Are the imminent arrival of the additional US Navy carrier battle group to the waters of the Persian/Arabian Gulf and the despatch of an admiral as the first-ever head of US CentCom decisive signs that some form of an American military strike against Iran is about to begin?
Other signs of this include the increase in the volume of the continuous barrage of anti-Iranian accusations made by the Bush administration, and their apparent orchestration of a very broad anti-Iranian propaganda campaign by their principal aid-recipients in the Arab world. (I’m now in Egypt. You can certainly see some signs of that here.)
In a well compiled contribution to Open Democracy the British analyst Paul Rogers writes:
- Today, in the context of the changed mood in Washington – and even though it is an extraordinarily dangerous prospect and seems so far-fetched as to be unbelievable – the risk [of such an attack] can no longer be ignored.
…As the United States predicament in Iraq has steadily deteriorated, the reaction among the more hawkish opinion-formers in the US has been to insist in the strongest terms on the need for victory in Iraq, while seeing Iran as the real reason for current failures. Iran therefore must be dealt with, initially at least in terms of destroying any nuclear capability it may possess or be seeking to acquire. This objective is aided by the rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, especially his holocaust-denial propaganda..
In one sense, Iran was always the main issue for neo-conservatives: “the road to Tehran runs through Baghdad” was their mantra. Indeed there was a strong view in 2003 that the best way to deal with Iran was by installing a client administration in Iraq, secured by a substantial permanent American military presence at four large bases. Iraq would become a western bastion, with the added double benefit of reducing the significance of a somewhat unpredictable House of Saud while ensuring the Iran would know its place. In essence, regime termination to Iran’s east (Afghanistan) and west (Iraq) within two years would achieve a precious strategic success: a pliant Tehran.
It has not exactly worked out like that…
The Bushists have certainly raised tensions with Iran to a new high over recent weeks,. They have also made many preparations at the levels of both military logistics and propganda/rhetoric for an even greater confrontation with Teheran that may lead– whether by intention or through some “accident” (planned or unplanned)– to an outbreak of actual military conflict.
As I wrote here last September, the two sides urgently need a hot-line arrangement, whether at the level of military-to-military, or leader-to-leader, in order to avert mishaps or miscommunications that might lead to disaster. The inauguration of such a deconfliction mechanism could also be the first step towards building further confidence and establishing further means of averting conflicts.
But meanwhile, what we have from Washington instead is an eery repeat of the kind of propaganda preparations, now directed against Iran, that we saw four years ago directed against Iraq. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has pulled together some old Bush tapes from 2002 to show the keen degree of overlap there. You can view them here. (Hat-tip to D. Froomkin.)
I do note, too, that much of the US MSM– which in 2002 were still nearly all drinking the Bushists’ Koolaid– seem to be much more skeptical and wary of what’s happening this time round.
I’m planning a column for the CSM this week that implores the President not to take us once again down the path of a completely voluntary and quite predictably harmful war. Back in 2002, I was one of that majority of experienced American analysts of the current Middle East who warned loudly that an invasion of Iraq would lead to such harmful consequences as: the incubation of stiff, anti-US resistance by Iraqis, the strengthening of the Shiite Islamist trends, and extremely complex conflicts over Kirkuk and the whole of northern Iraq. The Bushists chose not to listen to us, preferring instead the counsels of Bernard Lewis (a scholar of medieval Islam) and of others– primarily, pro-Israeli ideologues– who assured them that an invasion of Iraq would be “a cakewalk”, whose success at bringing about a pro-US transformation there was virtually guaranteed..
I take no pleasure whatsoever in saying that I and the colleagues who agreed with me then were right. Lewis, Cheney, Adelman, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Woolsey, and all that sad group of pro-war propagandists of that day were wrong.
They have never been held to any account. I think this should be a matter of keen concern to all Americans, as well as all Iraqis (whose sufferings since March 2003 have been a hundred times worse.)
But it completely beggars belief that the counsels of war coming yet again from some of these very same people are once again being listened to by the President.
Just one small footnote from me here: Some friends have suggested that in what I wrote here about the late-January incident at PJCC Karbala I was helping to provide ammunition for the anti-Iranian propaganda campaign in the US. That was certainly not my intention. As I wrote there, I did think that it was “possible” that some Iranian government-backed formation had undertaken the attack on US forces there. But I also noted explicitly that, “I’m in no position to put a probability figure on that scenario.”
Beyond that, I want to note that even if there was an Iranian government hand of some kind in the Karbala attack, I don’t think this would in any way qualify as a “casus belli” for a US attack on Iran.
Finally, since I’m in a hurry here, I just want to put in Paul Rogers’ assessment of the kinds of damage that cane be predicted from a US attack on Iran:
- It is clear that a full-scale US air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and related infrastructure could do substantial damage, as well as causing hundreds and probably thousands of casualties. Even a more limited Israeli raid would have a major effect.
Equally clear is the wide range of options open to Iran in responding to such an attack – especially as its principal immediate effect would be a fundamental unifying of opinion in favour of the government (no matter how unpopular it might be in other respects).
The possibilities include:
* immediate withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty and a wholehearted effort to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible – leading to further action by the United States and Israel, and a long war
* action against US forces in Iraq, through Shi’a militia intermediaries on a far larger scale than at present
* direct involvement of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Iraq
* closure of the Straits of Hormuz, causing a steep increase in world oil prices
* aid and encouragement to Hizbollah in southern Lebanon (especially if Israel was involved in the attacks)
* paramilitary attacks on oil facilities in western Gulf states.
