The Coming IRAN CRISIS

Iran is trying to “play nice” and quell jittery nerves by inviting the U.S. to bid on constructing its nuclear power plants. The U.S. has responded with stony silence while Israel threatens a military strike even though “IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)”

http://www.hanfordnews.com/news/2005/story/7280850p-7192722c.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Iran has taken the position that “If pressured by America, (it) will use its full might to endanger America's interests."

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=55848

It would make sense for them to cut oil production in their own country and stir up the resistance fighters in Iraq (as the U.S. claims is already occurring) to disrupt oil production there as well.

They’ll also implement the preparatory measures already in place to sell oil in euros instead of dollars. “When such a measure is taken, the United States would soon realize that it is not the one who can always inflict economic damages on the Islamic Republic and that Iran can also get even with it, ” says an Irani official.

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=260851

Next on the list of “American interests” is Israel which has a long history of pre-emptive war. If Israel attacks Iran as it‘s been threatening, it must cross US-occupied Iraqi air space and in doing so make the U.S. complicit by virtue of acquiescence. Iran will likely retaliate against Israel and U.S. forces with its Sunburn missiles - “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Furthermore, US ships in the Gulfs northern shore will be within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced, unstoppable, Russian-made Yakhonts missiles. Protection from the Yakhont antiship missile does not exist.

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Iran is the home of China's largest energy-related investments so a conflict with Iran will not only bring China to the table, but its Russian ally as well. ”The Putin government has consistently maintained that Russia would not support UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Iran's nuclear energy program or apply economic sanctions against Iran.

“Beijing has echoed Moscow's opposition to UN action against Iran. After concluding the historic gas and oil deal between China and Iran in October 2004, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing announced that China would not support UN Security Council action against Iran's nuclear energy program. Opposition in Moscow and Beijing to UN action against Iran is significant because both countries hold UN Security Council veto power. “

“To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

With Iran on the PNAC “hit list”, Israel and Iran locked in a stand-off and refusing to blink, and Russia and China waiting in the wings ready to protect their own interests and ally, we are quickly coming to the Brink of World Disaster from which there is no turning back.

What madness have the neocons delivered to our doorstep?

I've got my hands on my ears. Can't hear you at all!

All we have to do is sit back and let Israel initiate a military strike - IF they decide to do so - and we get sucked into the conflict. Iran will see the U.S as enabling Israel's actions and attack U.S. forces in retaliation. The U.S. will say "Hey, THEY started it!" and respond with a counterstrike when - bam - Russia and China coming running.

But you're right about one thing - we'll REALLY have our asses handed to us in a very big way. Maybe "humbling" the neocons is the only way to stop them. Too bad they have to take all of us down with them.

I believe this is how it is going to go down.

Because if we attack Iran, and Russia and China are willing to go to war over it... :scared:

World War III.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not worth it

Published on Saturday, December 31, 2005 by Der Spiegel (Germany)
US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.


It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1231-01.htm



One aspect of this article that scares me is the possibility of Turkey targeting Kurds in Iran. I don't think it's any stretch to think that Kurds in Iraq are in solidarity with separatist Kurds in Iran. What might their reaction be considering this:


Kurds in Iraqi Army Proclaim Loyalty to Militia
by Tom Lasseter


KIRKUK, Iraq - Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren't gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq's fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

"It doesn't matter if we have to fight the Arabs in our own battalion," said Gabriel Mohammed, a Kurdish soldier in the Iraqi army who was escorting a Knight Ridder reporter through Kirkuk. "Kirkuk will be ours."

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1228-03.htm


Whether it is Israel or U.S., if there are airstrikes on Iran, prepare for the Middle East to explode in 2006.

They wouldn't let us into their country as the staging ground for the Iraq assault. How crucial are they in the Grand Scheme of Things?

Turkey's main reason for not letting us use their country as a staging ground for Iraq, to the best of my knowledge, is that they feared doing so would completely destabilize the Kurdistan region and increase the likelihood of stirring up the Kurdish population in eastern Turkey.

