We Are One Terrorist Attack Away...

by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:23:17 PM EST

...from invading Iran. Kevin Drum writes: GROUNDHOG DAY?....You know, I'm more than willing to believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very bad thing indeed. But take a look at what's been going on just in the past few weeks:

The Israelis have made it clear that they believe Iran is fast becoming an imminent threat that justifies preemptive attack.
There's a multinational effort underway to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. The Europeans think they've reached a solid agreement, but the United States remains skeptical.
An exile group is loudly claiming that the Iranians are lying and there's a secret enrichment facility the Europeans don't know about.
Liberal hawk Kenneth Pollack has a big new book out telling us how dangerous Iran is.

I can't be the only one to think I've seen this script before, can I? Is real life turning into Groundhog Day? Of course, we can't actually invade Iran right now. As a result of the ongoing, and escalating, war in Iraq, we simply do not have enough military personnel available for forward deployment. The only way that invading Iran would be possible is if one of the following occurs:

We significantly, if not entirely, pull out of Iraq. Of course, there are big problems with this scenario. If we pullout of Iraq, especially if it included a pullout of southern Iraq, an area highly prized by the neo-cons and the Project for a New American Century wackos, short of an almost complete end to the insurgency it is hard to see how we could stage an invasion of Iran.
A draft is instituted. The problem with this plan is that a draft is extraordinarily unpopular.With only 7% of the country outright in favor of a draft, and 62% outright opposed, it is difficult to imagine Congress mustering up the political capital necessary to pass draft legislation.

An invasion of Iran is also complicated by the 10-20 percent of the country that thought invading Iraq was a good idea at the time, but now thinks it was a mistake. These are folks who will have a difficult time accepting claims of imminent threats from WMD's anytime soon. Further, after seeing month after month go by when the violence in Iraq escalates rather than decreases, they also will have a difficult time accepting the notion of a swift, painless victory and a welcoming populace anytime soon.

So, basically, right now invading Iran is not possible. However, there is one scenario under which a draft would probably be reinstated and we would be at war with Iran less than one year later. If there is another major terrorist attack against the United States, not necessarily of the scale of 9/11 but at least the level of Oklahoma City, the national mood might change enough to make renewing the draft and invading a country such as Iran possible. If a major terrorist attack led to a draft and an invasion of Iran, it would almost certainly be the greatest disaster to occur in this nation since the Great Depression. The repercussions for America would be so severe on economic, political, cultural and purely human terms that we would almost instantaneously cease to be the most powerful nation on Earth.

But hey, Kenneth Pollack thinks it is a good idea, so let's not completely throw the idea away.

Tags: World (all tags)

Comments

39 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Yikes

(A) Pull out of Iraq, or (B) Institute a draft

How about (C) find a diplomatic solution with Iran? It will be difficult with Condi heading State and all the diplomats purged. I can't believe I'm going to miss Colin.

by Muboshgu 2004-11-17 12:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

anyone remember that old computer game?

you were the president, it was 1990. You could do a lot of different stuff in the foreign policy area. In 1991 Iraq starts getting testy and tries to invade Kuwait. I remember after conquering Iraq, it was always fun to turn the Middle East into a bunch of U.S. colonies. You had a dilemna though. After your popularity shot up to 90% following the victory, you had to win another war to keep the people happy. If you stopped, everyone got mad about troops overseas and your popularity went really low. So the only solution was to continually start new wars. It seems oddly predictive in retrospect.

by srolle 2004-11-17 12:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: anyone remember that old computer game?

It was called "Shadow President." Link:

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Shadow+President

A great game!

I always seemed to accidentally incite nuclear wars after conquering Iraq. I hope the game isn't quite as predictive as you say it is. :)

by Joe Jones 2004-11-17 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't Call it a "Draft"

Call it the "Patriotic Service Act" and give youngsters the option of either serving in the military or serving in a civilian capacity (subject to availability).