Furthermore, an attack on Iran would be seen by Shi’a groups in many other countries as an attack on them; this would create potential for severe disturbance, not least in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain…
I agree with just about all of that. I would add, however, that any large-scale US or Israeli attack on Iran could very well trigger storms of outrage from a much broader spectrum of Muslim groups than Rogers lists… Yes, including many Sunni Arabs.
It is to try to forestall that possibility, of course, that the US and its allies in the region are now engaged in such a frenzy of anti-Iranian propagandizing. But I am not sure at all that they will succeed.
Helena
Not just an extra carrier task group.
The Bataan Expeditionary Strike Group have just come on station.
http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/photos/index.html
Either they are going to Somalia or they might find something else to do.
There are three small islands in the middle of the Persian gulf called Abu Musa and the greater and lesser Tumbs which are disputed by Iran and UAE.
The Iranians have heavily garrisoned all three including (apparently ?) anti ship missile batteries.
If I were an admiral charged with keeping Straits of Hormuz open to shipping I would want to capture these islands and neutralise the missile batteries.
Now all we need is somebody from the Emirates to ……..
I agree with Paul Rogers. As I have argued before, the Cheney-Abrams strategy this time around is to maneuver the US government and armed forces into a corner (a deathtrap) from which there will be no escape other than (in the minds of politicians and generals) the long-shot of an air assault on Iran. At this late stage, it is easy to see all the pieces settling into place. Our army is literally falling to pieces in Iraq. The so-called surge is an all-or-nothing bet that commits every last available soldier to a do-or-die effort that is plainly doomed to failure – unless . . . As the jaws of this trap begin to close, the simple, stark message will be that we are on the verge of losing our entire army in Iraq (true), and unless we are willing to stand by and let that happen, we have to strike back against the evil masterminds in Tehran – the head of the snake (false). Of course, it will be easy to scare the American people with stories about what will happen to them and their “homeland” once their brave army is destroyed by the Nuke-hungry, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Mullahs. Hillary Clinton will be right there with Bush & Cheney, presenting a united front.
You don’t move carrier battle groups into offensive position in an effort to change long-term political trends in a foreign country. It doesn’t work that way. Once the stage is set, the play will begin. It has to. The tickets have already been sold and the money spent. Only this will be the opposite of “The Producers” (about a plot to cheat investors by producing a flop which backfires by turning into a hit).
Juan Cole thinks that realists inside of the administration are trying to prevent a war with Iran. He thinks that both Condi Rice and the new chief of defense are part of the realist fraction. But it may be too early to be confident such a thing won’t come out after all. All the signs are there, like in 2003 when the Iraq invasion took place :
1) a propaganda campaign stigmatizing Iran of several things (thus trying to create a favorable opinion to the attack in the American public)
2) the deployment of new US military forces (especially that ship leading to the straight of Hormuz)
3) the ultimatum given by the IAEA to Iran to end uranium enrichment for the end of February and the resolution taken against Iran at the UN
4)the different arrests made in Iraq of Iranians officials and looking like provocation.
5)the recent tour of Condi Rice in ME, as if she was trying to create a favorable Sunnites alliance against Iran, or at least to get assured their passive support.
6)Israel leaked plan to drop nuclear bombs on the nuclear facilities of Iran.
7)The time of year in the end.. February/March looks like a favorable period for a coming aggression, later sandstorms become frequent.
All those are very threatening signs, as pointed by Helena. May they be wrong ! Bush, Cheney and co should be impeached and judged by an international tribunal, because they are driving the world to chaos and ruins, especially in the ME.
And the Americans should have to pay due compensations, because they reelected Bush a second time.
Good summary, Christiane. This business about Condi and Gates being “realists” or trying to put on the brakes is just wishful thinking, or spin, depending on who is saying it. Condi is a wind-up toy, a music-box ballerina. Gates is an opportunist. The most that can be said of them is that their ears are more attuned to public perception than those of Cheney and Abrams. They just want to make the propaganda as effective as possible.
Us Europeans sit and watch the March of Folly with all the fascinated horror that the French General showed toward the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Steele puts our position succinctly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2004225,00.html
We pray that the people in the White House dont use their usual stratagem to bypass Congress, of ringing up the Israelis to get them to fire the first shot.
Regarding the popssibility of war with Iran… it’s twenty five years overdue. When we choose to ignore nation states that have as the official policy, “Death to America”, we do so at our own peril.
“Wipe Israel off the map” is their current cry… possibly their last.
This police-state Iran is a balloon waiting to be popped.
And as for the comment that our army is literally falling to pieces in Iraq… nothing could be further from the truth. Our military continues to utterly dominate any field of battle they enter. This is why the roadside bombs are pretty much the only form of attack that our enemies launch against us.
One final thought… the population of Iraq is 26 million. I notice that 99.99% of that population is not attacking us. Ironic, isn’t it.
Perhaps they’re not reading the correct American left wing media.
“the population of Iraq is 26 million. I notice that 99.99% of that population is not attacking us. Ironic, isn’t it.” – kevin
well, about 2% of the population is now dead and another 8% has moved somewhere else – and while most of the remaining folks are not attacking US forces, a good number of them support it.
a war is the most hideous of evils and saying one is “overdue” really shows your callousness and stupidity
Keep the dream alive Kevin.
I do not understand why Iranians would respond to a US attack by attacking oil installations or blocking the Straights of Hormuz. The obvious target for the Iranians are American military assets.
Iran’s a big country. As attackers, we have a list of several hundred targets to take out. As defenders, Iran needs to target fewer than 20 airbases & aircraft carriers to neutralize the bulk of American might. America will fight halfway around the world and can bring only a fraction of its overall power to bear. Iran will be fighting at home & can mobilize 100%.
