Iran next?

[GreatCarouser]

Here's an article from the London Times via Globalsecurity.org
London Times

[hal 9000]

Was there ever a point when it was not next?

From what I remember, everything has been leading up to this since day one. No real surprise here except the one the blind supporters of Bush* are going to get when the realize what has been going on.

*not to be confused with the supporters of Bush that have been seeing what has been going on and still support him

Here my ends my political comments...



<small>[ 01-26-2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: hal9000 ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

[quote]Originally posted by hal9000:
[b]
Here my ends my political comments...

:p

As for me, from what I've learned over the last couple of years, with the possible exception of having Iraq as a platform to launch ops, Iran is where we had more reason to go in the first place.

<small>[ 01-26-2005, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Trumpetmaster]

OT,
I think you are right.

We were launching out of Saudi Arabia and now it is a "Strained" relationalship.
As far as I'm concerned the U.S. needs to re-evaluate being there. I think the Saudi's have been "Buffered" for many years due to our presence. They are Benedict Arnolds as they have turned their heads in harboring these terrorists for years while this crap keeps going on all over the world. They need to clean house!
If it smells like ..... It has to be ......

End of My Political Editorial.
And Yes - These will not be my last words!!
Regards,
TM

[RC]

Haggis, I think, once debated with me, the subject of why we invaded Iraq. I was angry because I felt I'd been duped and manipulated with the myriad excuses offered up by the administration.
Haggis had me consider (apologies if the credit isn't yours Haggis), that Iraq was strategically beneficial for an invasion of a real threat - Iran.

Maybe he will grace us with this insight again.

[haggis]

yup...wrong...Syria

[OperaTenor]

Hi RC,

Yes, you recall correctly. The jury's still out as far as I'm concerned as to whether we did the right thing invading Iraq. They're a sovereign nation, not an aircraft carrier.

Howard,

I agree with you with regards to Saudi Arabia. They double deal, and we let them get away with it because they still sell us oil. The principled puritan in me has a hard time with that.

Haggis spent a large chunk of his military career in the Middle East, so when he says he thinks we're doing the right thing over there, I'm left with enough doubt with regards to my own feelings on the subject that I try not to become too vehement about it.

But then, that's just his opinion, and we all know about those.

:p

(Oops, I just saw Haggis' correction - whether it's Iran or Syria, something still grates with me about using Iraq for an aircraft carrier. JMOOC)

<small>[ 01-26-2005, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

I agree OT. Iraq should probably not be used as an aircraft carrier. If we had multiple reasons for invading, I would liked to have had someone level with me instead of making it up as we go because its convenient...

So Haggis, do you think Iran is next? Do you think your supposition may have been correct except for the part about Syria? Is Syria still a target in your opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Shapley]

RC,

That's not the sort of thing, militarily speaking, that you can announce. Whether we use our military presence in Iraq as a launching point to invade Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or whatever, it cannot be announced as such. Remember when the troops were sent to Somalia and the press met them at the beach? That's not the sort of tip-off we want to hand to potentially nuclear-armed foe.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I was just discussing a similar topic with my office mate, conjecturing what would happen if Iran decided to invade Iraq in the next several days. The general consensus was that we would be in very, very deep doodoo.

As far as us using Iraq as a base to invade Iran, I don't believe we have the military might to pull it off. We can't gain enough control of Iraq to make it a stable location for us to even operate there, not to mention making it a base for yet another invasion. I'm wondering how long it will take for the winners of Sunday's election to tell us to leave.

That doesn't mean we won't try it. The present administration has been doing a remarkably good job of fulfilling my deepest dreads.

[OperaTenor]

Whether we have the might or ability, or whether it wasn't strategically prudent to reveal our true intentions, I feel it's pretty darn arrogant and imperialistic(for lack of a better word) of us to invade another sovereign nation, no matter their form of government, for the express purpose of using it as a staging area for our military action against yet another nation. How would you feel if that was being done to the U.S.?!!!

That is completely within the agenda of the PNAC, and is flat out wrong!



If we're not strong enough to take on an adversary head-to-head without conquering other countries to use as stepping stones, then perhaps we should find other, more peaceful avenues for solving our problems.


(Here we go again...)

<small>[ 01-26-2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

What would have happened if Bush had said :
"We're invading Iraq because I want to and I can. I want to because I want a launching pad for further aggression in the middle east and the Saudis are being pills about the whole thing, telling me to take my toys and go home. I can because Im the boss of the biggest baddest army in the world. You wont stop me, because I'm the topdog in the biggest group of high-spending consumers in the world and you guys all want to sell us stuff."

Would you really truely feel better right now? Or just as annoyed, pissed off and helpless?
I think I'd feel just as bad, and I'd despise Bush & Rummy just as much.