Of course, any young man with any sense of honor and patriotism would already have volunteered.

by Christopher 2004-11-17 01:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

I'm 28. One of my friends said he wouldn't vote for Kerry because he(Kerry) was against the draft. I'm not saying this is the majority of people my age, but times have changed. This friend of mine comes from a union home, he claims to be a democrat, but he believes the draft is a good thing. Conservatives control the public mind. Movies like Saving Pvt Ryan, BlackHawk Down, Rambo, Missing in Action, When we Were Brothers...they are a reaction to the anti-war climate following vietnam with the deerhunter, apocalypse now, platoon. Reagan and Bush Sr. made war fun again. Check out the latest video games, filled with "ultra-violence" to borrow Anthony Burgess' phraseology from clockwork orange.

Look around at the US today. People aren't raising hell about Iraq, they are putting "support our troops" magnet ribbons on their cars. I think we are one major economic or terrorist disaster away from all out war and on the path to national suicide. Sorry to say.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-17 02:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

I will say, the VAST majority of young people are INCREDIBLY against even the idea of a draft. The polls show support for a draft only gets respectable among old people (Hah!)

If they even tried to pass a draft, there would be anarchy, riots in the street. But there's no chance it would even come to that because the politicians know this.

What they will try is a backdoor draft.

by Skaje 2004-11-17 06:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

I think you're right that a majority of youth would be against a draft. I disagree that there would or will be riots in the streets over a draft. Sure, there are bound to be protests as we had for Iraq, but those resulted in little disruption. There is no reason to expect that a draft would create major waves if the underlying war was accepted by the US peoople.

Instigating a fight between Iran and Israel, or simply relying on the bombing of nuke sites in Iran should be enough to start up a war where Bush will feel comfortable taking the moral high ground. To think he's above such a move underestimates the manipulation of the American people the Straussians in control of American policy are capable of.

This is the new coldwar. As Vidal named it, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. It's imperialism, war for profit.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-18 02:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

Movies like Saving Pvt Ryan... are a reaction to the anti-war climate following vietnam

That's interesting, because I always viewed "Saving Private Ryan" as the most effective anti-war movie ever made. I guess not, if you're in your 20's and immortal...

by stiber 2004-11-18 03:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

Just remebmer a couple of things first. The draft in Viet Nam was only for those who weren't going to college. With something like 90% of 18-25 enrolled in some for of higer education, there couldn't be any excemptions allowed. 2ndly never before in our history have they drafted women. There is bound to be a fair number of law siuts claiming discrinination againts women, if they don't include women in any forced inlistment.
3rd, all ther major private collages and universites was blow gastgets and be lobbing against any such action. With out new students comming in each year, they are out of business.

That also as was pointed out doesn't include all of the protests and roits that are sure to follow from the people who don't want to go.

They only way they could pull off something like this would be a major attack on US soil with a clear and direct link to a forigen counrty. (now if Iran or N Korea attacked us like japan did)

The out rage would be great enoght that tyhey wouldn't need a draft. But Attempting to lay blame for an attack on another country would be iffy at best.

by likesun 2004-11-18 04:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Don't Call it a "Draft"

A draft might be relatively easy to avoid these days since there is an automatic exclusionary rule to military service.

Should the draft be reinstituted, expect a surge in the number of gay kids in this country.

by peter412 2004-11-18 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

No invasion of Iran

The Iranians just announced that they are standing down on enriching uranium fuel. So, that leaves the Neocons with no place to go. Well, they could trump up some charges on Syria but that won't fly either. While they have some history of supporting terrorism, its small potatoes. You guys still don't get it. The Bushwackos are there to get the one billion barrels of oil for their oil company contributors. They also want to get rich from the "skimming off of the contracts" which they've given out. You know the $billions of "ole boy network" deals such as paying $2.50 per gallon for gas which they pay only $1.50 per gallon. They can't leave--no way. If you could engineer the biggest theft in US history without worrying about prosecutions you would too. You can bet that in 2008 one of the other Bushs will run for President like Jeb or Neil Bush or even the dad (remember he can still serve one more term). They and we are locked into this Iraq War for the next 50 years. You can bet that the draft will be coming soon as enlistments start to fall--Bush cannot sell this line for much longer--the flag draped coffins tell the truth of it to the young kids out there.

by lonrand 2004-11-17 01:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Neocons are Manly

I think Bush and the neo-cons have planned to take over Iran since before taking office. Look at the oil companies that enjoyed concessions in 1979, those same companies enjoy great influence over Bush. I even think the Iraq invasion was partly undertaken to allow for basing of troops nearby Iran...same goes for Afghanistan. What you're seeing is a two part military strategy for retaking Iran...first you control the areas surrounding, secondly you attack.

