Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

For everyone who is following this issue, I find the following to be facinating.

Here is a link to a U tube video
the video shows how the 60 minute mike wallace interview was edited to make Akminajad look like a crazy war monger.

Check it out

u tube link

Wallace missed (or ignored) a great opportunity to enable viewers an insight into a perception that is shared throughout the Muslim world but is not merely misunderstood but essentially prohibited in America. Even the edited version, even the simple soundbyte that remains would be considered perfectly rational and sensible by almost anyone in the Muslim world, yet in America it is interpreted as "war mongering".

Even if the the entire context had remained, it would still be completely alien to American perception. The very idea that Palestinians in the Occupied Territories should have the same right as Jews in Israel: why, it's as unthinkable as that Native Americans should have the same rights as White Males in the United States.

Granted, we Americans have progressed in our views of the former occupants of our nation since the Jackson presidency. But there was still great protest lodged recently when the National Park Service sought to commemorate the Native Americans who fought at Little Big Horn to preserve their way of life. It would be unthinkable for Americans to pay homage to the Palestinians who fought in the second intifada. We can only think of them as criminals, and those who support them as crazy war mongers.

Gerald Celente said on C2Cam that the saber rattling regarding Iran is being used as a distraction to the US economic crisis. Celente has a real high batting average, and I hope that he's also calling this one right. The last thing that the US needs is an expansion of the Mid East conflict.

could be but why would Israel rattle their saber to distract from American economy? Israel couldn't care less if the US economy tanked; they know the US will step with unconditional support regardless.

Juan Cole just wrote an article for Solon which argues from an economic angle the stupidity of attacking Iran. Hersh just wrote an article describing VP Cheney's efforts to find a justification to go to war. Obviously there is a disconnect between how and what reasonable people think and the right-wing Israeli nut cases and their unregistered American agents think.

Even Obama says he had the impression Israel would attack even without US support.

Rational arguments don't apply to neocon thinking.

You're right. I don't understand it, either. However, if Iran is attacked, I wouldn't be too surprised to see $500/barrel oil. I only hope that we don't have a terrorist incident before the elections.

Joe

Back in 2002, many people, including Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, argued from an economic angle the stupidity of attacking Iraq, but did that stop all those Republicans and a sizable minority of Democrats from authorizing the use of force?

There are other, more significant reasons why Mr. Cheney's hopes of attacking Iran have been dashed. Primary among them is the legitimate fear of reprisal against US troops in Iraq at the hands of Shi'ite Iraqis more loyal to their spiritual leaders than to their puppet government.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that sabre rattling is just as effective, or perhaps even more so, when the rattler has no real intention of attacking. Here I refer to the US only; Israel has shown repeatedly over the last two decades that it will launch a military attack whenever it pleases. The US will undoubtedly, if covertly, support any such attack, but not necessarily join in.

There is still the danger, the very real danger, that an Israeli attack would bring about shi'ite Iraqi reprisal against US troops. All the more reason for a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq. We have no reason to assume that we can't trust the Iranians, but we know from experience that we can't trust the Israelis.

And the current political instability in Israel is much more worrisome than anything from Iran.

First you say they didn't listen and they invaded and now you say they will listen and not attack. Hersh says VP Cheney was brainstorming provocation theories recently, so unless someone hit VP Cheney between the eyes and knocked some sense into his head more recently, I don't think your argument is compelling.

Military strategists would be brain dead if they allowed Israel to attack unilaterally even with US support. [your last paragraph] Israel does not have the capabilities of neutralizing or minimizing Iranian military responses. Their only concern to to "knock out" the perceived nuclear threat. Thus for the US to stand idly by would be tantamount to opening oneself to attack. If these clowns rejected a fake Iranian boat attack then certainly they would reject the notion of allowing Iranian reprisals to US occupation forces. Israel has once again forced the US into another untenable position. The US has no choice but to carry the load and try to guarantee minimal response. And with the possibility of an even more blatantly right-wing PM in Israel, VP Cheney will have his minions working overtime to find a justification which would be suitable to sell an attack to Americans.

