Slipping Loose The Dogs of War - Scenarios of War With Iran

This article ignores the fact that there has not been a big enough build up in the gulf to do this.

And you ignore the fact that there was not enough of a build-up for the Iraq war either, yet it still happened.

Dubya and the advisors he listens to (as opposed to the ones who know what they are talking about) have God complexes and probably get their military tactics from Hollywood movies. Attacking Iran with far too few assets in the region and no plan for after the first week is exactly the type of thing The Decider would decide to do...he's already done it twice!

If we do not deal with iran we will be fighting them when they have nuclear weapons, brigades of suicidal bombers, and a huge support system here in the usa. Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away.

Sounds like echoes of Cheney, Rice & co. before the Iraq war, when they told us, "if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here," and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

There might be more truth to it in this situation, but they haven't convinced me, and they're not going to convince me until they've tried some real face-to-face diplomacy. And, have we learned nothing from the long history of bad results from launching an attack on a second front, especially when the first front ain't doing so well? Maybe the president wants to be doomed to repeat history, but I don't think we the people need to.

Evano, I couldn't agree with you more. Killfile, you have obviously spent a significant amount of time learning about the situation in the Persian Gulf. While I do not see the immediate concern (yet), I commend you on placing your finger on the pulse and getting the word out as you see it. Very nice work.

Killfile, fantastic article...on the question of whether sufficient ground forces can be mustered to put boots on the ground:

Do not forget that US troops can be pulled out of many places where they are now. The troops in Iraq are doing nothing of military value such that significant numbers of them can be moved to Iran. If the US was attacked, it would have enough troops to defend itself. In any of the scenarios painted above, it will be projected as US under attack.

I think Olusye's point here is a good one. It's almost certain that in addition to the two carrier groups, the large majority of the ground troops -- particularly the more highly mechanized units capable of significant road march -- would be pressed into service in any scenario evolving from a phase 1 air campaign to a phase 2 ground war.

Moreover, Iraq has already made clear that it will not suffer the United States to use its airstrips to launch attacks against Iran.9

Hah! I suspect that in this scenario Iraq's protests would have as much impact as Saddam's protestations about his weapons of mass destruction.

...Iran has been rumored to possess...India-1...It's release into any population from Iraq to Manhattan, would constitute a world-wide pandemic with casualties in the billions.

And perhaps the fundamentalist U.S. president would consider this 'the end times'...Even if not, the force of "rumours" is probably not driving many decisions in the White House sit room these days. Short of 'doomsday weapons', the U.S. Army has been not-so-quietly upgrading its abilities to operate on a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance (NBCR) posture for the last six years. While a lot of the army's capability has been eroded since the invasion of Iraq, this is a capability that has been largely untouched.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I believe we're still looking at bluster here. But this president has surprised me (and many others) before this. It's not outside the realm of possibility that some smart bombs will get lobbed, just as a show of force -- which needn't necessarily end in utter disaster. But if it does happen, the problem is that you're spinning a roulette wheel; essentially the hand of fate takes over and the ability of any one player to control destiny is surrendered. Anything could happen.

Killfile, as an aside, I'd like to see you do a "cost analysis" study for the Global War on Terror for the benefit of people like sonofdy. The cost since 9/11 has easily surpassed a trillion dollars and we have precious little to show for it in the way of reducing Islamic terrorism. If anything, its probably worse now. Is this sustainable? Might there be a "better way" to fight terrorism? One that doesn't add trillions to the debt our children will be paying off. It would be an interesting study....

Jim

There are those among the Bu@!$%#es who think that opening a third front is brilliant since the US does have a geographically continguous zone of influence to project its power.

Where will the troops come from you ask. These people think it depends on the manner of approach to war. Three scenariosL

1. Brinksmanship by Bush and Iranian tension leads to an attack by Iran or a proxy.
2. Iran seeing the massing up of US military assets in its hood begins a series of actions which are widely believed to be its possible recourse. E.g. mobilisation of proxies and handing of WMDs to terror groups, US intercepts.
3. The US pursues militia into Iran. They cross the Iranians border and are shot down. Bush orders punitive raids in retaliation. Iran escalates.
4. Same as three but in this case it's a straight-out Bush attack.