While Iranian targets are said to be dispersed, hardened & buried deep, Iran’s American targets are big & fixed & directly on the surface. Their positions are known to within a few inches. They are runways & aircraft carriers. Sink or disable the carriers, crater the runways, and all aircraft in the air at that time are lost, and the attack ended.
Have we become so drunk on our military that we cannot see disaster staring at us?
as well as all Iraqis (whose sufferings since March 2003 have been a hundred times worse.)
You can put it “millions of times worse” and it will be ok reflecting the reality that Iraqi living now.
No one safe, no one can sleep at night, sadly no one can go on the streets safely, no one can feed and care his family, and any Iraqi doesn’t know what the coming minute will happen to himself or his family members or all of them.
Compare that with “keen concern to all Americans,” I think there are no comparison at any level what Iraqis living under now adding no power no water and other very fundamental public services.
For example one of Iraqi kids in Al-ramadi/Al-anbar city after US did a huge unjustified damage to centre of city that poor kid he spit on the American they shower him with automatic guns and killed instantly this kind of life of Iraqi now.
Dave of Maryland,
the Iranians are American military assets.
Dave of Maryland Just an example from Gulf war in 1991, Iraqi Air force tried to take of from Iraqi military bases to intersect the US fighters over Iraqi sky what happened they can take of due to a heavy jamming and interference made the Iraqi fighters (some Mag 23, Mag 29 and Mirage) incapable to take off to intersect US fighters.
So we talking here 20 years ago, now the advance technology all things changes, the way you saying it’s a talk but the reality what options Iran have to reacts to US/Israeli hit.
So the “Supper Power” now in the hand of a small group in US those who directed these war (Iraq in 2003 and may be Iran next?) the question is to you “all Americans” how to stop this small group of using this “Super Power” from destroying other States and Nations?
Helena,
well trigger storms of outrage from a much broader spectrum of Muslim groups than Rogers lists… Yes, including many Sunni Arabs.
Not just that Helena, also at home “US” now there are also signs of “outrage” and “storms” as this article says
“A microcosm of what is happening in Iraq happened in New Jersey because people couldn’t put aside their differences,” said Sami Elmansoury, a Sunni Muslim and former vice president of the Islamic Society at Rutgers University, where there has been a sharp dispute.
Though the war in Iraq is one crucial cause, some students and experts on sectarianism also attribute the fissure to the significant growth in the Muslim American population over the past few decades.”
Hi Kevin
Are you Doris?
Kevin barry,
I notice that 99.99% of that population is not attacking us. Ironic, isn’t it.
looks like Saddam or Hussni Mubarak propagandas reborn here, when both did elections the result was 99.99 voted for them as same as your number suggesting for US troops in Iraq what’s an Irony so similar figures people keep telling how much loved by Iraqis and Egyptians!!..
So if Iran will go and invaded Israel then 99.99 Israelis will not attacking Iranian’s troop on the ground of Israel? Isn’t similar what you suggesting?
the only form of attack that our enemies launch against us.
“Perhaps YOU Are Reading Only American Left Wing Media.”
Just in one week FOUR Chopes down in Iraq did you read this?so its “the Skyside bombs are pretty much the only form of attack that our enemies launch against us.”
From Iraqi mountains, Kurds train for battle with Iran?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/04/africa/ME-GEN-Middle-East-Kurds-vs-Iran.php
Dave,
Your remark is interesting. However I think that Iran military is weak : it has been seriously weakened by the long Iran Iraq war. It has outdated material from the Russian and the Chinese. After the war with Iraq, they didn’t invest massively in their army in order to rebuild it. They only begun to do it a few years ago. It’s their nuclear facilities which are dispersed and burried deep and we aren’t yet sure that they are trying to get the bomb and if they were, intelligence say that their bomb won’t be ready before 8-10 years. Concerning their conventional weapons, I’m not sure that they are burried to. They may not. Also they are facing an army which is much more sophisticated in term of firepower and at the technical level. So they could probably hit the US badly, but it would come at a great cost and last long. They would be better off using unconventional means.
Now attacking ships and closing the straights that would hurt the Western economy and be much more dammageable to the US; plus it would have a big impact on the internal political level in the US if they don’t get their gazoline because it’s too expansive. Our need of gazoline is our Achille’s heel and they know it.
I’ve read that the Iranians have recently equipped themselves with small boats and that they plan to use lots of them in order to confront big US ship in the Gulf. A kind of hit and run tactic on the sea. The same tactic the Hezbollaz used against Israel on the ground.
The fact that the Iranians didn’t rebuild their army after the Iran/Irak war shows clearly that they are not a threatening power to anybody who don’t try to attack them.
Chistiane,
“attacking ships and closing the straights that would hurt the Western economy and be much more dammageable to the US”
It would hurt them more than us as this is the “MAIN” supply of any funds to Iran. Also, they have no way of refining this oil into Gasoline! They Import it… Close the straights and No Gas, the “War Machine” shuts down! Even the small boats use it.
There are many places for the US to get oil, we import only 40% of what we “demand”. Of this 40% only around 60% of that is used for gasoline. The rest is used for manufacturing purposes like, (Plastic sandwich bags, Toys and such.)I think the US could manage just fine!
The US refines its own gasoline, it may be at a higher price but we will have it.
Higher Gas prices or the threat of a Nuclear Iran? It isnt rocket science…..
Yank,
40% is a lot and US is the biggest consummer of oil. The US can’t restrain it’s consummation all of a sound. If the available oil shrink, this will have a huge effect on the price of oil. I didn’t mean that you won’t get enough, but the much higher price would have a strong effect on your economy (and of that of the rest of the world).