The only major obstacles to this plan are China and Russia. I don't think Bush cares about Russia so their efforts to dissuade Bush don't really matter, but China is different. China has a great deal of American dollars and could potentially screw the US economy. China has just recently signed a deal to buy oil or natural gas(I don't remember off hand) from Iran. They have publically warned the US of invading in the past weeks. So China is worried...we should be too.

I just don't know if China is taken seriously by the neo-cons...remember their philosophy is to always be aggressive: diplomacy=weakness and being taken advantage of.

On Nov 8th, I gathered together some of the various news stories swirling about Iran. As I pointed out then, the US is unlikely to accept the EU-Iran agreement. The question remains on China and the neo-cons. Here's a link to my blog entry which has some sources.
Spectator Consumer-Nov 8th-Coming war with Iran

by spectator consumer 2004-11-17 01:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

I think we're seeing the start of some serious

Sabre rattling on this issue. We've now had two trial ballons floated this week which indicate something is coming.

As to your belief that we cannot do it, I'd ask if reality on the ground has hampered this president and his mission at all so far? I don't think so, and as far as the doomsday scenario, who knows the neo-cons might just be thinking that, heck we've got to go through WWIII sometime, why not get it out of the way now.

The issue is not about a particular threat Iran might give us, it's about the US being the only nuclear power in the region so we can protect our interest in oil.

There are other implications I see here, one is Russia (who's building a new bomb) and China, both of which I suspect are not too pleased with the US gaining total control of the worlds oil supplies as both countries industrial capabilities continue to grow.

There was a good article at Counter Punch a few days ago called Debating a neo-con by Stan Goff. While the article is about his debate with one of the leading neo-cons, there was a particluarly damning introduction during the debate that is great reading for anyone interested.

However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that George Bush will not leave office without doing something about Iran. Iran is not going to discontinue desire for nucs while the whole world knows that America's desire is to control the worlds oil supply while that control threaten's the growth of the economies of some of the worlds largest population centers. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by while this happens has another thing coming.

by laughingriver 2004-11-17 01:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Won't Happen

A country already uncomfortable, if quiet, about the small war in Iraq will not stand for an invasion of Iran. That would take a draft and far more resources. Won't happen. Even if the country "forgives" Bush for his obvious lies in Iraq, they won't believe anything he says about Iran. Won't happen.

by Long Haul 2004-11-17 01:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Won't Happen

The country won't accept it? We accepted invading and occupying Iraq didn't we? If you remember, Iraq didn't do anything to us, we weren't attacked, there were inspectors on the ground, Bush and his team lied to us about WMDs... After all of that, people still voted Bush back in and they continue to buy this bs that Iraq is about freedom and liberation.

My friend, I don't think you give the Bush team credit enough with what they can do to sway public opinion.

Israel IS GOING TO STRIKE IRAN. Iran has said they will retaliate, that will give Bush is moral high-ground...defense of Israel. In fact, the neo-cons actually aren't sure a single bombing will be provocative enough, they have recently suggested 20-30 all the way to 350 possible sites need to be bombed in Iran to prevent nuclear development. How could Iran not retaliate after 20-30 strikes?

And just so realize how dire this situation is, here is the crpyto-nazi himself William F. Buckley Jr, in his Nov 9th article, "War Gaming Iran," these are his final two paragraphs:

"Resolved: (1) Israel can't handle the challenge. (2) The U.S. can't abjure military action -- there must be the threat that we will act. (3) Gaining time does not necessarily enhance our leverage.

So? What happens is going to depend on a quick judgment by the president of the United States. What we can learn from Iraq is that he needs to be counseled on the consequences of alternative actions. He needs to avoid such as what we are contending with in Iraq. "

Buckley

by spectator consumer 2004-11-17 01:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Have you seen latest US News?

the cover story is about "secret documents" from CIA and Pentagon showing that Iran is behind Iraqi violence.

by benchcoat 2004-11-17 11:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

how sad

I was in China in October and spoke with a factory owner who was educated at Stanford. He said that he thought the US being in Iraq was about securing oil for the US and keeping China from it.