What do you reckon would be the response from Americans? Have in mind that military action against Iran is very popular among hawks. Also keep in mind that when Iran does attack the US in tangible ways that can be seen by the public, it won't matter one dime what started the war. Many many will enlist.

Do not forget that US troops can be pulled out of many places where they are now. The troops in Iraq are doing nothing of military value such that significant numbers of them can be moved to Iran. If the US was attacked, it would have enough troops to defend itself. In any of the scenarios painted above, it will be projected as US under attack.

The US does have a number of nations that might support it in a war with Iran namely, Britain, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Egypt.

This is how these people see it. It's far-fetched but so was the invasion of Iraq.

Consolidation of Iran and Iraq into one war gives a clear military mission. The significance of this is that restraints on Bush's ability to call up personnel and equipment will be eliminated.

It won't be an easy war or a sane war but it will be a real war, one which the US will fight to death once started.

2. Iran becomes frightened and launches a massive shore to ship attack against our Gulf fleet causing great damage to ships, aircraft and death to personnel. At the same time Iranians embedded in the government and forces of Iraq incite those forces to turn on the US troops which are now in small groups surrounded by Shia militias.

I doubt this would happen as a pre-emptive strike - even when threatened - would be derided by most of the world.

It would be extremely foolish on Iran's part to presumptively strike the U.S. fleet as it would guarantee war (and a justified war at that).

You only attempt to kill the king if you are confident you will not fail in that endeavor. Machiavelli. Iran would be very foolish to provoke this Country into a war as they are unable to deal a mortal blow.

I just read an AP post (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-US.html?hp&ex=1170997200&en=e8cfd0c77851357c&ei=5094&partner=homepage) where Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, publicly stated that if the U.S. attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate by attacking U.S. interests across the globe, including kidnapping Americans everywhere. That is how Iran intends to deter a U.S. attack. Hussein used a similar ploy back in 2003. However, we are stretched more thinly militarily than we were in 2003 so Khamenei may have more of a chip that Hussein had.

Under the present circumstances, I do not see Iran striking first. If they did, I would be highly suspect of what they had up their sleeve . . .

I would agree that if the U.S. and Iran were presented with only an "either / or" situation, the prisoner's dilemma scenario would be present. However, as the Ali Khamenei publicly stated earlier, Iran does not believe its only weapons are missiles and tanks or even assets located with Iran. In fact, Iran believes its best assets lie outside its borders, throughout the world, and may properly be identified as potential hostages/civilian casualties of war. Again, I would be surprised if Iran struck first (especially knowing how deep we are in Iraq right now).

"Wag the dog"? Oh you mean after Clinton launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, where bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp? Yeah, that was purely a distraction.

Operation Desert Fox, The four day bombing campaign of Iraq during the Impeachment proceedings.

But that is besides the point. What is the political gain that Killfile mentioned for Bush to attack Iran?

I think you are overestimating a lot of that boost.

I think you are also overestimating Bush's want of a political boost. With the Democrats in control of Congress his entire domestic agenda is gone. Not that he really had much of one left. He spent one committee and about two speeches on tax reform and he made a big deal out of social security reform in 2004, but dropped it almost immediately in 2005.

He's going through with the rest of Iraq regardless of Congressional action or popularity polls.

He's also shown a almost no care for popularity polls throughout his presidency.

I don't really think he values a political boost at all right now, and the boosts would mean very little in terms of what he can do.

For the rest of 2007 and 2008 we're basically going to see the status quo with an occasional veto every now and then.

Attacking Iran poses no benefits, political or otherwise, for Bush, the "Neocons" or the Republican party in general.

I agree with Adam. And there is immense downside for Bush, Republicans, Neo-Cons, Big-Oil, etc., if the situation in the Middle-East ignites into a full-scale regional war. Invading Iran would be just the catalyst to ignite that fire.

We have more than a few allies in the Middle-East whose populaces are filled with anti-American sentiment, pacified for the time-being. If we entered Iran, the consequences could flow exponentially and Bush and all the Kings horses and men couldn't stop it. I am quite confident the White House is aware of this downside, which should ensure that a pre-emptive attack against Iran does not occur.

I don't really think he values a political boost at all right now, and the boosts would mean very little in terms of what he can do.

But he does care about history. These guys know that America will eventually win a real war with Iran, not the UN type patrols in Baghdad, and he wants to go down as the guy who made the Middle East safe for American interests.