Concerning Iran exports of oil : they can export toward China and the other Asian countries, they don’t sell directly to the US as far as I know. And they have ports after the Gulf of Hormuz, unlike Saudi Arabia and all the other gulf emirates exporting oil; so they are less limited.
Concerning the refining of oil, they have what they need, they are even selling refined oil to the Iraqis. Of course they are also exporting crude oil. These are details, not detracting from the main picture : aka, Iran can do a lot of harm to the Western economies if she manage to close the straights. There will be a price to pay for that, but when you are figthing for your independance against an invader, you are ready to make some sacrifice, at least they are probably more ready to it than the Americans.
Oh.. and I forgot to address that :
“Higher Gas prices or the threat of a Nuclear Iran? It isnt rocket science…”
Yeah.. it’s a piece of cake.. just like Iraq, good luck.
Concerning a possible attack of Iran, I’m surprised that I didn’t read about it on the blogs. But Georges Chirac did a “blunder” last week (or was it a blunder?) He said to the press that after all, the fact that Iran may have a nuclear bomb wasn’t so worrying to him.
There were protests of the US diplomates naturally and he backtracked. He pretended that he wasn’t making an official statement, that he thought he was speaking off line. That he meant to say that he was much more worried by the nuclear escalation taking place in the whole region (aka from India/Pakistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia -who wants it too if the Iranians get it- and to Israel).
Since the presidential elections are nearing in France it made a scandal and the socialist used it against the right. Anyway, I don’t think it was a “blunder” I think it was a deliberate blunder in order to send a message to Washington, that France won’t support another war against Iran. But if sending this message to Washington was the goal of a deliberate blunder, then it’s quite alarming, it means we are really nearing a war with Iran.
Bush is no better than Hitler, waging aggressive wars to weak countries who didn’t threaten the US. If he dares to undertake an attack on Iran, it will show that he doens’t act more democratically than the nazists, because the Americans clearly don’t support either an escalation in Iraq nor an aggression against Iran.
Impeach Bush and Cheney and their clique who confiscated the executive power in the US. Bring them to trial in the HAgue or create a special tribunal to juge their crimes and condemn US to pay the due compensations to the Iraqis.
Christiane, I agree with you about Chirac. Hard to concieve of a pol like him making a “blunder” of that sort.
Salah, war with Iran will be nothing like the 1991 Gulf War. You will not see Tehran trying to use old Soviet jets against the US air force and navy. As Hezbollah so convincingly demonstrated last summer, the technology that matters in modern asymetrical warfare is the small, portable, cheap, easy to use kind, not the big, complicated, expensive kind. It’s a natural process of evolution, in which the US and Israel are the dinosaurs. We don’t know it yet, because the messages from our tails take so long to reach our small brains.
“Several sources expressed concern that the administration, by publicly rejecting a “containment” option — withdrawing U.S. troops to Iraqi borders to avoid sectarian fighting while preventing outside arms and personnel from entering the country — has not left itself a fall-back plan in the event of failure.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301441.html
Only a fall-forward plan.
Regarding Iranian oil exports and Iran’s hypothetical options in a hot war, I’d obviously agree first that Iran would have much to lose from a frontal naval clash with the US, given Iran’s economic reliance on oil exports. However, before we get too cockey, consider a key lesson of the so-called tanker war back in 1987-88. (during the closing year of the Iran-Iraq war)
It’s a long, wildy convoluted subject that to this day has not been well written about… Short hand: the Kuwaits shrewdly managed to get the US to reflag their tankers sailing through the Gulf. The Iranians had been hitting a few Kuwaiti tankers at the time as they viewed (accurately) that Kuwait (and the Saudis) had been bankrolling Saddam – and keeping his killing machine afloat. Saddam exported his oil (at the time) mainly via Turkey … Saddam’s air force (courtesy French upgrades to his air force) was increasingly able to hit Iranian oil export shipments. So the Iranians started striking back — at the Kuwaiti oil exports.
Then we had the so-called “Stark” incident – where Saddam’s a.f. “mistakenly” hit a US warship in the Gulf….
Oh so shrewd of him…. the US publicly accepted the nonsense — and then the US navy moved in to “protect” technically “neutral” oil exports from Kuwait….
Iran “rationally” realized the game afoot – and not surprisingly warned that “if it couldn’t export its oil, nobody would.” (and those reading here who were active then will remember the “silkworms, speedboats,” etc. — and then the USS Vincennes shooting down the Iranian civilian airliner…. )
Iran never then was quite frontally at war with the US…. It never came to that – even though Iraq/Saddam was continuing sporadic attacks on Iranian oil exports (right under the US nose)
Instead, the Iranian Parliamentary speaker Hashemi-Rafsanjani was among those who persuaded Khomeini to “drink the poisonous chalice” and accept the (german brokered) UN Resolution 598….
Key lesson: Then and now, Iran would surely prefer NOT to have a hot war in the Persian Gulf. But should the US Navy have designs to somehow prevent Iranian oil exports, everybody else’s oil exports would become “fair game” too….
(and then those “Dutch” neocon financial analysts would have a devil of a time explaining why their predictions were so wrong about a US confrontation with Iran having such minimal global financial implications….)
Different subject, I’m fully with John C. in doubting Secretary Rice’s presumed “realist” credentials. She came into office woefully unprepared for Middle East issues; she’s on record claiming the Taliban were clients of Iran, and in her infamous 2000 foreign affairs article proclaimed that their was no such thing as an “international community.” (only “national interest” would be her guiding light – reeeeeally now)
She was easily one of our worst national security advisors, ever. (Among her lowlights, hiring arch neocon Elliot Abrams to be Middle East advisor?) She’s now bringing great shame – sic – on her current office. (whether we blame it on her “idealism” or “realism” or nonsensical “transformational diplomacy.”)
