When Will America Invade Iran? (And Will Tony Blair Send UK Troops?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/4_november_2004/html/8.stm

p.s. kerry obv wouldn't have been

Stay glued to your TV set.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html

Blair does however seem set on peace on middle east so maybe the US will have to go it alone. Hopefully that will persuade Bush to leave well alone in Iran.

Blair could never sell an Iran invasion to the Labour party. He'd be replaced by Brown within 12 hours of announcing Britain was going into Iran. The only plausible invasion scenario I could envisage would be Bliar and a rump of his party re-aligning with the Tories on the back of pro-war hysteria in the right wing press converting big chunks of public opinion. Possible, but surely unlikely.

The likely silver lining of an Iran invasion (for Brits) would be a shotgun divorce for Bliar and Dubya.

I feel a lot better after reading that. However i won't reast easy until bush or blair say so too.

When you're constantly raiding the National Guard and Reserve to maintain troop levels, and then extending their tours of duty, that's a sign right there.

"I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."

I hate these New Labour cunts even more than I hate Bush

Yeah, sorry - I should have said 'most powerful' or 'wealthiest' - I believe the PRC Red Army is the largest.

Prediction of Pre-Christmas Announcement:

Lapdog Blair, based on "intelligence" from the same unvetted, single
source, declares unequivocally that the Iranian military may be able
to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order
to do so.

The new "modeling" at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear sites to political target lists, is said to be causing deep anxiety among officials in Britain, France, and Germany, who last week appeared to have negotiated a deal with Teheran to cease work that could contribute to a nuclear weapons program. But Washington is said to be skeptical about the deal.

In mid-September, the government approved an export of body armor for Iranian security forces. Officials said the armor would be supplied to Iranian forces along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14436.shtml

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fears_of_US_attacks_on_Iran_0810.html

Oh let go you f*cking warmongerers.

Terrorism is caused by something else. Think about that first, before you plan your new war right around next year's US elections (because presidents are relatively popular when people can wave their flags, that's probably the only thing anyone has learned after 9/11. Not why it happened.)

"Would you make an overt move on Iran?" Cheney said with a grin, "For what reason?" He then added, "I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations."

^^^^ sick fuck

15 months, dick. time's a wastin'.

Guess who got the "try to implicate Iran in anything you can think of in any way possible!" memo?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/10/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Al-Sadr.php

Peter Galbraith, who after George Packer has written the best book about the American farrago in Iraq, just published this in the NY Review of Books:

The most fascinating excerpt:

A diplomatic solution to the crisis created by Iran's nuclear program is clearly preferable, but not necessarily achievable. Broadly speaking, states want nuclear weapons for two reasons: security and prestige. Under the Shah, Iran had a nuclear program but Khomeini disbanded it after the revolution on the grounds that nuclear weapons were un-Islamic. When the program resumed covertly in the mid-1980s, Iran's primary security concern was Iraq. At that time, Iraq had its own covert nuclear program; more immediately, it had threatened Iran with chemical weapons attacks on its cities. An Iranian nuclear weapon could serve as a deterrent to both Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons.

With Iraq's defeat in the first Gulf War, the Iraqi threat greatly diminished. And of course it vanished after Iran's allies took power in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion. Today, Iran sees the United States as the main threat to its security. American military forces surround Iran -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia, and on the Persian Gulf. President Bush and his top aides repeatedly express solidarity with the Iranian people against their government while the U.S. finances programs aimed at the government's ouster. The American and international press are full of speculation that Vice President Cheney wants Bush to attack Iran before his term ends. From an Iranian perspective, all this smoke could indicate a fire.

In 2003, as Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance shows, there was enough common ground for a deal. In May 2003, the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for an end to U.S. hostility. The Iranian paper offered "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD and full cooperation with the IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments." The Iranians also offered support for "the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government" in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including "above all, al-Qaeda"); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups like Hamas. In return, the Iranians asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the "axis of evil"; that all sanctions end; that the US support Iran's claims for reparations for the Iran-Iraq War as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that the US pursue anti-Iranian terrorists, including "above all" the MEK. MEK members should, the Iranians said, be repatriated to Iran.

