Iran conflict on the horizon?

February 2, 2007

This is not at all encouraging. There’s so many things wrong with the report, it’s hard to know where to start.

The US News Political Bulletin has learned Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly concerned that President Bush will order air strikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks. They cite as evidence the tough warnings from senior Administration officials, including the Commander in Chief, that Iranian help for insurgents in Iraq is leading to the deaths of US troops and Iraqi civilians. Democratic insiders tell the Political Bulletin that they suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that Administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq.

Under this scenario, Bush would not invade Iran with ground forces or zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities. But under the limited-bombing scenario, Bush could ask for a congressional vote of support, Democratic insiders predict, which many Democrats would feel obliged to endorse or risk looking like they weren’t supportive of the troops.

Bombing Iran would also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq and cause a rally-round-the-president reaction among Americans, at least for a while. But Democrats add that an attack on Iran would probably be condemned around the world and would precipitate an Iranian response that could dramatically worsen Mideast turmoil and have unforeseen consequences that could be extremely damaging to the United States.

Let’s take this one step at a time.

* Imminent strikes on Iran — It seems unlikely. As recently as this week, the administration said Iran is meddling in Iraq, and they’d show us the proof … sometime in the future. If Bush really is planning a few bombing raids, he’s going to have try and build at least a little GOP support in Congress, and to date, he hasn’t. Still, it’s a scary scenario.

* A congressional vote of support — Many Dems would “feel obliged to endorse” strikes on Iraq? Are you kidding?

It’s the kind of claim that makes me wonder who, exactly, U.S. News talked to for this report. Too many Dems went along with the AUMF for Iraq, but there’s no way “many” Dems would make this mistake twice. It’s just not possible. 2007 is not 2002.

The administration doesn’t have the evidence to suggest bombing strikes are necessary, Bush doesn’t have any kind of mandate for expanding a war most Americans already hate, and even the most weak-kneed members of Congress have no incentive to go along with Bush on this.

* Bombing Iran would “take attention away from Iraq” — Wag the dog? I’d actually argue the opposite — bombing Iran would be argued in the context of the war in Iraq, which makes it appear even less feasible.

* Bombing Iran would cause a short-term “rally-round-the-president” reaction — Don’t count on it. Bombings might be well received at the next Kristol-Peretz dinner party, but if the White House thinks there’s a public appetite for hitting Iran, the Bush gang would quickly be disappointed.

Stay tuned.

Yeah, but all your “reality-based” arguments against this fail to remember that these criminals “create their own reality.”

This is just like Nixon turning to the carpet-bombing of Cambodia and Laos to win in Vietnam – with the caveat that Cambodia and Laos didn’t have the ability to bring us to our economic knees, as this does.

Maybe it’s going to take that. The rest of the world cutting us off. The Japanese, Chinese and Koreans cashing in their dollars for Euros and turning the US Dollar into something less value than a Confederate dollar. The rest of the world cutting us off from the 40% of planetary resources this 4% of the world’s population consumes, etc. Most Americans live in Fantasy Land and it may take a bucket of ice on top of them to bring them around.

I hate to think that might be true.

  • Many Dems would “feel obliged to endorse” strikes on Iraq? Are you kidding?

    Unfortunately, they’re not kidding. I think AIPAC could get enough of them to do it.

  • I wonder which allies will support us with personnel and materiel…

    Perhaps the plan is to go it alone, disrupting the supply of oil and natural gas out of Iran to our allies like Japan and South Korea. I’m sure the Chinese and Russians and several EU states will also be thrilled since they have strong economic ties to Iran.

    :Sigh:

  • Every word out of the regime makes me fear expansion into Iran is as good as done. As much as I agree with CB’s rational take on this, I simply can’t underestimate the Bush regime’s irrationality and desperation. These guys are still playing from the out of date playbook that got them their asses handed to them in Nov. It’s all they know. And given their desperation, it would be unusual if they didn’t go for it.

  • Zbigniew Brzezinski says the war is all but inevitable, unless we change course (which ain’t gonna happen unless Feingold gets them to listen to him)

    February 1, 2007

    If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    http://www.nowpublic.com/zbigniew_brzezinski_calls_iraq_war_a_historic_strategic_and_moral_calamity_says_stop_the_trappings_of_colonial_tutelage

  • I’m not sure the new Defense Secretary would go along with a strike against Iran.

    Furthermore, Bush can’t fire him since he was brought in to take care of ‘Rumsfeld’s’ mess, and thus give the President political cover. Nonetheless, their diplomacy has always been ‘talk big and carry a little stick’.

    Perhaps they hope that we will blunder into war.

  • I was just thinking… at this point in the runup to war with Iraq, the decision had already been made, and many people knew almost for certain that the invasion of 2003 was going to happen. Let’s hope that this time some of the people in the know think about the consequences and spill the beans in time.