FYI, NYTimes today belatedly went after her:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/washington/04rice.html (along the lines of, “without Rumsfeld to kick around, the media now can start paying attention to Condi’s constant stream of gaffes…. on stilts)
I have a pet theory on why Bush likes having “Condi” around — she makes him “feel” smart. (and with apologies to my friends in gov’t who still are fans of hers – relatively)
The USA cannot invade Iran without the Draft and a couple years to build up the Armed Forces by at least 10 Divisions. So what good does a bombing campaign do? At best it sets back Iran’s nuclear bomb program several years. All the other consequences are negative; Shiite Muslims are America’s enemy for generations to come in addition to the Sunni; $200 a barrel oil and gas lines.
Like global warming or the Iraq Invasion, Iran will be bombed because right wing politicians have made the calculation that the true costs of solving USA’s problems are too high for Americans to accept so they preach their ideology; there is no global warming, wars against Wogs can be won on the cheap, and tax cuts are good.
scott h,
I have a pet theory on why Bush likes having “Condi” around — she makes him “feel” smart.
المعـزة تتباهى بلية الخـروف
This saying from Iraq the translation if I am good in it
The Goat proud of the Sheep’s fat (Iraqi sheep’s have fat piece cover their back)
This saying about some one with useless personality unconfident but he claims and proud to have smart thinker of friends and colleagues
Iran would surely prefer NOT to have a hot war in the Persian Gulf.
Iran already signalling in this direction by letting and inviting UN inspectors to check Asfahan site, also if we take the $3.9Billions (correct me if wrong in this number) gas/oil deal with Shell and Dutch oil companies I think in same vein of soften her position.
But the point is US how she is determined to take Mullah of power…
$200 a barrel oil and gas lines.
It will be, there was a talk that oil price my reach $100 a barrel in the end of 2006! But that not went smoothly.
So those oil Cartel looks for a big game to justify the “$200 a barrel oil” and the best is the scary movie?
I recall before the Iraq invasion in 2003 one of US ambassador on the TV was invited to talk about the next war with Iraq and the consequences\legality, the ambassador replay when he find hard to answer to say “Do thought when you park your car in a patrol station how this oil come to you”
So all scary propaganda to folks and make them pay more with their “mouth shut” whose got the money? Those owners those refineries in California with cheep oil flow from……
The reality Iraq, Iran and all oil producing countries have no choose for them just to sale their oil to live in this world no thing he stop his oil production , he will kill himself. But what western propaganda sale for you is more about make more profits from very demanding and scary product every one think it’s the blood of our civilisation.
it completely beggars belief that the counsels of war coming yet again from some of these very same people are once again being listened to by the President
it certainly does beggar belief. Particularly since none of the people you mention (with the exception of the Veep) holds any position -advisory or otherwise- in the US government!
All the signs are there, like in 2003 when the Iraq invasion took place
Except that Congress has changed hands, Iraq’s civil war has the US tied down, a large majority of the US population opposes an attack and no US official has proposed launching one. Bush has downplayed military action in all his public remarks. But in all other respects its identical! 🙂
why their predictions were so wrong
Scott, two weeks ago Helena put the odds of military action by year end at 80% against. Why has she suddenly changed her mind?
Those who don’t believe that Bush government is on the edge of provocing a war with Iran should also read that It explain why the new commander of the gulf region is a navy man.
“Military action against Iran would have disastrous consequences, according to a report released on Monday by a coalition of British-based think-tanks, faith groups and others who urged a new diplomatic push to avert conflict. ”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=101981&bolum=102
Attacking Iran would be disastrous, warns coalition of opinion led by retired officers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2005876,00.html
Vadim, your: no US official has proposed launching [an attack]. Bush has downplayed military action in all his public remarks…
What planet are you on? Haven’t you been watching the administration’s steady drumbeat over recent weeks of upping the levels of accusation against Iran? True, no official has gone so far as to “propose” launching an attack– yet. But neither did they in the lead-up to March 19, 2003. Then– as presumably now, if an attack on Iran is indeed being planned, which seems increasingly likely– the administration first works hard to generate its alleged “casus belli”, while increasing the frequency with which officials warn ominously and in a very bullying fashion that “all options are on the table”… And then, when they did launch the attack in 2003 they claimed this was done “unwillingly”, as a last resort after all the failure of their diplomatic efforts at the UN, etc…
That nasty, bully-boy phrase “all options are on the table” needs examining. That includes the many nuclear “options” at the disposal of the US naval presence gathering in the Gulf (as well as, of course, via aerial means of delivery from further afield.) It is crass, heavy-handed nuclear blackmail.
It is simply not true that Bush has “downplayed military action in all his public remarks”.
Also, if you want to ask about the reasons for my judgments, you should address me directly. Why address that enquiry to Scott? Are you one of those male people who finds it hard to believe that a woman can have independent expertise and judgment?
Christaine,
“Bush is no better than Hitler, waging aggressive wars to weak countries who didn’t threaten the US.”
These “WEAK” countries you speak of would like nothing better than to destroy the US and many other countries? (non believers) Some with a “BACK BONE” such as Bush deny them this chance.
You “Bleeding Heart Types” would be the 1st to cry out “Why wasnt something done beforehand” and blame those who try anyway. Its a No Win situation!
This is not about Iran, Iraq, Afganistan…. Its about Islomic (Muslim) Terrorists! I have come up with a few examples for you.
#1 Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.
#2 Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.
#3 Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school.
#3 Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.
#4 Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.
#5 A Muslim attacks a missionary children’s school in India. Kills six.
#6 Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back.