I think you're wrong to imply that because he doesn't care about popularity he is unmindful of the fact that no war can be fought for long periods without popular support. On Iraq he has all but admitted that he has 6 months and no more to make it work. That's a reality even he has acknowledged.

It's not just the initial boost in popularity; it's taking back the impetus by getting Military, Congress, Public and media behind him again. By making it all one war it's very easy for him to then argue that losing will give that part of the world to guess who, THE TERRORISTS, and not leaving Israel vulnerable to an arc of instability that stretches from Pakistan to Israel's backyard in Syria.

Unless one challenges the fundamental assumptions of the argument, it's a compelling argument. I suspect that just as in the case with Iraq, you will buy it Adam.

Of course, the fundamental assumptions are horribly wrong.

I suspect that just as in the case with Iraq, you will buy it Adam.

I doubt it. I view Iraq as more a continuation of the Gulf War. We finished off what we didn't finish then.

Iran so far has done nothing more than talk tough. Until they attack their Kuwait, I feel it is far better to stay away.

Also the political power structure of Iran and Iraq are completely different. Iraq was a dictatorship plain and simple. There was no way to bring that down without removing Saddam. Iran is completely different. Their government is far far more responsive to the people. Attacking Iran will only unite Iranians against us. Leaving them be will allow Iranians to start to question their own government, especially as they look around at the freer and far more successful countries like Kuwait, Jordan and potentially Iraq down the line.

Iran so far has done nothing more than talk tough. Until they attack their Kuwait, I feel it is far better to stay away.

So your judgement about war is conditional upon restraint, and cost-benefit?

I fear I must respectfully disagree with some of Mr. Bassir's assertions above. I think they reflect somewhat-widely-held misunderstandings of both situations, and misunderstandings shared by many people in the US. Misunderstandings can be hazardous to the health of a country.

America will eventually win a real war with Iran, not the UN type patrols in Baghdad

To begin with, there is no such thing as "a real war", in the sense of encountering the war the policy makers and the military have prepared to fight. There is just the actual war which the military encounters in the field.

For example, the US had prepared for a very long time to respond to an armored surge through the Fulda Gap by Warsaw Pact forces. As a result, they experienced real problems responding to the real world of events. These problems ranged from multiple clumsy and slow intervention attempts by the US during the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia to the more current initial dependence by the US upon lightly- or un-armored rapid-mobility troop carrier vehicles developed for open-country anti-armor operations to carry out urban operations against irregular forces in the former Iraq.

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" can have really problematic consequences when the army you have actually does think there is a generic or specific "real war" for which they should prepare.

To make the second point, US forces are not and have not been patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities under "UN type" rules of engagement. Nothing I get from any of the media I observe supports that assertion. What I can gather from talking with my nephew (third generation serving career officer, multiple Iraq tours, Desert Training Center for now and I am thankful for that) supports that assertion.

Oops... the last sentence above is supposed to start with "Nothing I can gather", like the sentence before.

Sorry about the editing error.

What I mean by real war is one in which the rules of engagement are clear, the mission is against a clearly defined enemy and the way victory will be won is clear.

In Iran, the aim will be to take out the Republican Guard, overwhelm the nation from air, take own the regime, take down its key defence installations, take down the nuke programs. Victory will be won when this is done.

Contrast to Iraq where the definition of victory widely given has nothing to do with what the US military can achieve.

I take your point. The military realities always alter the actual war from that which was planned. Still, looking ahead we can see that a war with Iran will be exactly the type the US military is well suited for.

I did not mean that US troops in Iraq have a UN type rules of engagement. I mean that the mission is of the type usually taken on by the UN, referee a civil war to help a weak central government take control. That's not a war, that's a police action. That's what they used to be called by the UN.

One of the problems here is that the occupying force created the conditions that made the civil war possible, perhaps even inevitable.

The War Powers Act allows President Bush to commit troops to Iran for 90 days without asking Congress' permission. In 90 days Mr Bush can cause a lot of trouble - potentially forcing Congress to go along with him . . . Only Bush has the constitutional authority to order around the military.