    The other thought that crossed my mind is that maybe they’re not going to flush the future of the Republican party down the toilet by launching what they must know will be the most disastrous war ever. Maybe they are just bluffing. They want to get Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions and all they have left is the big red button to scare the mullahs with, so maybe that’s what they’re doing.

    Or maybe they’re still on the same drugs they were on in 2003, and they think it will go swimmingly. Or maybe they don’t give a shit if it works or not, because either way they’re rich.

    In any event we won’t know if they’re bluffing or just batshit crazy until the war doesn’t happen (or when it does happen and we wake up to draft notices, sweeping war powers, prisons for protesters, and a full-blown tour of 1984).

  • If this were to happen, how would the rest of the world respond? We know the list of countries that would step in to help us would be short; who is likely to step in to help Iran? In other words, just how big could this conflict become? I’m not snarking, I really would like to know.

  • “If this were to happen, how would the rest of the world respond? We know the list of countries that would step in to help us would be short; who is likely to step in to help Iran? In other words, just how big could this conflict become? I’m not snarking, I really would like to know.”

    Russia and China might step in as mentioned above they have a lot of economic interests and if they do, that would be awful, extremely awful.

    Also things might go even worse if Iranian Kilo subs do a successful blockade of the Persian Gulf ($200 bucks a barrel for oil) and the US has no way to supply their forces in Iraq as everything comes thru Kuwait. Or Iran decides to send their army across the border into Iraq. How would the American public feel about seeing American troops being taken as POWs?

    If this happens, all of us will be reminising about the good bad old days of the 2nd Iraq war.

  • What do we do about Iran? Here’s a theocracy whose President denies the Holocaust, talks about wiping another country off the map (Israel) has a growing nuclear program. Iran, unlike North Korea, has room to expand and economic power. I think Iran is going to be very bad news. Remember tiny little Germany?

  • If he launches war with Iran the Republican party will dig its own grave for generations to come……

    NeoCons not content with TWO bungled wars in the last 4 years want to desparately prove their ideology right by attacking Iran….by trying to spread the violence outward from Iraq into Iran and then into Syria…Neocons hope to stroke the fears of their citizens, enable a generation long military buildup and artifically inflate oil prices all in the name of “keeping you safe”

    Results dont matter…CHAOS is the ultimate goal…b/c with that chaos comes the ability evade accountability over and over again.

    Ohh Iran let me count the ways the NeoCons have tried to start this war over the last 2.5 years…….

    1. Tried to tie Iran nuclear facilities to uranium enrichment for weapon making

    result: did not work in light of UN sanctions

    2. Tried to cast Ahmadinejad as the next HITLER

    result: did not work as people found out he is nothing more than a figurehead with no real power

    3. Try to desparately provoke Iran to strike the US by placing US warships off the coast, invading an Iranian embassy in Iraq, and trying to tie any violence in Iraq directly to Iran

    result: so far not working but plenty of time left

    In the end any trivial incident will lead to an Iranian attack which Repubs will stupidly try to use as an election ploy lets call it Middle East WAR 2.0 the remix. When that ultimately fails maybe we can get real leadership.

  • “Iran, unlike North Korea, has room to expand and economic power. I think Iran is going to be very bad news. Remember tiny little Germany?” -Dale

    My best guess is no. Germany was different. Unlike Iran, they produced something other than black gold and focused a lot on industrialization and were on the bleeding edge of technology where as Iran has not done so well. Iran is also suffering their own little population explosion as most of their population is below 40.

    Basically any economy run by a theocracy is going to suck large (waste, corruption and nepotism) and will suffer the same issues as their Sunni cousins such as growing unrest due to lack of real opportunities for their youth (this is the same reason why the Shah fell.) The theocracy will cope for maybe a generation before it too falls the way of the Shah or gets pushed aside like the pope was.

  • But Dale, four years ago Iraq was going to be the next Germany, remember? And I thought Chavez was also supposed to be like Hitler somehow? Just how many clones did the boys from Brazil make of old Adolf anyway?

  • I agree with CB that an attack on Iran is completely irrational. That’s what worries me. We’re talking worst. president. ever. here.

  • “What do we do about Iran?” – Dale

    Remember that Iran is a multi-ethnic state, the majority of which (Persians) only represent 51% of the population and live mostly in the land-locked interior. And they have a bad habit of calling their ethnic minorities such pleasantries as “cockroaches” (about the Azeri in the north).

    If America wanted a war with “Iran”, which I don’t suggest, certainly not under the incompetents that are the Bushites, the thing to do is split the country by encouraging factionalism around the peripheries, like the Russians do to Georgia and Moldavia. And it would work, because the “Iranians” are accusing us of doing that even now.