I have to tell you, that China is rapidly industrializing. I have suggested to anyone in earshot that China's goal should be to develop renewable energy--ie solar and wind...

This guy also talked about some economist who predicted that the US would become a third world economy by 2037 and the recent events would suggest so.

by lesnussman 2004-11-17 01:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: how sad

I have heard similar comments even here in the US. One can't help but think of what happened to Great Britain after WW II. However today the third world needs US economy to be strong where they are going to export to. And the Dollar is also very strong , so there is lot of room of US to avoid that situation.

by jr00 2004-11-17 02:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: how sad

don't look now, but the dollar has been dropping like a stone--and analysts aren't predicting an uptick anytime soon.

by benchcoat 2004-11-18 09:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Option C

Consider Option C: The U.S. goes ahead with elections in Iraq in January as planned. The Sunni's abstain from participating, a Shiite theocracy is elected. That government asks the foreign (U.S.) occupiers to leave the country and state they are capable of self-rule. The Bush adminstration sees this as their exit strategy for
leaving Iraq. The Americans leave and the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq try to break away to form their own country. The Sunni's keep up the insurgency and civil war breaks out in the country. The Shiites ask for help from Iran, and they send troops to help out their friends in Iraq. Their is another terrorist attack on Americans from a group who had received assistance from Iraq, and American forces are invading Iran.

by ncpatriot04 2004-11-17 02:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Option C

Scarry as it is, I think you have hit it right on the head! Just throw in an attack by Isreal on Iran for some fake reason and then the US will enter in another "game" for Bush.

by Njal 2004-11-17 07:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

There are options

We could go in with NATO forces. We could jointly with coalition air forces, with Israeli air forces, or with just our own USAF attack all of their nuclear facillities and institute both sanctions and a no-fly zone over Iran like we did Iraq for over a decade. There are rumors we are planning for an attack on Iran based on using Azerbaijan as a staging area ( the Azers deny this.) There are many other options, we could nuke them and turn Iran into a shiny piece of glass and steal their oil if we wanted to.

A draft is not necessary and not currently being planned, as a matter of fact you can call up your nearest USAF or NAVY recruting office and ask them, they'll tell you they are reducing their recruiting for 2005 by 33% because they do not need more warm bodies. Dont believe everything the liberal media tells you.

Best regards,
Morgan Clements
Publisher TerroristWarning.com

by TerroristWarningDotCom 2004-11-17 03:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: There are options

The American military could destroy much of Iran without suffering many casulities until it came time to occupy. To occupy you need people, and you lose lives.

The "idea" of takingo over Iran has been and is being championed by the same people that led us into the Iraq war. Before the Iraq war many said we had no intention of invading, there actually were WMD, Iraq kicked out the inspectors, we have no interest in their oil, etc. Iran continues to be threatened by Bush and neo-cons, we have a major concentration of troops located all around Iran, we have the nuke issue being pushed by the US, we have Israel publically speaking of attacking without warning, we have a US policy of pre-emption, we have a third generation oil family running our government. I could continue to go on, but what is the point?

The US has no interest in nuking Iran. The issue about nukes for Iran deals with two concerns. One, the US ever being able to run Iran again. Bush's friends have been asking for an invasion of Iran for 24 years, as soon as Iran gets the nuke, that possibility goes away. And two, Israel doesn't want it.

If you cannot see what's coming you are blind.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-17 03:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: There are options

More...about recruitment. Rumsfeld/Cheney have sold the privatization of the military angle, it's their baby. For Rummy, you can do more with fewer troops, netting bigger contracts for the Defense industry. So, you are correct, Rummy/Cheney both would rather not need a draft, that is why you aren't seeing one for Iraq, even though it's quite apparent we don't have enough troops. Iran provides the perfect excuse that will allow for more troops to Iraq and would be needed to actually occupy a hostile Iran.