On the contrary, Congress has sole authority to determine whether the US goes to war -- it has merely abrogated its responsibilities. The War Powers Act is intended to allow the President to respond to a "crisis" scenario. The authors of the Act clearly had in mind a nuclear war. However, in the absence of imminent use of weapons of mass destruction, there is no reason to give the President the ability to use force.

The War Powers Act should be amended to something much more restrictive -- perhaps the following:
1) No large scale military action may be undertaken for more than 48 hours without congressional approval. Additionally, any such action must be justified by demonstrated use of, or imminent risk of, the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
2) Covert operations may be undertaken in foreign countries but must be reported to Congress immediately and approved within 30 days.
3) The use of private military contractors in any capacity shall not be exempt from these conditions.

Constitutionally speaking, Congress could do this right now. Such a change would almost certainly prevent a skirmish with Iran from escalating to war.

True. I concur. However, this brinkmanship game can easily go awry, like a Tom Clancy novel.

BTW, your article was clear, well researched, and very well presented. I have read a whole lot of stuff on the Iran posturing and yours is the best article I have read. Well done, indeed. A tribute to citizen journalism and to Newsvine.

Luckily it's a mountainous island. Sandy beaches are expensive and not a good defensive position in case of invasion.

jnearen, I've commented that this may be a bluff, but how do we explain the battle groups in the Gulf and how does W respond to the nuclear build-up? Paranoia implies delusion but the carrier groups and the nuclear threat appear real.

Carrier groups get deployed to the Gulf at the drop of a rusty oil can.

They've gotta go somewhere. It may as well be the Gulf. It's handy to a lot of things.

Evano, your point about the differences in terrain between the sprint to Baghdad and a similar road march to Tehran is well taken. There are more ways than one to skin a cat, though...and I assume the strategy would be different from the one used in Iraq (i.e., closer to the strategy deployed in Operation Torch in WWII, with battles like that of Kasserine Pass than to the earlier eastern Africa Campaign between Rommel and the Desert Rats).

If we were to defeat Iraq through sustained air attacks on infrastructure and military, how would we manage to hold the conquered nation or prevent internal strife or enforce any kinds of bans on resumption of weapons development?

By using 'Lessons Learned' from the most recent conflict (Iraq)? (I'm only being 80% sarcastic here, actually).

What would be China's reaction to an attack certain to have devastating consequences to one of its leading suppliers of oil? Other than military engagement, would China cause harm to the US economy by dumping large quantities of the US Treasury securities they hold? Could they supply financial aid to Iran while oil production is interrupted?

Good question. Frankly, I always wondered why China remained so utterly mute while the U.S. bullied the Pakistanis into compliance (albeit sulky and fitful compliance). Pakistan is arguably one of China's key allies in the region, and a necessary counter-balance against India, but they didn't say boo about Bush leaning on Musharraf.

What would Russia's reaction be to an attack on its Caspian Sea neighbor? What are Russia's ties -- if any -- with Iran?

I think there would be -- again -- a quid pro quo. The U.S. would agree to look the other way while Russia finishes off (or tries to) its own internal 'Moslem problem'.

The key to a war with Iran will be the Straits of Hormuz. Its (arguably) defensibly by Iran, short of a land invasion, which is doubtful, given our current involvement in two other fronts that require our ground forces. Whoever controls the straits, controls about 25% of the worlds oil. If Iran is attacked by us, you can bet that every supertanker passing the straits will become a target. In that way, Iran will involve the rest of the world. Mainly China, who depends on oil flowing through the straits to fuel their economic expansion. There's really no need to go any further into Iran than a 20-40 mile buffer to protect the straits. If war with Iran becomes a reality, China will come down on Iran's side rather than having us control the straits. Things could get away from us faster than a campfire in a 40mph gale....

Thanks for that, Infohack. It's strange but, Iran getting nuclear weapons makes the region -- and the world -- much less safe. But, because of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Iran having nuclear weapons makes the region safer. If Iran had even one bomb, Israel would likely not attack because, with the tiny size of Israel, one large bomb could destroy a significant portion of the population and infrastructure. Even with a bomb, Iran would likely not bomb Israel because of the presumption that Israel has many bombs and would certainly retaliate, causing massive destruction to Iran. That kind of deterrence is partially responsible for the strained but stable situation between such long-standing rivals as India and Pakistan. It's not a terrible situation, and likely less liable to boil over than the current situation.

