Why America will reap in Iran what it doesn’t expect

This time around, the United States is in for a big trouble. It is attacking Iran, not for the reason that it has, or it is planning to have nuclear weapons, but only because it has assumed that Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons.

Many analysts believe that an attack on Iran will turn into a World War because the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. However, the main reason for escalation of the conflict will be exactly the assumption on the part of the United States, Israel and Britain that Iran cannot respond with nuclear weapons.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11981.htm




:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

whatIran holds in store.

Could a newly elected administration in '08 withdraw immediately in '09 without "losing face"? Even were a new admin. to be wholly opposed ideologically to war in Iran, would it believe itself to be in a position of weakness on the world stage were it to end such a war unilaterally? And what would the consequences be of an immediate withdrawl? We can pretty well guess what would happen if they kept up the status quo.

It will pull others in and be very hard to stop,

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

If / when we attack Iran, the next administration would either be forced to continue the war or, basically, unconditionally surrender to whoever's on the other side (Iran / Russia / China?). It becomes the ultimate in no-win situations.

But doesn't it somewhat depend on who aligns against us? Can we be sure that Russia would line up with Iran (as oppsed to tryimg to stay neutral...I KNOW they won't side with the U.S.). And even if they are drawn in, can they really want a prolonged war with us. How likely is it that a change in administrations might make foreign governments more reasonable (not requiring "uncondidtional" surrender, for example). I figure China could give a flying cheney and would be just as happy to war with us as not. After all, its just the proles dying. Iran would be the vortex, so they'd fight to the death unless saner heads brokered a deal. But what would Russia - a weakened nation with no geographic contiguity with the U.S. - get out of unconditional surrender? Iran would get bragging rights, as would China + maybe some economic incentive. But all I can see happening to Russia is a further deterioration of their geopolitical position. Could bragging rights be so important to them that they'd pursue all out war, or am I missing some other very real benefit to victory?

This is all top-of-the-head reasoning, so apologies in advanced for the scattered-braininess of it.

China - a major war with the US would give them all the justification they need, I suspect, for launching an invasion of Taiwan and, most likely, taking it. I'd also presume that they'd be funnelling arms, etc., into the Middle East - they want the oil that's there as much as anyone else. I don't see anyone there having severe objections to selling to China. That could seriously stall many of the western economies while letting China really get moving (even more so).

Russia - hard to say one way or t'other. On the one hand, yes, they're very weakened, both militarily and economically. On the other... I dunno. Maybe they'd want Alaska back? :)

My reason for (above) using the term "unconditional surrender" is because, aside from removing troops stationed abroad, there's not much else we could give up. This isn't like the two previous land wars in Europe where a major aspect of ceasing hostilities was to roll back the borders. In this case, the US itself would not be / have been a battleground.

(I'm specifically avoiding the question of retaliatory strikes, conventional or nuclear, on the US. The only way that happens is with sub-launched or silo-launched ICBMs and that just gets *really* scary. I hope that NYC isn't on anyone's major targetting list, 'cause, if they are, I'm probably too close. :()

So, as the (presumptive) victors in such a conflict, the other side would want assurances that the US would not pull this kind of stunt again. We'd probably see some sort of post-WWI-style conditions placed on the US in terms of allowed military forces, etc. On the other hand, so long as we're not actually invaded by the Russians or Chinese, it might give the country a chance to get back on its feet and rebuild all of the infrastructure that's gone to crap over the past decades...

Sigh... I hate needing to think like this.

Edit to fix formatting...

of all possible outcomes:

So, as the (presumptive) victors in such a conflict, the other side would want assurances that the US would not pull this kind of stunt again. We'd probably see some sort of post-WWI-style conditions placed on the US in terms of allowed military forces, etc. On the other hand, so long as we're not actually invaded by the Russians or Chinese, it might give the country a chance to get back on its feet and rebuild all of the infrastructure that's gone to crap over the past decades...

This might actually be the best path to world peace. It's pretty clear that the American left is powerless to derail the American military machine.

Imagine what we could do if we were unburdened of the military-industrial yoke that has kept us in slavery for 6 decades. Even though there would be less $$ overall, we might be able to afford universal health care, decent education for everyone, a revitalization of the inner cities...