Do you truely think the newly elected Iraqi govt will agree to a longterm US presence (base)? Not if they want to stay the elected govt - IMO.
The first thing I expect them to do is to set a departure date by which 100% of US troops are to be off Iraqi soil. From there, will the negotiations begin.

[OperaTenor]

If Bush had said that at the outset, I think I would've gone out protesting.

As it is, now the damage is done and we're stuck with following through to keep Iraq intact, or at least try to.

[GreatCarouser]

Found this over at OT's favorite think tank.

Be sure not to miss the first sentence of the final paragraph...

[haggis]

We attacked Iraq because we (and the rest of the world) had a UN mandate to do so and had had for over a decade.

We will not attack Iran or Syria without a similar mandate or clear provocation.

On the part of Iran that would be a terrorist nuke in Charleston or Newark traced back to Iran. On the part of Syria, a terrorist attack in Atlanta or Seattle using the chem. (bio?) WMDs they got from Iraq.

Neither Iran nor Syria has the military capability to mount an offense strike against Iraq, or anyone else for that matter, except possibly Lebanon.

Neither country has anything like a modern offensive capability and the few military forces they have are essentially geared towards maintaining authoritarian power in those country.

Although Iran’s been upgrading it’s offensive capabilities and it’s SCUD “Bs” and “Cs” can reach most parts of the middle east, including Israel. It’s reasonable to assume that Iran has chemical weapons and will shortly have a nuke, the “Persian bomb.” That will change the issues some, but I believe a democratic Iran is closer than a lot of you might think. I’d much rather deal with a nuclear armed democratic Iran than the current Mullocracy


I sometimes make flippant remarks like the aircraft carrier bit

(Ed. “SOMETIMES?!?!?”

Shut up)

But nothing is ever as simple as a one-issue goal and the same is true in Iraq and the Middle East.

I made the argument earlier that Iraq was the perfect place to start democracy in the Middle East and I still see no reason to revise that view.

There is a multicultural structure there that lends itself to compromise and, eventually, non-sectarian government.

Do I think it’s a sure thing? By no means, can there be a civil war? I’m not sure, 80% of Iraqis are looking forwards to some type of self-determination and I don’t think the remaining 20% is all that keen on a civil war.

I think a similar type of situation we saw in Lebanon is possible, but here again, Lebanon was too militarily weak to resist the cross border operations of the Syrian. With the “Third Herd” and 4th ID on the ground in Iraq, the possibility of active military adventurism by Syria and Iran is very slim.

I'll boldly predict that a truly democratic (insert name here, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc) will be the most significant change in the Middle East since the birth of Mohammed.

[OperaTenor]

I sincerely hope you're right.

[piqaboo]

No doubt if it occurs, it will be the most signif. event. Q is, are you predicting it will occur? in what time frame? A millenium? A decade?
It is an end most devoutly wished!


OT, RC, etc./
thats the point. He sold the idea to more people going in his way. There'd have still been a war, but lots more people would have been angry had Bush told what I suspect is the truth.

[haggis]

"in what time frame?"

I personally believe it starts in Iraq on Sunday and build from there. I also believe that the student and youth movement in Iran is going to get serious in the next decade or so in demanding some form of representational government that they can have a voice in. As it is, the “Mullocracy” is murky with no defined rules of legitimate succession and is based on the rules developed by the inside clique. A free and independent Iraq on it’s borders will be added incentive for the Iranians. Not to mention that some kind of “Radio Free Iran’ will be operating in Iraq by then (if not already!)

I don’t think Iran will survive anymore than the Soviet Union did and certainly won’t take as long to collapse as the Soviet Union because the military won’t (I think) support the Mullahs in putting down any demonstrations by force.

When the Shah was starting to fall the military then stayed in the barracks despite orders and refused to fire on Iranian citizens, leaving the detestable Savak to do the dirty work. I hope the same will happen when the students start to get serious in the streets.

I’m sure they Mullahs have their own version of the Savak – Isn’t it ironic that wise and benign rulers never seem to have a problem in forming a secret police as soon as they come into power? – in the wings, probably manned by former Savak members.

[GreatCarouser]

This is just in from Voice of America

[shostakovich]

From Piqaboo: "What would have happened if Bush had said :
"We're invading Iraq because I want to and I can. I want to because I want a launching pad for further aggression in the middle east and the Saudis are being pills about the whole thing, telling me to take my toys and go home. I can because Im the boss of the biggest baddest army in the world. You wont stop me, because I'm the topdog in the biggest group of high-spending consumers in the world and you guys all want to sell us stuff."


Well, I would have been shocked by the candor, and he would have been a one-term president.