we’re okay now, but if we totally devestate their economy — along with chunks of their property and families — wouldn’t that also wipe out any good will?

  • Ethel-to-Tilly, I was kind of kidding about Turkey, but something’s gotta give if the Kurds get their own homeland, and it would seem to me that if Turkey really wants into the EU and since NATO isn’t really a valid organization since the Soviet collapse, we could well see some give on the part of Turkey.

    I just wish we would have spent the Iraq war money on alternative energy, because then we could tell them to work it out themselves and leave us out of it.

  • if we cut them off completely, wouldn’t those currently-pro-U.S. youngsters turn against us? Sure, they may think we’re okay now, but if we totally devestate their economy — along with chunks of their property and families — wouldn’t that also wipe out any good will?

    Absolutely. So if we could manage to enforce a “no-insurgent-support-zone”tm within Iraq *and* still allow for legitimate crossborder activities, albeit with intrusive searches, I think we could avoid losing the good will. Frankly, even if the cross border searches were really onerous, the vast majority of the Iranian population wouldn’t care as long as they still had access to jeans, cocacola, western music and movies, and whatever else about our culture it is that they clearly like.

    Admittedly, since I don’t care for our fastfood/junkfood or the vast majority of our corporate “entertainment”, I’m really at a loss as to what they find so attractive; however, I’ve read in a more than a few reputable sources that they do find our pop-culture quite attractive, despite their religious leaders’ admonishments against it.

  • Racerx,

    …we could well see some give on the part of Turkey.

    Could and should, regrettably, can be far apart. For whatever reason, Turkey seems quite adamant about not letting their kurdish majority areas secede. Frankly, I have little patience for Turkey and their continued horrible mistreatment of their Kurdish minority. I, for one, would love to see the creation of an independent Kurdistan as that would presumably mean less oppression for the Kurds in both Turkey *and* Iran. if Turkey doesn’t like it, too bad, IMHO. I know the leadership in Iran wouldn’t like it, but the vast majority of the Iranian population could probably care less. Its just not that big of an area and the Kurds are really quite geographically and culturally seperate in Iran.

  • but realistically speaking, regardless of idealistic views towards the Kurds and a homeland for them, do we jettison a country who’s been a close ally of ours since 1945? Imagine a Middle East in which the Turks were our avowed enemy rather than our friends. That’s part of our overall weak hand in Iraq – the Turks really do have a veto power over what happens with the Kurds, regardless of how solving the Kurd issue helps our position in Iraq – another example where this whole Iraqi mess is extremely short-sided and ultimately extremely risky for US interests. But does anybody really think that Bush and Co will ebrace an independent Kurdistan and kick Turkey to the curb because of some idealistic benevolent recognition of a Kurdish homeland? Bush is many things, but Woodrow Wilson he sure isn’t.

  • Hagel came out swing at the Senate Forgein Relations Committe e hearing today. Via ThinkProgress, which also has the video.

    …[Y]ou cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand — but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

    Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary. And that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia, in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

    So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam — if it’s carried out.

    I will resist it.

    (APPLAUSE)

  • ***So we have already attacked Iran.***
    ————————————————–Ed

    On a historical note, unrestricted wartime operations were ordered against Japan immediately following the Pearl Harbor bombing—even before the formal declaration of war, and without conferring with Washington. Militaries work that way—you’re attacked, and you’re allowed to fight back unless you’re told not to. I’m not seeing anything coming out of Tehran yet, telling Iranian forces to stand down. Seeing as how the United States has already taken the first hostile act, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see the Iranian coastal installations put a crimp on things. Lots of nice, big, juicy targets there. Mmmm, boy—you betcha.

    By the way—WHEN was the Stennis battle group due to enter the Straits of Hormuz? I can see it now—some trigger-happy Iranians and their Silkworm battery, dreaming about “loving the smell of burning flat-top in the morning.”

    And the US does not have the necessary force in the region to counter a full-court press from the Iranians. They can’t even manage the current Iraqi situation, hence this maniacal surge thingie….

  • Ethel-to-Tilly,

    But does anybody really think that Bush and Co will ebrace an independent Kurdistan and kick Turkey to the curb because of some idealistic benevolent recognition of a Kurdish homeland? Bush is many things, but Woodrow Wilson he sure isn’t.

    Agreed, Bush isn’t up to the job. However, the next president may be. And there may also be a 3rd way that involves an independent Kurdistan that doesn’t involve any of Turkey’s current territory. yes, Turkey may be unhappy about having a kurdish state on its borders, but would they really be willing to kick us to the curb if it didn’t actually impinge on their territory? I think not. Clearly the issue of kurdish seperatists that are responsible for violence inside Turkey’s borders would have to be dealt with and it is admittedly tricky; also, the kurds currently living inside Turkey wouldn’t be thrilled…but 1/2 a loaf is better than none, is it not?

    In the final analysis, though, you are right that the current administration isn’t up to this challenge. Sigh.

  • Sorry I haven’t read all the comments so I’ll appologize if someone else has made this point.

    We are in a war in Iraq.
    We are in a war in Afghanistan.
    Two wars.

    Iran lies between Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Attack Iran and you turn two wars into one.

    BG2 math. 2+1 = 1 😉

  • Julius Caesar came up with Divide et impera (divide and conquer). Easier to fight 50,000 enemy, then fight another 50,000, than to take on 100,000.

    Kaiser Bush, with his vastly greater military experience, believes in amalgamating all your battles into one.

    In this version of the classic splittler-clumper argument, I think Caesar wins.

  • Shrub has been planning on war with Iran and Syria for a while. The first link tells of the US encouraging war with Syria during the war in Lebanon. The second link is much more recent.

    IDF prepared for attack by Syria, US wants Israel to attack Syria (last paragraph)

    “In fact, Washington-based sources told The Jerusalem Post some in the capital are privately eager to see the Iranian threat advance to the point that Israel has no choice but to carry out a preemptive strike, sparing the United States the responsibility for doing so.” (second page)

    Bush considered war in Lebanon as curtain raiser for war with Iran

  • He’s trying to provoke them into doing something, so that he can seem justified in bombing them.

    • Comments are closed.