If Turkey provides support for US and/or Israeli airstrikes in Iran, they need to be mindful that this possibility of destabilization is even greater now than before. Not only are the Kurds in Iraq more emboldened as shown in the link in my previous post, but there is also:

1. Greater military cooperation between Iran and Iraq:

Iranians to train Iraq's military
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4659287.stm

Iraq to launch military co-operation with Iran
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8953

2. Joint Iran/Syria defense pact (If one country is attacked, the other will come to their aid militarily)

Iran and Syria Confront US With Defense Pact
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-02.htm

IRAN, SYRIA ENTER MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT
Same story, but with this scary * quote:

Addressing the question of a potential nuclear Iran at a news conference on Thursday, Bush shied away from ruling out an Israeli offensive strike.

"If I was the leader of Israel and I listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs about... the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well... And, in that Israel is our ally, in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if their security is threatened."

http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2005/02/18/650076054


Turkey isn't crucial for an attack on Iran, but they would make a conveniently expendable buffer in the fallout from such an attack for the US. They should tread with caution.

I wondered if * would attempt to reign in Israel but from the quote you provided, it's clear he doesn't intend to do so.

This is becoming a game of good cop/bad cop and gives * the perfect "out"...we know that the PNAC WH is itching to move to Phase II of their plan for world domination but the public won't buy into it, but if Israel is prodded to attack with assurances of U.S. support, then the justification will be "We have an obligation to come to the aid of our ally."

then present it.

is the line that chills me. Israel has had its clandestine nuclear program for years and not cooperated with any requests for information. They are the world's worse neighbors. Now they threaten Iran for doing exactly what they have done for the past 20 odd years. I think we should withdraw all aid to Israel and let them bankroll their own fights. For that matter I think we should pull our military presence out of most of the countries we are in and closely examine all the foreign aid money we throw away on regimes that use those funds for military and weapons.

Brinksmanship and bluster by Iran show they are not Arabs, who have a saying 'he who shows the sword is forced to use it'. The order of battle means a stealth attack of some sort; the blood of millions will be on the hands of whoever strikes first.

We need to get all sides thinking 'game theory' as in the movie A Beautiful Mind (remember the bar scene with the beautiful woman ?). Cooperation on any problem leads to all sides winning in the endgame. Besides, the world's entire remaining oil supply of 1 trillion barrels will be used up within about 25 years of less -- at a growing rate from the current 85 million barrels per day world consumption.

Think, and let cooler heads prevail. Does Israel have subs with missile launch capabilities (see post #24) ?

Iran will be retaliating against aggression against Iran either directly by the united states or indirectly by our proxy israel (or is it the other way 'round?)

However you are correct that israel has a huge nuke arsenal and could very well use it if it felt threatened. More likely Iran will attack us interests directly instead, putting us in the position of having to either retaliate or withdraw, but we would be unlikely to use nukes.

Nor has Iran engaged in brinkmanship and bluster. (Well in all fairness they do seem to be using that idiot president to taunt us and israel with his holocaust nonsense.) Iran is simply determined to develop a credible military deterrent - or at least the capacity to build such a deterrent if they decide to do so. We are the ones engaged in brinkmanship and bluster - constantly issuing threats and semi-ultimatums, growling and grimacing from our imperial palaces about how we might deal with the misbehaving iranians.

Why would the Iranians comply with our demands? They have the examples of Iraq and North Korea, and clearly compliance is the first step toward destruction.

If you look at Operation Northwoods and the similarities with 9-11 and the PNAC 'New Pearl Harbor', the Vulcans pretty much got everything they wanted. I don't think they worry about who strikes first to tell you the truth. The end result is all they care about.

What's that quote from the Cathar inquisition, 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' ? The mullahs and the vulcans deserve eachother, they have sooo much in common.