    All the oil in Iran is in the coastal plain of the gulf, which is Shi’ite Arab. Ask the Iraqi Shi’ite Arabs if they ought not to be running those provinces.

    As for what you bomb in Iran, you bomb the Headquarters of the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Headquarters of the Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem Divisions of the Republican Guard (evocative names those, what?), and the offices of the Guardian Council.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Boy George II is getting ready. The plan is drafted (but not “on his desk”). The legal excuses are lined up (burn in hell Gonzales!). Just listen to Keith O.’s comparison of BG2 speaches from 2002 and 2007 abour Iraq and Iran and the similarities will freeze your blood.

    Nightmare scenario Three coming up.

  • The one I’d have take issue with is that Bush needs some support from Congressional Republicans. Why? It seems pretty clear he doesn’t care what people think, and would go forward with an attack if he thought it would save his legacy, and these guys are just batshit insane enough to think it will.

    This is a rogue Presidency that doesn’t think law or checks and balances apply to them. Right now, the only motivation for Bush is vindication. It’s all he’s got left, and any restrictions Congress places on him will be treated with Cheney’s work-around (was it here that I read the anectdote about Cheney cutting iron rods in half when the government made them recycle scrap metal of a certain length?)

    The alternative to war with Iran is admitting they’re wrong. What they are doing right now is the equivelant to Gingrich holding up disaster relief to vindicate themselves after they got pummelled for shutting down the government. It’s never their fault. Failure just means you make the same mistakes with twice the enthusiasm.

  • Dale, regarding post #11, Iran is a pitiful pile of crap compared to Germany. Iran’s 2005 defense budget was about $20 billion. (CIA world fact book) Ours is around $500 billion. So we’re easily 25 times more powerful than they are, not including nuclear-armed Israel. One B52, properly loaded, could flatten every city in Iran. And how many B52’s do we have? Dozens.

    Of course all that doesn’t mean we could win a war with Iran, it means there is NO WAY they could “win” any war they started with us. Whoever was leading Iran at the time would be a dead duck.

    Chirac let slip the truth the other day. If they ever dared to use the nuclear weapon they’re allegedly trying to make, if they ever attacked us in ANY serious way, they would be committing suicide. IMO they’re not suicidal, if they were they would have already tried to hit Israel or us with a chemical or biological attack. (weapons which they already know how to make and deploy)

  • He’s definitely bombing Iran, there is very little doubt at this point. The rhetoric is being stepped up in exactly the same way as the buildup to the war in Iraq. Bush is even moving positions into place. He is distributing Patriot missile defense systems to other countries and moving another aircraft carrier into the region. Bush will attack before April is out unless Congress stops him.

  • Hey Dale (#11) – what sort of good shit are you smoking up there in the Bay Area? I bet the Bushies would allow you to grow all you want of it and export it nationwide, if it would have the effect on the rest of us it appears to have had on you.

    Pow’ful shit, that shit must be…

  • To expand on TBone’s idea, someone in Congress needs to promulgate a resolution that should Bush do anything unilaterally about Iran, that he and Cheney will be forcibly removed from office.

    Ahmedinejad is not very popular at home since the Iranian economy is not doing well and many see him as part of the problem. Left to it’s own devices, I think Iran would start gravitating to a more moderate course. But give their populace an evil menace to rally around, and the guys we don’t want in power will grab control. We need to use our heads and not our bombs n this one.

  • “It’s Springtime for Dubya….”

    Unlike the fractured, rusted, unmanned defensive systems Iraq had prior to Shock-n-Awe,” the Iranian military possesses an up-to-date air defense network, and there’s been rumblings that the reason the US wasn’t too pleased with Russia selling military systems to Tehran is because the package included “passive-track” SAM technology. If that’s true, then those really neat-looking “stealth” bombers are missile-fodder for sure. Then there’s the Iranian coastal defenses, that are just chock-full of anti-ship missile systems. The moment we start trying to put bombers in Iranian airspace—or the moment we start lobbing Tomahawks in their direction—it’s probably safe to kiss off a couple of carrier groups. Gulf of Tonkin in reverse, the historians will call it—and the ensuing anti-American carnage will rival the fields surrounding Gettysburg. Bush will be forced to flee Washington on account of the uproar against him then, but he’ll probably take one last, parting shot at the America that would not rally around his messianic vision, and order at least a partial nuclear response to “quell the Iranian terrorists.” Hopefully, the submarine commanders will refuse to launch their apocalyptic payloads, and remember what the phrase “protect and defend the Constitution” really means, and used to mean before this madman; this bloodthirsty brat; this “shrub” decided to use real human beings for his sandbox toy soldiers….

  • We’ve already learned enough from the Libby trial to impeach both him and Cheney. That’s another reason they want to go to Iran. And it’s why people have to get this ball rolling now, so the “wag the dog” aspect will be too obvious to ignore.

    • Comments are closed.