Sunday, November 21, 2004

Iranian Invasion Alert: Blair told to choose

The Guardian (UK) is reporting a leak from the Pentagon indicating that they've switched from war-gaming from simulations where they strike Iranian nuclear sites to simulating strikes on political targets in support of a regime change in Iran.

Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets.

With a deadline of tomorrow for Iran to begin an agreed freeze on enriching uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, sources have disclosed that the latest Pentagon gaming model for 'neutralising' Iran's nuclear threat involves strikes in support of regime change.

Although the United States has made clear that it would seek sanctions against Iran through the United Nations should it not meet its obligations, rather than undertake military action, the new modelling at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear to political target lists, is causing deep anxiety among officials in the UK, France and Germany.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to meet on Thursday to decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for being in breach of non-proliferation measures.

Sources close to the Bush administration have warned that Tony Blair will have to choose between the EU's pursuit of the diplomatic track and a more hardline approach from the White House. [emphasis added]

The logic behind the scenes seems to be that they think they can get domestic authorization for airstrikes on Iran in the same punitive vein as airstrikes against Saddam, and then when Iran responds by shafting the US forces in Iraq, this provides justificattion for full escalation to ground mobilization.

Crazy, insane, completely different from the air strikes on Iraq, no similar authorization from the international community, etc. yes I know all that.

Nonetheless from a political domestic PoV it may work. Remember all the times over the last decade and a half where we bombed Iraq, or cruise-missiled Afghanistan and Sudan? Once you start thinking of it like that, you realize this is a viable strategy on the table.

Make a tactical set of air-strikes unilaterlly on Iran that you know will fail based on bad-faith previous precedents, do absolutely nothing to prevent the absolutely predictable retaliation against troops in Iraq, then use the retaliation to incite the public for a ground war against Iran.

The scary thing is that it will work.


At November 21, 2004 at 10:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure whether it is not just the "usual" pursuit of scenario simulation. The action that you outlined is definitely a scenario that may come to pass, so you better be prepared. On the other hand, what you are perparing yourself for (in case somebody learns) may entail feedback on the reality that you are going to be faced with.

But I don't really have the slightest expertise with those matters. One thing that seems reasonably safe to say though is that handling both Iraq and Iran is infeasible. (Looks like Iraq alone fits this description.)


At November 23, 2004 at 7:55 PM, Blogger J Thomas said...

So, anybody want to lay a bet on which way Blair will choose?

At January 25, 2005 at 2:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is the most likely course of action george bush would take. he is told that strikes at leadership targets will shake iran by destroying the invinsibility
of the mullahs and empowering the nation against them.
then its believed W is going to ask the mullahs to peacefully and honorably give up their positions and let the people take over. just like than, piece of cake.
this just like their iraq policy could backfire and result in a disasterous regional war.
iran may strike back hard and syria could get involved.
who knows how bad the mess could get, other nations and wmd's unleashed. iraq could look like a picnic compared to it.
this could be george bush's greatest legacy.
total hatred for US and the absolute certainty of more terrorism. he will have inflamed the muslim world for decades more against the US.

At February 12, 2006 at 4:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By bombing government and administration targets George W. Bush will anger the people of Iran. Many of these are historical places and all are national structures which are used by passing administrations. Iranian government is complex and mostly democratically elected. Those who are not democratically elected are picked by thr democratically elected members and they in turn also pick some other unelected officials. A bombing on these places would hurt ministers, governors, emergency response officials, planners, and so on. As for the comment abput empowering the Iranian people it has always been the American and British government who have tried to take power away from the Iranian people and set up a dictator in Iran. No thank you. Iran was a liberal democracy at one point under Professor Mossadegh which the Americans and British helped dismantle due to the fact that oil was nationalized (meaning its revenue belonged to all the people under the managment of the Iranian government) instead of being given to British and American companies for almost free. The moment Iran is bombed Iranians and other nationalities will give their total support to the present elected government of Iran. You can also bet that the war will spread to new fronts and that Iranian allies will get involved. Iraq, the whole Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and the Balkans will ignite. This will be no picnic and even the Pentagon has calculated very heavy American deaths. Oil prices will go up and there will be international shortages of energy, which will add to world wide anger. Do not forget that China is a strategic ally of Iran and that Indonesia, Malysia, South Africa, and the OIC will be at diplomatic odds with America and the White House. China, Japan, and the EU will start feeling the heat from a lack of oil and demand an end to any confrontation. There will be increasing pressure from the United Nations, the Roman Catholic Church and all other Churches, Muslim leaders, Russia, China, the Arab League, Europe, and the world against America. Iran also has two naval forces, one being the Revolutionary Guard Naval Forces and the other the Regular Navy with Coast Guard auxiliary, that have known capabilities of damaging and sinking American warships. There are also Iranian missiles that can reach Israel, Europe, and American troops and bases anywhere in the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Violence will solve any problem especially when there is only theoritical doubts about the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program.

At February 12, 2006 at 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Violence will "NOT" solve any problem especially when there is only theoritical doubts about the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program.

At February 24, 2007 at 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi all!

cheap xanax
cheap xanax
buy cheap xanax
cheap xanax online
buy cheap xanax online

cheap xanax
buy cheap xanax
cheap xanax online
buy cheap xanax online


At August 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM, Anonymous Buy Levitra said...

Great article! Thanks.

At August 18, 2007 at 10:32 PM, Anonymous Phentermine said...

Thanks for interesting article.

At September 10, 2007 at 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonimous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!


Post a Comment

<< Home