"Why would the Iranians comply with our demands? They have the examples of Iraq and North Korea, and clearly compliance is the first step toward destruction."

It's like if you let a thug tie you up. Once you do that, you're totally at his mercy.

Fearmongering. It does far more than any corporeal action could.

Seriously. I'm open to hear how/why everybody will just pick up their toys and go home before beating each other with sticks. Supportive links will be helpful, too.

Apart from the failure of Iraq and loads upon loads of scares tactics, there is nothing to show that Bush would seriously do this. The US is teetering on credibility. One more war based on untruths will mean a real war. Against the US. And, to coin a phrase, I truly fear that those countries would say "all options are on the table".

If it happens, it happens. I will not let fear disrupt my life. I've got things to learn and a career to make. (I can't get a date, so what's left TO do?)

I don't think anybody wants to see any more conflict in the Mid-East and we all have hope against hope that things will settle down and rational minds will prevail. I just don't know whether Israel will go off in a huff and that's an unsettling Wild Card.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2343614

Maybe you know something he doesn't?

discussing it right now. He is always worth listening to.

It's brilliant

http://stirling-newberry.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/2/84040/12187



The march of Iran to deterrent state status are prompting "use it or lose it" pressures for preventative - that is aggressive - strikes against Iran and its atomic weapons program, as Iran declares that it has a right to enrich Uranium on its own soil. The Ukraine-Russia gas stand off escalates as Russia accuses Ukraine of stealing Natural gas. In Iraq insurgent threats keep a major refinery shut down in Iraq.

On this, the first working day of the New Year, we are already getting a good stiff taste of the running theme of 2006. If 2004 and 2005 saw resource inflation, 2006 is the year when resource rich countries begin using those resources as weapons, and resource poor countries begin taking aggressive steps to secure resources. The current world market approach to energy is going to break down, as more and more nations are forced to jostle for position.

Somewhere in the next two years it will dawn on the American public that we live in the pre-war, not post-war, era, and that Iraq was a foreshock.

For reasons outlined before, an attack against Iran is unlikely at this time - the danger zone begins in July and runs through late October - because that is the point where a spike of popularity and power will be necessary for Bush, if it seems he is going to lose the Congress. The next danger zone is next year, as he needs to reframe the debate should he lose congress. However, before there are large airstrikes, there must be an escalating campaign of crowding Iranian airspace, in hopes that a pilot will give the US an excuse for further action.

But the larger picture needs to be looked at.

First, resources are fundamentally different from manufacturing, in that manufacturing is wide spread, but resiliant. Resources are concentrated, but brittle. This makes a difference both during escalating tensions, and for the possibility of all out war. The resiliant nature of manufacturing means that pin prick military actions are generally worthless. Bomb one plant, and the equipment will be moved to another. Extraction is the reverse - it is rife with fragile infrastructure that is very worth destroying - oil refineries, petrol storage facilities, oil and gas pipelines and nuclear reactors for enriching Uranium - are all fragile and expensive, and generate economic benefit far out of proportion to their size.

Thus during escalation, manufacturing is not targetted, but resource concentrations might be. Look at China's handling of Taiwan. The Chinese could easily begin attacking Taiwan - but pinprick attacks would not significantly undermine Taiwan's economy or deny it crucial components. It also means that the chance for all out war is higher over resources than manufacturing. This is because a general war will destroy manufacturing, but it will leave the raw resources in tact. Manufacturing is about buildings and people -war destroys both. Resources are about land, and war, while it wounds the land, seldom kills it.

These two factors exacerbate each other - faster escalation, and greater temptation to war mean, more wars. Whether over water, oil, arable land, coal, gold, diamonds or any other economic rent - resources bring greater geo-political uncertainty.