As for your comment on a liberal media, I give my standard rebuttal: Please identify what commercial television network in the US carried/carries the commentary of the following prominentliberals: Chomsky, Zinn, Ramsey Clark, John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Alexander Cockburn, William Rivers Pitt, Robert Jensen, Mark Crispin-Miller, Garrison Keillor, Greg Palast, Gore Vidal, Ahrundhati Roy . Then there are those seldom allowed on, Molly Ivins, Amy Goodman, Helen Thomas, even Walter Cronkite and Bill Moyers have trouble getting air time these days... If it is a liberal media, why do liberal commentators generally get more air time in Canada, Europe and the rest of the world than they are allowed in America.

Your idea of a liberal press, is fostered by commercial press over-run by the right. The major media is largely controlled by five major corporations which all share a common desire to keep Americans entertained rather than informed. While you may listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Hannity on FoxNews, understand that those are "shows"...think Vaudville or a Circus. Their job is too keep people tuned in to listen to the next outrageous thing they say, not to consider anything seriously. For them, the liberal media charge, is simply another whopper. You can find others if you'd like...

Please return to FreeRepublic as you are missing your chance to debate important matters like a lady with a towel before Monday Night Football. We are deluded by liberal extremists and are incapable of understanding how the ACLU is communist front, the income tax is unconstitutional, Hillary Clinton is a lesbian and conspired to murder Vince Foster, Janet Reno murdered the people at Waco and John Kerry is traitor. God loves you more, we know, Pat Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, Bush or some other snake-oil salesman has told us all. Amen.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-17 04:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: There are options

Why would this administartion even give nato the time of day. he spit in their faces the last time and fabricated reaason to invade iraq. I don't think Nato would even consider the idea. n I for one don't think Bush would even ask them. He has shown time and time again, he considers "old Europe" irrelivant.

by likesun 2004-11-18 04:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Iran unlikely

Open war with Iran before Iraq is settled would turn both countries into one huge nightmare for US forces, and not even a draft would change that.

Probably we're going to be fighting the Iraq War for a while, city by city the way it's going. The seal-it-off-then-flatten-it has a selection effect on which Iraqis live and die: People who are afraid enough to flee US forces live, those who stay to defend their homes die. Eventually we'll be left with a population subdued enough to ignore those big permanent military bases and submit to the US-backed government.

Any military campaign against Iran will likely be preceded by an extended economic-political campaign to isolate the country and a lengthy intelligence/airpower operation to wear down its capacity to defend itself. "Shock & Awe" in Iraq was only the final blow of more than a decade of steady degradation, and Iran is a much harder target as far as I can tell.

Remember that Cheney promised this thing would go on for decades. They're in no hurry.

by catastrophile 2004-11-17 03:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

latest edition of the Atlantic

Has an article about a war game with the U.S. invading Iran due to the increasing of their atomic program. The article discusses time frames where Iran would have a nuclear weapon provided they have not had any additional outside assistance.

by Democratic Reality 2004-11-17 05:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Very Interesting...

as a matter of fact you can call up your nearest USAF or NAVY recruting office and ask them, they'll tell you they are reducing their recruiting for 2005 by 33% because they do not need more warm bodies.

Significant omission -- the Army. Check out Operation Blue to Green.

by Davis X Machina 2004-11-17 05:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Hope I'm right when I say ...

We won't invade Iran. Iran has an army. Not a great one, but considerably better motivated, led and equipped than Iraq's. A lot of Iran is mountainous. We'd lose.

We'd stand a better chance against North Korea. If we invaded there, the loser wouldn't be us, it would be the south - minimum 500,000 South Koreans dead in the first few days, and Seoul would be like Ground Zero, only much much bigger. Not a good phot op.

Hey, I thought "Shadow President" sucked - at least the first version. The AI was mechanical and over-simple. I got bored in my first game and nuked Belgium, was assassinated the next day. Liked the blood on the windshield, though.

by Bob Love 2004-11-17 11:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hope I'm right when I say ...