This may sound heretical or ridiculous, but -- despite their religious zealotry -- I almost wish China or Russia would sell them a bomb and thereby change the situation from crisis to stalemate. Insane idea?

No.

Except that we should be trying to get everyone to disarm. Roll back nuclear programs across board.

There are three primary concerns that I see with Iran getting nukes (I acknowledge that these currently exist with Pakistan possessing nukes):

1) The concept of MAD works as long as God does not reward the faithful for destroying the infidels with the holy bomb. That was not a problem in our dealings with Russia or China (as Sting hoped for in his song "Russians,"

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

2) If Iran supplies a 'terrorist nuke' to Hezbollah as they have with all other types of weapons and missiles, then Iran, through Hezbollah, can strike a nuclear attack against Israel and Israel has no nation-state in which to retaliate. Following a Machiavellian and MAD strategy, Israel would need to respond by annihilating every Middle-Eastern country to make sure that the attacker did not get away with the greatest murder of an entire peoples in the history of the world. That would not be good for anyone; and

3) Given the political instability of Iran from a decades-long view, nukes could end up in the hands of terrorists simply through an overthrow of the government.

It is probably too late but the greatest immediate threat to world security and stability is and will be the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons and/or material. When I was in college, I believed Michael Parenti was over-reacting regarding nuclear-proliferation. Now, I am confident that none of us were listening anywhere near as closely as we should have been . . .

Ask Jacques Chirac about this.

Killfile, what do you mean when you say

if Iran wanted to "kill the infidels with the holy ______" they've had the means to do so for decades and haven't tried

?

I agree with your point but do not reach the same conclusion as you from that point (e.g., investing in a stock because it has always gone up, does not by any means mean that it will continue to do so. While indicative of a possible future course of action, it is not dis-positive).

Where we differ is that I would not conclude that just because Iran has not passed along chemical weapons to terrorists in the past (less destructive weapons), necessarily means that when Iran obtains nuclear bombs, that it would not do so with them.

It would be an ill-fated move for Iran to supply Hezbollah with chemical weapons that would only provoke Israel into a full-scale, heavy assault on Iran with weapons of mass destruction intended to send a message to Iran, and everyone else, never to try that again. However, if Iran gained weapons that could, in the words of Ahmedinajad, "wipe Israel off the map," then Iran might consider that to be an optimal occasion to initiate such actions.

The facts that we do know: Iran has stated its intention to "wipe Israel from the map" (while I have seen contrarian interpretations of this, what I have not seen is Ahmedinajad renounce that his intention was not what he said it was: "to wipe Israel off the map"). 2. Iran seeks a nuclear bomb so badly it is willingly to go to war to get it; and 3. Iran supplies and supports Hezbollah's terrorist activities against Israel. Based on these known facts, I do not trust Iran to act logically or rationally if and when it goes nuclear. My uneasiness in this regard is compounded when I acknowledge that Iran is a theocratic state and I think of the justification that the suicide bombers use before they die: God will reward me for what I am about to do and who I am about to kill . . .

The facts that we do know: Iran has stated its intention to "wipe Israel from the map" (while I have seen contrarian interpretations of this, what I have not seen is Ahmedinajad renounce that his intention was not what he said it was: "to wipe Israel off the map").

I see a lot about how unbalanced Ahmadinejad is, and there is much discussion on extreme right-wing conservative web sites about how he is convinced of the coming of the 12th Imam, described as a kind of Shi'a version of the Second Coming/Apocalypse. One of these is HumanEvents.com, the website of Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry". If it looks like propaganda and smells like propaganda.....

The guy may very well be nuttier than a fruit cake, but there have been some question regarding the accuracy of the translation of his statement:

(From: The Guardian Unlimited UK) "The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about."

Infohack, other than Ahmadinejad following his comment that he desired to "wipe Israel off the map," with a conference to discuss why the holocaust never happened (attended, inter alia, by David Duke), are you aware of a single instance where Ahmadinejad (and not one of his proxies) made a public renunciation of his threatening comment and "corrected" the interpretation of which you now assert?

Sam Clemmons,

Ahmadinejad HAS indeed said he was not threatening Israel.

Quotes:

Iran is not a threat to any state, even the Zionist regime, which is "definitely the enemy of regional countries."