Basking in the glory of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer and criticized Guldimann for even presenting it. Several years later, the Bush administration's abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish and the administration moved to suppress the story. Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his Op-Ed crudely censored by the NSC, which had to clear it. Guldimann, however, had given the Iranian paper to Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney, now remembered both for renaming House cafeteria food and for larceny. (As chairman of the House Administration Committee he renamed French fries "freedom fries" and is now in federal prison for bribery.) I was surprised to learn that Ney had a serious side. He had lived in Iran before the revolution, spoke Farsi, and wanted better relations between the two countries. Trita Parsi, Ney's staffer in 2003, describes in detail the Iranian offer and the Bush administration's high-handed rejection of it in his wonderfully informative account of the triangular relationship among the U.S., Iran, and Israel, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.

Australia, Britain and Israel have "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch "surgical" bombing raids on Iran targetting the Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities, according to one of America's leading investigative reporters, Seymour Hersh. In a lengthy article in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Mr Hersh details how the US is making plans for a strike on the Iran, beefing up intelligence resources within the CIA and shifting its rhetorical campaign in a bid to win support from the American people should the strikes proceed.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

"Australia, Britain and Israel have "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch "surgical" bombing raids on Iran"

Things like that make me wish all western leaders would spontaneously die.

i keep going back and forth on how likely all this is, and lately i'm tilting more toward "likely" -- for some of the same reasons of domestic political interest that made it seem unlikely 6 months ago. i think the republicans feel like they've partly defused iraq as an issue right now, what with the general confusion about what's actually happening there and what the next moves should be, but they also know that's probably temporary. by the time we get to next spring, with iraq still a hopeless muddle and troop deployments getting tough to maintain, foreign policy becomes a major problem for the republican candidates again. and republican candidates definitely can't win on domestic issues. so "widening" the war -- maybe pressing congress to vote to authorize limited action against iran, or maybe just doing it and saying it's really just part of the iraq conflict (the strategy hersh is talking about) -- changes the iraq equation and puts the democrats back on the defensive: do they have the "strength" to "protect our troops" (and by extension the rest of us) from the looming menace of iran? or do we need rudy or mitt or fred to stand up tall and face down the evildoers?

this actually seems like the best tack currently available to the GOP -- if not to actually win the white house, at least to try to stay even in congress. try to turn 2006 into a one-time doubters' blip, reclaim keep-america-strong fight-the-terror as the republican banner. it might not work, but it's exactly the kind of best-defense-is-good-offense tactic that karl rove loves.

so yeah, i'd give odds of some kind of bombing against iran in the next 8-10 months at 2-1.

it's hilarious and awful that Cheney seems to ignore the obvious: by "invading" Iran he sends Iraq into the hell he claims it will become if we pulled out troops from Iraq this year.

Sy Hersh has been advancing this meme for what, a few years now? I see where you're coming from tipsy but there's no way this is going to happen with Bush in office. The more Hersh peddles this story, the more it comes off like a paranoid fantasy. Bush has almost no political capital to work with and the U.N. is on the verge of putting even more stringent sanctions on Iran, which amounts to a pre-emptive rationale for military action. This might--might--activate some of the conservative base for 2008 but the problem with that is that the failures of the Iraq war has also agitated the isolationist wing of the Republican party. The odds remain at 50-1.

"meme"

the so-called "isolationist wing" of the republican party has never dictated policy, ever, unless a democrat happens to be in office.

I more or less agree with Don, much as I like and respect Hersh

I want to side with Shakey and Dan, but, as the article points out, when has Cheney ever given a damn about politics? It's precisely because he has nothing to lose that an attack seems possible.

that's true about Cheney's motivations - but the question is whether or not he has the power/credibility/political capital.

The larger question (which Hersh doesn't pursue much in the article) is whether or not our saber rattling is just part of the gamesmanship going on and also, is it an effective deterrent in and of itself.

you don't think Hersh is aware of when he's being used?

also, I think Cheney's too stupid/bullheaded to engage in that kind of crafty brinksmanship.

xx-post -- Yeah, that's been my thought as well -- I tend more towards the Stratfor hyperwonk 'who is bluffing who and how well' analysis, though I don't rule out the hyperstupid approach in this case. NOBODY should.