::

In the current world economic environment, most commodities are traded on world markets. The difference between buying from two different suppliers for almost any commodity is a difference in the time and cost of shipping, and little else. Standardized contracts, large futures markets, sophisticated financial systems, logistical and information networks make it possible to hedge and balance resource prices. This highly liquid and highly fluid system allows shocks to be buffered. For example, when Katrina knocked out oil and gas production equal to the current output of Iraq, it was possible to use the Strategic petroleum and gas reserves to spread the pain, and prevent a sharper spike in prices.

In a world where nations use the resource card to push political agendas, particularly the resource scarcity card, nations begin seeking exclusive contracts and stable supplies. The Chinese have been working to acquire exclusive oil contracts. This is only worthwhile if the cost of an exclusive contract - higher than a hedged free market supply - is insurance against the cost of supply disruption. If it is cheaper to buy the exclusive deal, than get the insurance that there will be no disruption, then it is worth inking the deal. As the supplies of oil and gas that are free for exploitation dwindle, the pressure for more and more countries to follow this road grows.

2006 will see the increase in flare ups over this process. As countries lock in supplies, they, by definition, lock others out.

In 2005 this effect caused diplomatic jostling, but few open crisis points opened. Now however, as industries accept that energy prices, and commodity prices, are going to remain high for the foreseeable future, there is going to be a drive to secure commodities before the inevitable rise in prices. This is so because energy can be used to substitute for most commodities, as energy prices go up, the substitution moves the other way - don't buy lower quality ore and use more energy to refine it, buy higher quality ores. As prices rise, more and more businesses will find, on the margins, that it is better to switch than fight. Those who realize this first will want to lock in supplies for the forseeable future before others do. Futures prices for commodities are rising to be in line with spot prices across the board.

Can we hold Israel in check? (See post #11)

And Israel even balked at the US's Syria Policy.

Right now I see a lot of thrusting chests.

The Israelis are quite happy working with the Kurds in Northern Iraq right now. They are in a good position to rile up Kurds in Iran (and Turkey for that matter but that's another story).

Balance of power works for smaller states too.

That's why I have no problem with Iran being nuclear armed.

Mutual destruction is not a bad thing.

Iran is looking at North Korea and going... yah... .that's the way we ought to do it. Keep the Yanks out of our hair.

Pakistan being nuke capable as well as Saudi (do you REALLY think they don't have nukes?) are far more dangerous in the scheme of things.

I'm sorry - but when I look at the big picture and look at the enemy I see Bush and his fascist friends as being the problem. More than anyone.

The bush/neocon fascists are the problem. In essence, -they- are the enemy. Or at least the worst ones at this moment.

The real threats to humanity are bush and the neofreaks.

Being democratically elected?

Wanting a social democracy along the lines of Europe?

Fuck the US.

Canada's works fine - thanks. So does most of South America. So does Europe. The American 'Dream' is by and far an American 'Dream' not the rest of the world's. Maybe a few years ago. But not anymore.

I'd rather have their way of life than live in the prison camp you call America - a country that executes more children than Uganda.

from journalists around the world (German, US, middle east, etc.), to Democratic military Generals (Wes Clark) , to former UN weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter) all seem to think that this is a very realistic scenario.

The only people I see saying 'it'll never happen' are posters on DU.

Wonder why that is?

As I find this a story of great importance, I have read or posted on many threads on the subject. I am not sure what you mean.

Thanks in advance!

I have seen the "impending attack on iran" story many months ago. It was predicted in 2005 by some "sources". Discussed heavily. Never happened.

Yes if this actually goes beyond a Der Spiegel article it is important.

It just seems to come up as a red flag hot issue and then drift away..

His confirmation was bogged down, hence the delay in 2005 iirc.

In fact, I got called crazy more than once for traveling to DC in fall of 2002 and January 2003 to protest the impending Iraq war.

(on edit: I am not referring to being on DU - I didn't join until late 2004 - I am referring to where I worked, my neighbors, etc)

I was even so naive as to think that we were making a difference, that the war may not happen.