Interviewer: Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Crazy Ahmy: Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

Iran's Commander in Chief (Khameini) said:

"Their other issue is [their assertion] that Iran seeks [a] nuclear bomb. It is an irrelevant and wrong statement, it is a sheer lie. We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons against Islamic rules. We have announced this openly. We think imposing the costs of building and maintaining nuclear weapons on our nation is unnecessary.

We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any government. We have a high aspiration and we will use all our energy to reach it. That aspiration is to build an Iran which provides this nation with moral and material prosperity.

With all due respect Killfile, you have responded to my comment with a strawman argument. Instead of presenting me with fact (i.e., a statement where Ahmadinejad, the President of a country developing a nuclear bomb, says "I really didn't mean to say I support the annihilation of an entire race of people"), you responded with a strawman argument that you then proceeded to knock down, thereby purportedly discrediting any merit from my prior comment.

Your argument warrants no response for if it were true, the media would have, and would continue, to crucify Bush on your alleged statement that Bush . . . on January 3 of 2005 stated explicitly that he sent the United States to war in Iraq to kill off some of the poor minorities in the United States.

Oluseye, I commend you on presenting the quotes from Ahmadinejad and Kameini. While not an explicit renunciation of Ahmadinejad's statement, it is fairly close. The problem I have (and admittedly, will likely continue to have) is that Ahmadinejad makes the statement about "wiping Israel off the map," he holds a "holocaust never happened" forum shortly afterwards, he defiantly proceeds to develop nuclear weapons (even in the face of a possible war with the U.S. as Killfile points out), and Iran continues to fund Hezbollah in its terror activities against Israel and a democratic Lebanon (which could have been such a good thing for the middle-east).

I tend to pay more attention to everything taken in context, and the events going on in Iran right now do not bode well for any of us. I only hope that our world leaders make the right decisions. Whatever decisions are made, they will not be easy and it is more than possible that there may be no winners in the end.

First, I don't think quoting a news source is an assertion, I was just simply pointing out that there is some question regarding his original statement. But it's true he has continued the rhetoric. Perhaps there's a reason:

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University.

Professor Hadian-Jazy said Mr Ahmadinejad had been surprised by reaction to his criticism of Israel and apparent denial of the Holocaust. "Coming from his background it was not uncommon to say that stuff. He never thought that as president it would be different. But once he got the reaction, he realised it could establish him as a strong leader among Muslims. It was a calculated move." 6/21/2006 The Guardian

Given that history has shown us that much of the pre-war rhetoric by Saddam Hussein, the former reigning "madman of the middle east" was pure bluff, it might be a good idea to closely examine such statements.

Infohack, I agree with you that citing a news source is not an assertion and acquiesce to your characterization of your citation to the news source. I also agree that Ahmadinejad's actions deserve close scrutiny. We are in a mess in Iraq; no one in their right mind wants to repeat that again. What the world needs to do is to work together to pressure and/or persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program and to open its borders to free and transparent nuclear inspections by the United Nations' IAEA inspectors. If anyone has any idea how to effectively do that, the world would be the better for your input.

Guido, I am not sure I understand your point.

Who knows? According to Iranian journalist Kasra Naji In an interview with Steve Innskeep on NPR Morning Edition (transcript):

Mr. KASRA NAJI (Journalist): It's a good question. We don't have a good answer to that, really. The fact is that his statement's a topic of conversation amongst the Iranians. They're asking themselves why are we saying all these and why are we provoking this international reaction against Iran at a time when Iran needs a lot of allies because of its nuclear program? So it's all very sort of confused, really. There are theories. One theory is that he is trying to rally around him the hard-liners here who are divided whether or not to support him in his hard-line policies. The other theory is that he genuinely believes that he has a mission. He thinks that Iran has to go back to the rhetorics of the 1979 revolution, when Ayatollah Khamenei was in charge and the rhetoric was pretty hard-line then. He believes that Islamic world has been passive about issues concerning it and particularly the issue of Palestinians is a national interest issue here.

That was in response to Guido's question, if it wasn't clear.