10 Reasons why we will invade Iran:

Same military contractors that benefit from Iran war as Iraq; if they were able to get us involved in one debacle why not another?
We need a draft to put more troops in Iraq, and Bush's people are stuck eating crow unless something else occurs to justify a draft.
Bush is surrounded with neo-cons who believe in historical legacy; they believe ending middle east violence to be worthy of great sacrifice to accomplish. They also have long written that mideast terror comes from Iranian theocracy. These people blame the clerical revolution in Iran for destabilizing the region.
The great "war of cultures" theme demands another war in the mideast, against muslims.
Bush's ratings and popularity increase when he uses the military or we are under attack.
Iran is 3rd or 4th in the world in total oil reserves. In 2003 the world's second largest oil field was discovered. Over 10 percent of the world's oil reserves are located in Iran. Peak oil theory is now accepted by the oil industry, rightly or wrongly, there does exist an idea that we are running out of oil. In order to insure US economic and military power for the next 100 years, control of the mideast oil is vital (so goes the argument).
Iran is not believed to have achieved nuclear status, however they are close. If America waits to invade, they won't be able to later.
Military of the Iran is grossly inferior to the US. Sustained US air war would destroy almost all of Iran's defenses within months. With Iraq and Afghanistan now available to the US, many troops are available to sweep in and mop-up once Iran's military is destroyed.
Bush isn't purging his ranks for nothing. Bush doesn't intend to be undercut by his own administration when he instigates a war with Iran. Regime change in Iran is official US policy.
Oil companies that owned concessions in Iran up until nationalization of Iran's oil in 1979 are still unhappy to have lost their investments. These same oil companies are very close to the white house.

by spectator consumer 2004-11-18 02:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

so what are the frames and the re-frame?

here's my first attempt at tackling re-framing (help!):

We know Bush and the neocons are going to push:
"Iran = terror
Iran = nukes
Iran = Iraqi violence
therefore, we must invade to stop the violence in Iraq, to stop terror, and to pre-emptively stop terrorists from getting nukes!"

this approach may successfully frighten people and activate the strong father frame, with Bush as the protective father.

so what are our responses?

one frameshift for Iran is: if Iran is the source of Iraq violence then Bush has betrayed our soldiers in Iraq by failing to go after the real threat the first time. I find this unsatisfying as it still cedes Iran as a threat.

so how about: Bush betrays our soldiers because he's not being honest about the real threat in Iraq. The vast majority attacking our troops are Iraqis, not foreign insurgents. If Iran is the source of the violence in Iraq, then Bush betrayed our troops when he failed to secure Iraq's borders in the invasion.

Any other ideas for re-framing? Any ideas about how to re-frame positively for our side?

by benchcoat 2004-11-17 11:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Observation: notice bush is trotting out iranian..

dissidents just like he did with chalibi...
same old ..same old...will democrats turn
over again.

For those who think bush will not or hope
will not invade iran..think again...bush
will do it servere damage..its the way bush
is and his gutteral logic.

by Aslanspal 2004-11-18 03:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Observation: notice bush is trotting out irani

You're right. A Washington Post article today opens:

"The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons."

Does this sound at all familiar to anyone? Only difference this time, Blair will not join Bush on this [ad]venture. It would be politcal suicide.

by mmurphy 2004-11-18 05:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Pollack and Iran

Kenneth Pollack was dead wrong on Iraq's WMD. Don't let him be the "liberal" apologist for war like he was the last time.

by HewittComm 2004-11-18 05:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Iran's oil and the euro

Soj has an excellent post on another concern about Iran. Yes, there's a lot of saber-rattling about Iranian nukes. But the real issue driving the neocons' fury might be Iran's oil exchange (bourse) opening next year, which may operate in the euro rather than the dollar.

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2004-11-15.html#19199

Has any country ever sold its oil for Euros? Saddam Hussein's Iraq did starting in November 2002. And if you think the invasion four months later was a coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona. Since the overthrow of the Hussein regime, Iraq's oil is now safely sold only for American dollars.