I am not so naive anymore. I don't put anything past this administration who seems to be getting away with its lying, spying, torture and power-grabbing. Why would they stop? Obviously no one is effectively opposing them, they are literally getting away with murder on a daily basis. Innocent people are dying every day because of them. Why would they stop if they have been so successful so far?

It isn't just Der Speigel - it is news sources around the world. Waiting for the NYT, who holds stories like Spygate for a year per Bushco's request? I'm sorry, but I don't know who is credible anymroe. But former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter & Wes Clark are concerned, the UN is concerned enough that they have made statements about it in the past...

Ultimately, time will tell. But for now, I want my eyes wide open.

:shrug:

the bushies are using this, like other events, to simply distract the world from their incompetentcies and illegal activities and failures etc...

Is adamant that we, the US, will not invade Iran. Pinpoint air strikes perhaps. It is what Iran then does that will settle the issue. My guess is that they will strongly retaliate, in Iraq, in Israel, and at sea. Then the escalation begins with nucs flying. Will China and Russia inter the fray? Will Europe? So many unknowns. Bob

I can't imagine how we would 'invade', unless we 'withdraw' from Iraq and immediately redeploy, but even that seems impossible given how stretched our military is currently. Air strikes are neat and tidy, at least from the cameras' point of view. The TV likes airstrikes.

I think this would push the US over the edge as far as world opinion, and we should expect retaliation.

Again, I truly believe that only time will tell. We can't know for sure either way. But I think all options are on the table an I won't be surprised if it happens.

:scared:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There's also a Part II.....I'll have to review it when I have more time but appreciate your passing it on!

I saw the link earlier and wanted to read further on it, but now it is gone... Could you PM me the link if you have it bookmarked?

Thanks!

:hi:

Check your PM

Anyone else interested in reading the "verboten" link is welcome to contact me privately.

:hi:

Always fantasizing about how Russia's going to nuke Israel.

I would trust NOTHING of what he wrote. (He's dead; good riddance.)

Just because you say " Vialls is a wretched piece of comunazi filth" doesn't make it true. What evidence do you have to support your position?

deleted by the mods, for good reason.

unless, of course, you CAN'T!

From http://www.joevialls.co.uk/





Slight correction: nukes were not necessarily mentioned. But the theme of Russia incinerating Israel was.

If you didn't find this yourself, you weren't looking very hard. It's right there on his home page.

I find it interesting that you use a terminology generally associated with Rush Limbaugh and the extreme right.

He is Nazi because of his blatant, filthy antisemitism.

Much more poisonous than Rush. Rush is like MS. Vialls is like brain cancer. And yes, his blatant, filthy antisemitism DOES put him on the extreme right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's not my problem if you don't get it.

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

Thanks for all the great info!

I am quoting from happyslug on another thread:

Now, the report uses the term "Attack" and that can include an Air Attack on Iran without the use of ground forces. The US has the Air Force to do such an Attack, it will NOT be as easy as Iraq but losses on the US Side will be minimal. This is even a worse nightmare. Iran controls the whole Northern Coast of the Persian Gulf. Without ground forces to deny Iran access to that Coast, Iran can put its anti-Ship Missiles anywhere along that coast AND PROHIBIT ANY OIL FROM COMING FROM KUWAIT, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Rest of the Gulf Coast states. Furthermore Iran has missiles that can reach the Arabian main export port and thus capable of Destroying that port's ability to export oil. Iran also has support in that part of Arabia so it is possible for a terrorist attack on those and other oil facilities could be done. Sooner or later Iran, if attacked, will force the US to break off the Air Attack so that Iran will stops its attacks OR invade Iran and you get the real problem mentioned above in invading Iran.