Guido, if you can provide me a NY Times article (or another source of equal weight and authority) that cites facts disproving any of the facts that I assert to be accurate here, I will strongly consider conceding the point to you. Otherwise, since I obtained my information from the Times initially, I am not inclined to acquiesce to the following four points that concern me the most regarding Ahmadinejad:

The problem I have is that Ahmadinejad makes the statement about "wiping Israel off the map," he holds a "holocaust never happened" forum shortly afterwards, he defiantly proceeds to develop nuclear weapons (even in the face of a possible war with the U.S. as Killfile points out), and Iran continues to fund Hezbollah in its terror activities against Israel and a democratic Lebanon (which could have been such a good thing for the middle-east).

The Guardian's opinion column is just not going to do it for me.

My point is that you are building a rational chain that discusses Iran on the basis of fear and not fact.

(?)

My argument is not that Iran poses no threat, but rather that a military solution is the wrong approach, with rhetoric on both sides appearing to be leading toward a confrontation.

Ahmadinejad's surprising landslide victory in the presidential run-off was grounded in domestic issues such as raising the standard of living for the poor, increasing employment, and eradicating corruption. Yet, despite these grand ambitions and the new president's popular support, the Iranian economy is arguably worse off today than it was during Mohammed Khatami's presidency. The president has done everything to obfuscate the failures of his economic policy. His most significant tactic, however, has always been his foreign policy agenda. (American Jewish Commitee). By focusing on an outside threat, he is able to garner support from hardliners in a "rally around the flag" response to a perceived outside threat.

There is growing dissent among Iranians ("Dissent Grows in Iran" LA Times 2/8/2007), and the most effective approach may be continued pressure through sanctions to foment change from within.

Infohack, I misunderstood you earlier. While I am not for ever ruling out a military option, I agree with you, the climate is ripe for a non-military option to be exercised.

The Iranian local elections that took place about two months ago exposed the growing anti-Ahmadinejad sentiment. In a December 17, 2006, NY Times article, Moderate Ex-President Takes Early Lead in Iran Election, even Ahamdinejad's own people said of the election that :

The vote for Mr. Rafsanjani[, a moderate, former Iranian President candidate] was a clear message showing that the average middle class who came out to vote for him against Mr. Ahmadinejad last year has become stronger,' said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst. Mr. Rafsanjani lost the election for president last year to Mr. Ahmadinejad in a runoff.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30911FF38550C748DDDAB0994DE404482

Moreover, in a January 19, 2007, article, Rebuke in Iran To Its President On Nuclear Role, the NY Times reported that :

Just one month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader -- who has final say on all matters of state -- might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.

It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei's confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran's ''inalienable right.''

The Times did note, however, that the Khamenei's rebuke left it

unclear whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran's public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad's profile or was signaling a change in policy

.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F0061EFF35540C7A8DDDA80894DF404482

I have written before about NY Times Op-Editor, Nicholas Kristof's visit to Iran for over one week back in approximately 2004. During that time, he took a poll and found that 75% of all Iranians held a favorable view of the U.S. (in large part because they had learned to distrust everything the Iranian government told them they ought to think and feel).

It seems that bright minds should be able to come up with a strategy to capitalize on Ahmadinejad's growing unpopularity, the Iranian people's favorable views towards the U.S., and Khamenei's desire to move away from a nuclear position of confrontation with the U.S. (which fortunately is beginning to have the opposite effect that Ahmadinejad originally sought when he started beating on the nuclear weapons drum).

In conclusion, I agree with your position. If you have ideas on how the U.S. can develop a strategy to capitalize on the current political opportunities in Iran, I would enjoy discussing this with you. We don't need Killfile's scenario of events (which, unfortunately is a little too plausible for my personal comfort level), to take place.

Killfile, maybe the reason you have refused to provide me with a single instance where Ahmadinejad retracted his statement to "wipe Israel off the map," is because instead of retracting his statement, Ahmadinejad re-iterated it and made it 100% clear he intended exactly what he said.

On October 29, 2005, in an article entitled Iranian President Stands By Call to Wipe Israel Off Map, written by Nazila Fathi and Warren Hogue, the NY Times reported that:

The president of Iran stood by his earlier call to ''wipe Israel off the map'' on Friday, while other Iranian officials played it down and some commentators here suggested it was a sign of what they considered his amateurism.

The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was cheered by thousands of supporters during an anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday. ''My words are the Iranian nation's words,'' he said of his statement, which was widely condemned around the world, the Iranian news agency IRNA quoted him as saying. ''Westerners are free to comment, but their reaction is invalid.''