#7 “Let’s go way back.” Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.
#8 Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured.
#9 Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.
#10 Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.
#11 Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world.
#12 Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.
If you think that Iran is not somehow invovled in all this you are very Mistaken……..
I for one thank GOD for the Bush types.
I would like to call upon all my friends here to refrain from any response to the likes of Yank, Doris, Kevin, et al. It is like trying to reason with Himmler. Let them stay grateful for the great leadership they so deserve.
David,
Extreme Deceptive Rhetoric (EDR) is a tactic often employed by well known liberals to grab headlines and applause lines. Liberals enjoy speaking in EDR because speaking the truth about the issues and their positions usually causes them to lose support. EDR makes logical, grown-up debate on the issues impossible, which is exactly the liberals’ intent.
Are you one of those male people who finds it hard to believe that a woman can have independent expertise and judgment?
Is this a serious question or a high-handed effort to stifle discussion? Are you one of those female people who insecurely terms all challenges to your analysis ‘sexism?’
Beyond the factors already adduced, Bush has in the last few days explicitly denied preparing an attack on Iran:
“We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically” – 1/26
“I have no intent upon going into Iran” – 1/30
Compare this to any of his remarks on Iraq from late 2002. No US official is publicly discussing ‘regime change’ in Teheran. There is no bill on the floor of Congress authorizing the use of military force. It wasn’t so much as discussed in the recent SOTU address. But if you prefer to do Michael Ledeen’s job of unclothing well-veiled (or completely hollow) threats and whipping up hysteria, be my guest. I’m sure Team Bush is also grateful.
Only three weeks ago you wrote the actual probability of an attack in the next year is 20%. It sounds as if you’ve experienced a change of heart. Is this correct? Do you now believe an attack on Iran is “likely”, ie greater than 50%?
Vadim,
I don’t think anyone, other than the people who are actually doing the planning, know what the real probability is. One of the hallmarks of this administration has been deceit and an absolutely disregard for the principles of democratic discourse, so anything they say cannot be trusted, one way or the other. To quote them is just as good as taking Chengiz at his word when he reassured the citizens of besieged cities that they would be left in peace only if they opened their gates. Yet, having said this, their is no doubt in my mind that the prospect of a conflagration with Iran are more than they have ever been over the past several years. Most western European leaders (with the prominent exception of Tony the Poodle) have said in one way or the other over the past 2 weeks that they do not support a US war against Iran. The first pages of all the European papers (online editions) I looked at over the weekend (15+) in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish had major headlines or editorials warning of an Iran war. The Ha’aretz, J-Post and Y-net (English editions) ditto. Unless you think all these folks are tied down in some form of evil conspiracy with Leeden, you have to admit serious people are seriously alarmed.
You “Bleeding Heart Types” would be the 1st to cry out “Why wasnt something done beforehand” and blame those who try anyway. Its a No Win situation!
Yes what should be done ? Impeach Bush and his mad government before it’s too late. Don’t let your American regime become a soft totalitarian state. Do it before it’s too late.
all the European papers (online editions) I looked at over the weekend (15+) in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish had major headlines or editorials
Your edition of the NY times must be different from mine. Here are all the articles published on the topic of Iran in the past week:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?8qa
Not one of them treats a US attack as imminent or even likely. The only one that comes close is from the 3st: “Choice for No. 2 at State Dept. Defends Bush’s Stance on Iran” And another inconvenient soundbite:
“Some are trying to take my words and say, ‘Well, what he’s really trying to do is go invade Iran,’ ” he said. “Nobody’s talking about that.”
Here’s the WaPo this Sunday: Gates Says U.S. Not Planning Iran War
Even Tom Raum’s breathless piece on AP —well-circulated in Bushophobistan– admits the following: Bush insists he has no plans to invade Iran, only to protect U.S. troops in Iraq.
But let’s review the fortune-telling skills of the world press. Did it ever occur to you David that panicky stories about imminent threats and gathering dangers sell newspapers? That the same class of “serious journalist” bit down hard on Iraq’s WMD capability? That some people might have a political (and-gasp!-economic) interest in overstating the military threat posed by the United States as some others do with Iran? Full disclosure: I have a strong financial interest in promoting hokey invasion scenarios and bomb scares. If Iran shuts down the strait of Hormuz I stand to collect a fat bonus. Even the PERCEPTION of imminent invasion benefits me tremendously. Who else benefits? OPEC, Exxon, Halliburton, Michael Ledeen, lots of other people I’m sure you can’t stand. I’d add to this list: people who want to rationalize Iran’s NPT violations. Democrats eager to bolster their ‘pacifist’ credentials on the cheap.
so anything they say cannot be trusted, one way or the other.
Am I imaging that this discussion is as much about language as logistics? The supposed advice coming from “prominent” Zionist hawks? The spooky, eerie, creepy parallels in rhetoric (cue haunted house music.) Better for all to concentrate on the legal and practical impediments to a real attack that are obvious to any clear-minded observer. Something upon which we agree. An argument that boils down to “____ is insane and likely to do anything” isn’t convincing, even with the spooky music playing.
Vadim,
As you know, there what is said officially and what is done on the ground are always two different things. I’d add, especially in the case of US. The Bush government has already told so many lies that those who are still willing to thrust him are very few.
So Bush may be denying that he is preparing an attack against Iran, but we se many many concrete signs pointing in that direction. The most alarming being all the ships cruizing toward the Gulf right now.
Also, it’s not impossible that there are disagreements about an eventual decision to attack Iran. Hopefully there are still some reasonnable heads working in this administration.
The point is who will winn that internatl fight and whether Bush will play quit or double and bypass the clear indication that the Americans don’t support neither and escalation in Iraq, nor a new war against Iran.