I can see up to 50% of world wide oil production just stop within a week of such an attack. Such a Shortage will force the US into a Recession AND force the Pentagon to tell the President that he has to adopt some plan to end the Iranian attacks (i.e. stop the air attacks OR invade). Thus you back to the problem of Invading Iran OR quiting the Air Attacks. Bush will NOT want to appear "weak" so he will invade, the Invasion will succeed like it did in Iraq, but then you have an increase in unrest in Iraq (Mostly in the now quiet Shiite Section of Iraq) and guerrillas attacks on the American Forces in Iran. Bush will have to bring back the Draft just to replace the men (and women) being lost in these attacks. That will lead to domestic unrest as young people refuse to get drafted. You may even have riots (AND THAT MAY BE WHAT BUSH WANTS, RIOTS TO JUSTIFY MARTIAL LAW for the riots are hurting the troops and part of the same "terrorist agenda to destroy American").

I dread the above Nightmare, but maybe it is what Bush and Cheney wants,for it can lead to a dictatorship. Remember Bush's debacle on Social Security, Bush still wants to kill Social Security so maybe Bush believes the only way to kill Social Security is in a Dictatorship. Thus with an Invasion of Iran, he gets the Draft, he gets Riots, he uses the Riots to abolish Civil Liberties, he than passes by Decree to make his tax cut to the Rich and Abolish Social Security.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2013189&mesg_id=2013747


As scary as this analysis is, I believe happyslug is accurate.

outlined what the US strategy would be: at least six days of steady bombing of specificif sites, followed by occupation/control of those sites.

He also pointed out that there has been no contact between the US and Iran. None. He noted that it might be in everyone's best interest if we talked.

That sounds about right, six days is about how long it would take for US to start feeling the effects of Middle East oil distribution essentially shutting down. Seems like Clark knows this and is trying to get everyone talking before it's too late.

Here's a good Robert Dreyfus article on the subject:


The Twin Crises Of 2006
Robert Dreyfuss
January 03, 2006

The two most pressing foreign policy problems for the Bush administration in 2006—indeed, they might be called twin crises—are, first, the unraveling of Iraq and the emergence of a theocracy in Baghdad under the control of the Shiite religious parties, and second, the serious (though somewhat overblown and artificial) showdown that is looming over Iran's alleged nuclear program. Not surprisingly, the crises in Iraq and Iran are closely related, not least because Iran's ruling clergy is closely allied to the theocrats in Baghdad.

Handled expertly, both crises might be defused. The war in Iraq could end, meaning that by the end of 2006 the United States could be out of Iraq, leaving behind a unitary state with a semblance of political stability. And the crisis in Iran might be resolved, in the form of a package deal giving broad political and economic concessions to Iran, in exchange for Teheran's agreement to end its nuclear program and accept a Russian-led compromise arrangement.

Handled clumsily, the two crises will become one. Iraq will break up, leaving a majority Shiite-led theocracy (with nearly all of Iraq's oil) in place in southern and eastern Iraq. That regime would align itself closely with Iran, forming a fundamentalist Iran-Iraq axis that would assume an increasingly anti-American (and anti-Saudi) character. Were that to happen, or if the Bush administration's hawks decide to pre-empt it, the United States will find itself at the end of 2006 fighting a mostly Sunni, Baathist-led insurgency in western Iraq while simultaneously battling a formidable Shiite Iraq-Iran partnership to the east.

Based on its track record, we can count on the Bush administration to take the path of unfettered clumsiness.

more...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060103/the_twin_crises_of_2006.php

irregardless of the duration, IMO.

Iran will probably retaliate by trying to close off the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. I think they would succeed, since I think that modern ASM's trump modern ASM countermeasure systems, particularly if launched in mass. A current day Gulf of Taranto event in the making. The question for me is how long will it take to eliminate the launch sites (fixed and mobile). Remember how well the scud hunt went in Gulf War I?

The resultant oil price spike will necessitate our foreign lenders to spend the money they are currently loaning us on high priced oil. The interest rate and energy price shock will precipitate the 'correction' to our economy many have been anticipating.

So why would the GOPFacists initiate a course of action that has no possible beneficial outcome? Is this just saber rattling? That is my hope.