Actually, rporter, I was not making an "argument", I was presenting what I see as opposing forces. It appears to me that the "significant reasons" currently have the upper hand over recklessly plunging into the PNAC Master Plan. For which I am grateful.

Mr. Cheney has been "brainstorming provocation" for two years now, and still no attack. For which I am grateful.

The wild card, as we seem to agree, is Israel. You seem to be under the impression that "military strategists" (I assume you mean Americans) have some power to "allow" or "disallow" Israel attacking Iran. I beg to differ, and frankly thought you were of the opposite opinion yourself. I thought you, too, were convinced that as far as Middle Eastern affairs are concerned, the Israeli tail wags the US dog.


I beg your pardon? The analogy simply does not work for me. What do you see as a "minimal response" that the US has no choice but to guarantee. A minimal response to what?

I am suggesting that in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, we would see a massive, almost spontaneous uprising of millions of Shi'ite faithful in both Iran and Iraq against the occupation forces. We would see throngs of angry jihadists armed with anything from scimitars to RPGs descending upon the various US outposts. We would see slaughter and mayhem, I say.

What sort of "minimal response" do you suggest?

Sorry didn't mean to leave that impression especially since that is apparently what I typed. What I meant to say was American strategists would not allow simply a US support role (from a US perspective)which would guarantee Iranian military response. (I do not believe the US has any influence with Israeli right-wingers). Thus when Israel has made the decision to attack Iran, the US will be forced to not just support but to be intimately involved. VP Cheney is looking for a way of selling Israel's actions to the American people.

If Israel attacks Iran it will be to neutralize the perceived nuclear threat and would thus be limited to a few facilities. This would free Iran to respond militarily in any manner it thinks fit. The US would of necessity be considered complicit in the attack as Iraqi airspace would have to be used and only the US can allow use of it as Iraq (by American design) has no air force of it's own. Thus Iran could and probably would target all US military facilities in the Persian Gulf arena and Israel.

Even though an attack could be considered an act of war, the Iranian response may be limited to proportional retaliation ... an attack on Israeli nuclear facilities (if they can actually do so). Or the response could be Iranian carpet bombing of any and all US military facilities/and Israel and any additional sabotage which may hinder or disrupt the American agenda. From a military perspective, one would wish for a minimal Iranian response and the only way to guarantee it, would be to knock out all Iranian capabilities to respond. Apparently the US has that capability.

Thus if you had the duty to plan for an attack, paramount would be built-in functions to protect both American soldiers and American interests as well as protect Israel. (Let me get this straight, Israel attacks a sovereign nation without provocation and we protect it ... hmmmm). Hence minimize an Iranian response.


This is an interesting point.

Some quick thoughts not sufficiently cooked:
from an Iraqi perspective there may be a couple of things happening. Certainly the Badr group will side with Iran but they only have about 20k soldiers and even though they are equipped with Iranian weapons they would still be no match against the US in standup fights. Add the Badr group, who even though anti-Iran are also anti-American occupation and would love the opportunity to kick out the Americans, but again they are no match. The support for these militia groups would be large and include some of the military, and even though they would field a respectable number of soldiers and have a substantial base of support they would still not be able to contain the US military. If the fighting gets tough the US would probably resort to indiscriminate bombing to neutralize organizational capabilities.
The Sunnis may then see an opportunity to re-ignite the insurgency during the chaos. The Kurds would probably remain on the sidelines consolidating their own power in anticipation of complete collapse of the Iraqi federal government.

From the Iranians we may see an even more complex set of dynamics. We may see an unprotected Iranian army attacking American bases, assisted with ultra-nationalists (maybe one could call them jihadists)but at the same time reformists may find an opportunity to force changes to even a regime change.

All in all thinking men would consider a wide panorama of possible options and outcomes to any action taken by Israel and/or the US against Iran and weigh the relative risks/rewards within the context of possible regional conflagration caused by actions not well thought through.

Israel is the key which unlocks all viable scenarios. If Netanyahu becomes PM and if Obama is perceived as a not very reliable ally, there will be more pressure placed on Israel's unregistered agents in the current administration to do something crazy.