Personnally I think that the Bush government will try something against Iran, whatever it is, because he is mad enough to do it. But there are several variants of aggression against Iran. There could be an attack by Israelian planes for instance.. Or those US ships cruizing in the Gulf may try to prevent the Iranians to deliver their oil.. or whatever..
Anyway, there are too many accusations against Iraq flying around just now .. it’s not gratuitous, it’s a warming up of the American public opinion aiming at the justification of whatever they decide to undertake.. but something they will undertake at the end of February, when the ultimatum concerning the stopping of Uranium enrichment ends.
Mossad kills an Iranian nuclear scientist
The US intelligence institution states: “Israeli spies killed the famous nuclear scientist Hassanpour in order to prevent Iran’s nuclear program.”
The assassinations on behalf of the Israeli foreign intelligence organization have even become the theme of some movies. However, has Mossad maintained its silence in the last few years only to return to its operations by killing an important person? According to a radio channel in Iran the answer is yes. The name on the target was the awarded nuclear researcher from Iran, Ardeshire Hassanpour. According to the news by the radio channel, the assassination happened on January 15. Iranian authorities announced the death, which was recorded as gas poisoning, on January 21. In the official declaration, it was not stated where and how Hassanpour died.
IRAN: NUCLEAR SCIENTIST DIES UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Tehran, 25 Jan. (AKI) – One of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, Ardeshir Hassanpour, a professor at the university of Shiraz, has died under mysterious circumstances. Hassanpour’s death was announced by Iranian state television, a week late, on Thursday. No reason was given for his death. The scientist was proclaimed the best scientist in the military field in the Islamic Republic in 2003. Hassanpour directed the centre for nuclear electromagnetic studies he had founded in 2005.
He had also co-founded the center for atomic research in Isfahan, the most important in the country, Iranian state television reported.
Last year, Ardeshir Hassanpour was awarded Iran’s most prestigious scientific award, the Kharazmi prize.
(Rah/Aki)
Jan-25-07 18:14
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.380293765&par=0
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283793
Say Vadim, I’m puzzled too as to why you’d ask me for Helena’s current take on Iran matters. She’s the oh-so generous host of this evolving forum, and she’s often quite energetic in managing to responding to honest questions. (and she’s doing it from Cairo too – jet lag and all)
As for the gist of what I think you are getting at, and speaking only for myself, we have two ways to make prognostications here. One, would be in the realm of the rational. That is, surely the Bush/Cheney Administration has a clue that it would be “insane” to provoke a hot war with Iran — especially when so many areas of common interest and concern (vis-a-vis Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gulf Security,…) remain untested.
But then there’s the “postmodern” analysis which suggests that the Bush neocon policies have not at all been about “rational” calculation of “American” interests – but have been ideologically driven, deceptive at every turn, and not subject to the normal rules of “logic” or “rational choice” modeling.
In short, my sense of the chance the US will start a hot-war with Iran vary with my sense of the sanity at the top of the Bush Administration. (If you saw my posts last June, I too thought that hey, surely, there are at least some “cooler,” non-neocon heads running the show.
But since the (Olmert-orchestrated) drumbeat began to do ANYTHING but what the Baker-Hamilton commission urged (namely, talk with ALL of Iraq’s neighbors), well…. it’s then I began to feel that the same ole’ song from 2003 was being re-played….
And you gotta either be joking or a walking neocon talking point to take anything from Tony Snow-job at face value. The more he and Faux News keep repeating the mantra about invasion plans of Iran as being an “urban legend,” the longer his nose gets….
And everybody but the most ardent Faux-head knows it too.
We are at a very dangerous moment in our country’s history…. and I for one, have been writing my political leaders and urging them to take back “our” country….
Scott, I’m “disappointed”and a bit “confused” by your response. On one hand you show appreciation for the “so-and-so-is-insane-and-could-do-anything” school of political analysis (famous alumni: Michael Ledeen, Ann Coulter.) On the other hand, you credit Bush with enough guile to cloak his agenda , versus 2002 when he was cheerily forthright about invading Iraq and toppling its government. Now he speaks in code, which a crack team of NRO editorialists then translates for the hoi polloi and CENTCOM (oh, and axe-grinding journalists of both genders.)
How “postmodern!” One question: since we’re intent on labeling Bush a liar or a lunatic (or both!) why bother reading his or “Snowjob’s” public remarks at all? (that was a joke, I know you aren’t interested in what either has to say.)
I’d save the letter writing for later. If you really think that Bush is hell-bent on invading Iran, you should be loading the kids’ college fund with puts on the S&P. Or hoarding canned goods in the basement. Then again talk is cheaper and I bet the hot air keeps the house toasty warm. Whereas guessing wrong can get expensive.
Vadim,
As always, you have responded with your typical condescending tone, not having even properly read what you are responding to:
1- Breaking news: The NYT and WaPo are not European papers! I don’t have the time to go over them again and repost URLs for you. If you’d like to see it for yourself, check out the websites for Corriere della Serra, La Repubblica, Il Tempo, Il Giorno, Frankfurter Allgemaine, Suddeutsche Zeitung, El Pais, ABC, El Mundo, Le Monde, Liberation, Le Figaro, Tribune de Geneve, NZZ (Neue Zurcher Zeitung), the Guardian, the Independent, the IHT … many of which are not “pinko papers”. Just search for Iran like you did on the NYT site and read the first 3 items in each. If you don’t see the trend, I will call and ask a good optometrist friend to see you STAT.