Then again, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union . . .

Could the recent rumblings of discontent from the Pentagon be related to their having to draw up a Persian version of Operation Barbarossa? The Wehrmacht also thought their Great Leaders plan of attack was misguided, but did it anyway.

Stand back and let them bomb it to hell. They will if we let them. It's how Clinton dealt with Saddam's programs-find out where they are and bomb those sites. I have faith in the Israeli intelligence community's ability to pinpoint the location. They did warn us about 9-11, after all.

Invading Iran would be disastrous. Bombing selected weapons' sites could bring on the counter-revolution that Iran so desperately needs to free it's people from the religiously insane. My dentist is an Iranian-american, whose father got the family out in the 50s, when the Shah was first deposed. They maintain contact with the family still there, and her sister (the hygenist) went back with her husband to visit within the past few years. She told me that there is a vast moderate middle class that wants open trade with the west, and to depose the mullahs. They just don't want to unleash a lot of bloodshed in the process, so they have not pursued a full scale operation.

Let me try counting, starting with your subject.



1. Let Israel deal with Iran's nuclear weapons' program

What nuclear weapons' program? That's a neo-con talking point, insisting that their nuclear program is for building nuclear weapons. Read the OP again:

“IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org )”



2. Stand back and let them bomb it to hell.

Really nice. Let's just stand back and applaud another war of aggression based on cherry-picked intelligence. And root for the aggressor that actually does have nukes. How progressive. What happened the last time this occurred? Can I think of anyone else advocating this?



3. They will if we let them.
Who exactly is we? Oh wait, I just remembered who else wants to stand back and let them bomb it to hell:

Addressing the question of a potential nuclear Iran at a news conference on Thursday, Bush shied away from ruling out an Israeli offensive strike.

"If I was the leader of Israel and I listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs about... the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well... And, in that Israel is our ally, in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if their security is threatened."

http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2005/02/18/650076054



4. I have faith in the Israeli intelligence community's ability to pinpoint the location.

The same Israeli intelligence whose estimate of Iran building a nuclear bomb runs anywhere from six months to two years, depending on which way the wind blows that day? The PNAC shares your faith.



5. Bombing selected weapons' sites could bring on the counter-revolution that Iran so desperately needs to free it's people from the religiously insane.

Iranians rise up to overthrow their government because Israel launches an aggressive airstrike against them? What propagandist outside of Curveball could believe this? I was waiting for the sarcasm similie after reading that. But then you tried to justify this with a personal anecdote:



6. My dentist is an Iranian-american, whose father got the family out in the 50s, when the Shah was first deposed.

Dr. Chalabi? All kidding aside, is your dentist the one who told you Israel bombing suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facilities will bring on a counterrevolution. He couldn't have been the one who told you "the Shah was first deposed" in the 50s. That was when we installed the Shah in place of the democratically elected Mossadegh, who was overthrown in a CIA supported coup.

Wherever you're getting your information from, you're not very well informed.

We simply cannot allow Iran to have the bomb...it's non-negotiable.

We ought to be talking to Iran, and while I hope Iran will dismantle it's nuclear weapons program peacefully, I think it likely that if force must be used it will be the U.S. and Europeans launching multi-day airstrikes, not Israel.

Just because we have more bombs than they do?

Why should Israel be the only one in the middle east with 'the bomb' (although some say Saudi Arabia has it - I am not yet convinced but wouldn't be surprised).

Why are we so concerned about Iran having the bomb, but not Pakistan or India or North Korea?

:shrug:

With N Korea, Pakistan and the former Soviet client states as possible 'leakers', it seems to me the risks of intervention far outweigh any possible benefit.

The real issue to me is Iran setting up a production line of bomb grade material, thus becoming a possible source for the only component that is difficult to obtain.

China would not be very happy about a war with Iran.

War with Iran just isn't gonna happen, because in this case there really WOULD be a mushroom cloud, but it wouldn't be coming from Iran.