Hersh is doubtless aware.

hersh is a bit of a wolf-crier here, but i think all his articles have reflected real conversations and real strategies going on inside the vice president's office, the pentagon, and assorted neocon institutions. if they've been overblown it's more in their overestimation of how much power those groups have to get what they want. i think it's completely clear that cheney, kristol, et al (the "crazies" mohammed elbaradei talked about) very much want to hit iran and have for a long time. they've been kept in check by a lot of things, most notably the ongoing disaster of iraq. but remember, the invasion of iraq itself only happened when it aligned with parochial political interests (the 2002 midterm election). i think we're reaching a point where those political interests -- the ability of the republican party and its interest groups to either maintain whatever power they have or at least minimize their losses -- are once again lining up with the "crazies." republicans know they do better when they have a clear enemy to rally people against. in 2008, that's iran.

there's been a lot of talk about how the next election will be about iraq, which is a sure GOP loser. to the extent they can, they will try to make it about iran. bombing them is an excellent way to do that. it's politically risky, for sure, but they've got very little else to work with. i don't think it's a foregone conclusion, but i think it does tip the arrow into the red in terms of likelihood.

How 'political' would it be when Rodham, Obama and Edwards are all singing the Iran Must Not Go Nucular chorus?

<i>you don't think Hersh is aware of when he's being used?</i>

You think he gets a lot of deep cover quotes from Team Cheney? I dunno, I sort of suspect that most of his key unknown sources are people who think that Team Cheney and the Neocons are pretty dubious in their warring ways. Hersh has been covering State and the Pentagon for four (?) decades and I'd be real surprised if Hersh worked with anyone who he thought could or would use him.

Gypsy's OTM but let's clarify that a bit: given the actions and words of Iran over the past 12 months, it seems logical that the Bushco would have an array of plans to attack Iran on moments' notice. I mean, aren't they kind of obligated to do that? You think Bush is going to sit there idly if a wayward missile flies over from Iran and into American troops in Iraq?

Just a reminder: This isn't about nuclear weapons. It is and will always be about oil.

The sole reason why an Iranian nuclear program is of such profound concern to Cheney, Bush, Clinton, Obama and Edwards is that it will tilt the balance of power in the middle east and weaken the US position. Any such tilt is seen as contrary to US and western interests.

The fact that such weapons will never be used in any war between Iran and the west (and they never will) is irrelevant to this consideration.

I think the main problem both politically and militarily is that attacking Iran in any way will essentially weaken the US's hand in Iraq - because what is the first thing Iran is going to do in response? Orchestrate a massive destabilization campaign in Iraq. My guess would be that convincing the necessary military planners that this is a good idea that will actually gain the US anything tangible (beyond some brownie points for Repub politicians) is going to be nigh impossible.

I think the main problem both politically and militarily is that attacking Iran in any way will essentially weaken the US's hand in Iraq - because what is the first thing Iran is going to do in response? Orchestrate a massive destabilization campaign in Iraq.

exactly.

right but there are some strong constituencies for whom what actually happens in iraq and iran in the long or even short term is only important inasmuch as it makes it more or less likely that the federal government will abolish the estate tax, make tax cuts permanent, regulate hedge funds, expand the federal health care mandate, privatize social security, etc. if you can convince them that limited aggression against iran -- something short of a full-scale war -- will help the GOP retain greater clout in the domestic agenda, a lot of those interest groups will sign on. the ramifications for iraq are a concern for the next election. (you have to keep in mind what a short-term game a lot of these people play. every year that their guys are in power is worth X millions or billions of dollars. so play for this year, worry about next year next year.)

Yeah. The GOP divisions aren't between "netroots" and those in DC so much as the NRO/Defense Policy Board thinktankers (Abrams, Kristol, Perle, etc) and Congress (for whom those things tipsy mentioned are more important and relevant, i.e. will get them re-elected).

and i think trying to knit all those things together is what this group is up to, among others.