2- You conveniently ignored the first part of my post regarding the statements of European leaders. I am sure that the now famous Chirac “gaffe”, and recent lines from Merkel, Zapatero, Gordon Brown, Prodi, … were all uttered in collusion with Leeden et al. and they are all trying to make better business for the Exxon and Halliburton boys.
3- As I type this, the spooky music is playing in the background and sorcerers and exorcists are dancing around me (this last item just to make you happy).
David, reporting on a phenomenon does not a phenomenon make. You’ve convinced me that a bunch of european journalists think that attacking Iran is credible enough to hype in order to sell newspapers, or to take some cheap shots at the USA and/or Israel, or to pile on an unpopular president.
PS I don’t know if you noticed, but the French didn’t participate in the Iraq war. To the extent Chirac’s comment matters at all, it makes an invasion seem far less likely, not more. Furthermore as I’ve made clear here I happen to broadly agree with him that Iran presents no credible military threat (& no that remark was not a coded warning to my neocon handlers.) I hope when we revisit this topic in a few months, you’ll be happy to admit you were wrong, instead of disowning your flawed analysis/prognosis.
Vadim,
“I hope when we revisit this topic in a few months, you’ll be happy to admit you were wrong”
Amen.
Christiane,
Sandstorms are not a tactical consideration in any military adventure in Iran (if they ever really were in Iraq). Iran has a very different geography. There are some typical sand deserts, in Khuzestan and around the Central Kaveer area, but most are far from centers of population and most points of interest. More than 80% of the land is dry grassland or mountain ranges (more like the Iraqi Kurdistan); most cities and towns are in the foothills of these mountains. The Carter era mishap with the sandstorm was due to this same fact: they picked an area for their landing that was as far away as possible from any center of population (equivalent of landing in the the Mojave in the US or the steppes of Nerchinsk in Russia). And since the possibility of any widespread ground operation seems remote, I don’t believe climatology considerations are of any primary importance.
Here is W last September telling us what his policy is toward Iran and those “Shia extremists:”
“This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous [as al Qaeda], and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation’s resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda. Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East.”
“The Shia and Sunni extremists represent different faces of the same threat. They draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision of violent Islamic radicalism across the Middle East. They oppose the advance of freedom, and they want to gain control of weapons of mass destruction. If they succeed in undermining fragile democracies, like Iraq, and drive the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue their dangerous goals. Each strain of violent Islamic radicalism would be emboldened in their efforts to topple moderate governments and establish terrorist safe havens.
Imagine a world in which they were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations. And they would use those resources to fuel their radical agenda, and pursue and purchase weapons of mass murder. And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don’t uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act.
I’m not going to allow this to happen — and no future American President can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we’re answering history’s call with confidence and a clear strategy.”
“[Discussing National Strategy for Combating Terrorism] Third, we’re determined to deny terrorists the support of outlaw regimes. After September the 11th, I laid out a clear doctrine: America makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those that harbor and support them, because they’re equally guilty of murder.”
“And now, freedom is once again contending with the forces of darkness and tyranny. This time, the battle is unfolding in a new region — the broader Middle East. This time, we’re not waiting for our enemies to gather in strength. This time, we’re confronting them before they gain the capacity to inflict unspeakable damage on the world, and we’re confronting their hateful ideology before it fully takes root.”
Imagine a world in which they were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations.
United State of America using its advance technology to punish any country around the world not fully agree with US Policies, So what’s the difference why other nations or countries are not allowed using their “oil resources” to punish the invaders and enemies who came to steal the wealth and the land from Arab/Muslims in ME? Is it their right to do so or not?
السعودية تزيد إنتاج وقود طائرات الجيش الأميركي
ذكرت مصادر تجارية في الشرق الأوسط أنّ السعودية زادت بشكل كبير إنتاجها من وقود الطائرات المخصص للجيش الأميركي، مشيرة إلى أنّ شركة النفط الحكومية «أرامكو» خصصت ما بين مليون و2,1 مليون طن من وقود الطائرات يمكن استخدامها من جانب الجيش الأميركي خلال هذا العام، مقارنة مع حوالى 200 ألف طن في العام الماضي .2006
ولفتت المصادر إلى أنّ الرياض ربّما تكون قد اطلعت مسبقا على زيادة النشاط الأميركي العسكري منذ أوائل العام الحالي، ولعلها لهذا السبب خصصت هذه الكمية من وقود الطائرات لصالح الأميركيين.
وفيما أقرّت «أرامكو» بخفض إمداداتها من وقود الطائرات لأسواق التصدير، عزت ذلك إلى زيادة الطلب المحلي في السعودية وأعمال الصيانة في المصافي.
(رويترز)
http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=557&ChannelId=12000&ArticleId=617
Saudis increase the petrol production for airplane/fighters due to internal demand!!
Is this preparation for the next development in the region?
Take a look of this of Iraq looteing gang member
http://circumlocutor.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-wolfowitzs-sock-has-hole-in-it.html
Salah,
What struck me about your report were the paltry volumes involved. “1 million tons” translates to 140,000 barrels per year. To put this in perspective, the US military uses 500,000 barrels of oil every day, 40,000/day for Iraq alone. Meanwhile SA is committed to cut 380,000 barrels per day to comply with OPEC (explaining the euphemism “internal demand”). Which isn’t to say this has nothing to do with the US military; it very well may. But consider that a single Nimitz-class carrier (like the Stennis, en route to the Gulf) uses this amount of fuel in under 2 months! — and I’m not even counting the planes aboard.
I liked your wolfowitz pic. maybe cloven hooves are the problem?
2007-02-07 Another turn of the ME screw
Paul Woodward has an interesting take on this topic. Kind of supports Vadim’s argument.
http://warincontext.org/2007_02_04_archive.html#117079899013398766