I'm not enough of an economist to predict what'll happen globally to the US dollar if the Iranian bourse is euro-based. It's very possible that our current position of a carefully weakened dollar (which the administration seems perfectly content with) might actually be a strategy to combat it. But if that doesn't work we could see a military invasion ... with a suitable cover-story, of course. I doubt it'd even take a terror attack, though the neocons would happily take advantage of something like that if it happened.

by drewthaler 2004-11-18 06:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Iraq, what about North Korea

I have a friend who has a family member that is part of an army advance intelligence team. This team is deployed 1 year prior to an invasion. In the past, they have been deployed to Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq (all with 1 year before the invasion). I just heard they were deployed to North Korea! Danger Will Robinson...Danger!

by uvajeD Again 2004-11-18 07:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

They are insane if they think they can invade Iran

Look, they won't even be able to stay in Iraq for more than six more months or so without a draft or half the military revolting (because they will be kept over in Iraq permanently and never allowed to rotate back home).

They may try to do an air strike against Iran's nuke plant, which will result in Iran invading Iraq-the effect would be similiar. But an outright invasion? I don't think so. Another domestic terrorist attack will change nothing here, IMHO.

by Geotpf 2004-11-18 09:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hope I'm right when I say

If the Iranian Army decided to fight they would be destroyed by our forces. The U.S. has the best trained troops with the most technologically advanced weapons. Mostly thanks to Bill Clinton and Bill Perry. This would give the neo cons the kind of battle they are seeking against another conventional army to prove their theory of "Shock and Awe" I do not think they have given up on this theory, it goes back to the end of WWII and the neo cons blame our losses (their term)in Korea and Vietnam on timid leaders who would not use all of the force at their disposal. They have resisted the "new world order" of the European Union and supported groups who have experimented with moving their operations to developing countries. This is a way to stop the spread of government supported social progams that exist in other developed post industrial countries. In their world, the role of government is to maintain a military and the threat of force to maintain stability for these business entities. Iraq was a setback in their plan to "robotize" the Army and Marines. They can reduce the Navy and Air Force since the countries they will be fighting do not have large navies and air forces. Even though Iraq was setback, they have not abandoned the idea. Iraq has sent a message to the insurgents in the middle east. It demonstrated how successful an insurgency can be against a superior military force in an occupation mode. North Vietnam picked up on Nixon's signal of Vietnamization, that the U.S had enough of the war. The Bush administration has sent the same signal with Iraqi elections and the training of their new army. This will only encourage the insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east. I would not look for any country to try to fight a conventional war with the U.S. in the near future, but beware of more guerrilla operations.

It is important to bear in mind the difference between conservative and neoconservative. A lot of traditional fiscal conservatives do not subscribe to these radical ideas and have written articles against the neocons. Bob Barr, John Eisenhower, former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire to name a few.

We should make it a grassroots priority to fight
their consolidation of power in the appointments
of Condalezza Rice and Stephen Hadley.

by ncpatriot04 2004-11-18 03:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

No attack likely

We will not and cannot successfully attack Iran. Most especially we cannot occupy and suppress the Iranian population. Their population is too large, their economy and military resources too strong, their population too unified, and their economic and diplomatic ties to world too complex and strong to accomplish such a mission with a mercenary army that can only field 12 regiments world-wide can not take on such a task. A conscripted citizen army of a million or more would be required.

Iraq fell over like the sick man of the middle east it was. Despised by everyone because of Saddam's antics, drained by war, sanctions, and corruption, it is the polar opposite of Iran. There are few nations of consequence upon which we could have 'successfully' carried out such a regime change mission. Our mercenary army is good at reprisals and quick destablizations, but are lousy at a sustained occupation and rebuilding. Look at what who we have targeted: Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, and Peru (where there is a wealthy, well-established ruling elite chomping at the bit to take over if we can destabilize the democratically elected government). Even the Neo-Cons recognized limits. They thought Iraq was within our capacity to overturn, and they might have been right had Chalabi panned out and we not gotten stuck with a prolonged transition to a puppet government.

Much more likely is a scanario in Iran is one in which we use allies, dissendents, proxies, special forces, and air and space resources to destabilize the Iranian regime and/or take out nuclear facilities. In many ways this course of action will be even more dangerous than trying a full-scale invasion and occupation. It will confirm the need for nuclear weapons as a neccesary component of military deterrence against imperial agression, setting off an accelerated arms race among second tier powers and stiffening Iran's own resolve to deploy nuclear weapons.

by mbryan 2004-11-18 09:05PM | 0 recs