If only the winners will be as kind to us as we were to Japan and to defeated Europe in the 40's.

Russia is the wild card. I'll admit I had forgotten about Taiwan, and given *'s promises on that front it seems that a ground invasion of China would almost necessarily result. I still have a hard time imagining Russia committing to a prolonged, conventional conflict, since they do not have as much to gain as China. By the same token, China would have a difficult time committing troops to Iran, given their geographic remove. However, should they open up a second front in Taiwan as you suggest...

What's more despairing than <sigh>?

After all, start with a US military that's already more focused on the Middle East than anywhere else in the world. Add in the heating-up elements of an air assault on Iran, and the fallout (pun semi-intended) from that. Besides China/Taiwan, we could also toss North Korea into the mix. After all, it's a pretty easy jump to say that the US would want to pull ground forces out of South Korea / the DMZ in order to have boots on the ground elsewhere. I can't see North Korea not taking advantage of that with either some serious saber-rattling or an outright attack.

And, let's be honest, once the first (third, if you want to count back to 1945) nuclear weapon is used in anger, all bets are going to be off.

Where's the call right now to leave Iraq?

A new administration just wouldn't be ideologically opposed to war with Iran--that's like believing in the tooth fairy.

Why do I know I am right---
And what would the consequences be of an immediate withdrawl?

You are already decided that they will attack and now you are demanding answer as to why leave?

Huh? What are you asking here that can't be asked of Iraq right now?

I think it's pretty clear that the * administration isn't going to leave Iraq. The question is "suppose we actually get to change governments in 2008, after we've attacked Iran... then what?"

There was a different admin elected in 1968? How did that work out vis a vis Vietnam?

I am a bit taken back that you think that another Admin of any kind will choke off American imperialism...support of Israel and expansion of US hegemonic power is endemic to the US political system?

I would no more expect in 2008 coherency on this portofolio than anyone would expect the US to even lighten up it's Cuban file...ain't going to happen no matter who's elected.

I think that trying to draw a parallel to Vietman is specious at best, because an attack of Iran is *highly* unlikely to wind up being solely conventional armaments and boots on the ground. The "long range missiles, possibly with nuclear warheads" approach is much more likely.

As much as I'm sure everyone hates the comparison, I think it would be more appropriate to try and imagine that, in 1942, the populace of Germany elected a new leadership. Even if that leadership were anti-war, how, realistically, could they have stopped the war. Hence my Kosh quote (above).

in washington don't expect a bigger war. In fact,
I believe that is exactly what they want. Look at
the escalation of the 'cartoon' controversy, keeping in
mind that this is right up the alley of CIA operations.

They just don't want to hit Iran until all of the members
of the muslim brotherhood are in an uproar enough to
bring on the wider war.

To say that they do or assume that they do and base arguments upon that assumption is disinformation.

Even if they had one or two nuclear weapons, which they don't, it makes absolutely no sense that they would use them in light of the fact that they would be annihilated. It's called deterence and has been the foundation of nuclear power politics for several decades. In fact if any party were to surreptitiously deliver a nuclear weapon to Iran or any terrorist organization whether related to Iran or not they would be playing directly into the hands of neo-con war mongers. I don't think the Chinese, Russians, or India would allow that to happen. Can't say the same for Pakistan.

Of course there are those who choose to ignore the mechanics of deterence because it suits their defense contractor objectives.

The truth of the matter is that peaceful enterprise is what the neo-cons fear most from Asian nations. They are burying us economically and the globalist free traders and their corporatist bankrollers gave them the shovels to do it. Iran, Russia, and China have peaceful economic plans that spell trouble for American power and influence. Americans are facing a financial crisis. No one knows exactly when it will be triggered. American corporate elites hope to use coercion to fend it off.

1) red mercury doesn't exist, it's probably a story invented by the KGB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

2) has Iran nuclear weapons or not ? the article contradicts itself several times on that point. Still the author assumes they have... how ? a bomb bought in Pakistan ? even if they didn't ?

3) A bigger war that breaks up in the ME is bad enough. No need of nukes for that. All the nations that won wars against the WEst in the after WWII-period won them through asymmetrical warfare. Not with nukes.