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30911F8355B0C7A8EDDA90994DD404482

Ahmadinejad said what he said. If you are going to make an argument that you want me to respect, then you will either a) have to disprove the evidence I have presented; or b) you will not generate a very convincing argument.

And Guido, you accused me of the following:

misleading propaganda. Your phrasing of holocaust denial as "holocaust never happened" is inaccurate because his contention was not whether holocaust happened but that it was being misused to promote certain interests and that led to fabrications and lies in the form of inflating the death toll, which is in itself a reprehensible act

The NY times reported in Rogues and Fools, dated December 15, 2006,

This week's conference in Iran of Holocaust deniers and racists was, predictably, a circus of Holocaust denial and racism argued by discredited scholars and even the former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke. But one should never underestimate the political power of these vicious ideas, even among supposedly respectable people across the Middle East and beyond.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran apparently believes his claims that the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis is a myth ginned up to justify the creation of the state of Israel. That is frightening enough. Couple that with his calls to wipe Israel off the map and his government's -- so far unrestrained -- drive to develop the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon, and you have even more reasons to keep yourself up at night.

What is also frightening is that Mr. Ahmadinejad believes there is political benefit in these hate-filled lies and may well be right.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50E16FD39550C768DDDAB0994DE404482

While I disagree with the NY Times on more than a few occasions, I am not aware of any instance where they have knowingly published false information. As far as news mediums go, the NY Times performs diligent research into the facts comprising their articles.

I don't have a problem accurately reporting the facts (or accurately citing them when accused of "misleading propaganda"). However, twice now, I have disproved your hollow assertions with citations to respected authority. In the future, you will have to do the same before I will make these efforts again.

Guido, I must agree to disagree with you on that one. I stand by my citation. You may call me what you will but when David Duke and the KKK are on one side, natural instinct will take me to the other side of the issue without hesitation.

Killfile, point well-made. Let's hope that you are right in your belief about Iran's rationality.

Killfile, maybe the reason you have refused to provide me with a single instance where Ahmadinejad retracted his statement to "wipe Israel off the map," is because instead of retracting his statement, Ahmadinejad re-iterated it and made it 100% clear he intended exactly what he said.

On October 29, 2005, in an article entitled Iranian President Stands By Call to Wipe Israel Off Map, written by Nazila Fathi and Warren Hogue, the NY Times reported that:

I know this wasn't addressed to me but you are arguing for something false. The Washington Post covered the same October 29, 2005 rally and reported that Iranian officials pointed out;

"Considering that the president's comments have been repeated by other Iranian officials during the past 26 years and the Iranian government is not announcing a new policy, some Western countries' reaction to these remarks has surprised the world public opinion,"

Place this in context;

In Ahmadinejad's speech he quoted a statement made years ago by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Khomeini statement was never taken as a threat to Israel. Just this would show the objective person looking for truth that it was NOT a threat to destroy Israel by violence.

The Iranians have stated 100s of times over the years that they will not attack Israel. If you want to claim that they want to destroy Israel then you need to dig up some unequivocal threats.

See the one made by Khameini? "If you attack us we will attack your interests worldwide". Clear and crisp.

Please also drop this Ahmadinejad red herring. He is NOT Iran's Commander in Chief. He is not in a position to do Jacks--t.

I hope those CNN heads are right though.

Me too. It's a pretty superficial medium from which to get any detailed analysis, but most of the pundits that CNN drags from their 'Crypt of Retired Formerly Influential People' do seem to remain relatively plugged in.

Killfile, I agree with you that there's still cause for concern, although the carrier groups worry me less than they seem to do you (it seems like there's always a carrier group stationed within striking distance of targets in the Middle East), with the Iranian exercises taking place in the vicinity of the Straits of Hormuz recently, there's always the chance the balloon could go up unintentionally.

Speaking of the Straits of Hormuz, what are the chances that the real reason those carrier groups are there is to defend oil shipping (as oppposed to attacking targets in Iran) in the event that Iran did decide to get uppity?

So maybe they're not there to paste the nuclear infrastructure at all. After all, most analyses seem to suggest that Iran is still a ways away from achieving their desired capability....and before too long, it will be some other president's problem.

Synthesis, a third carrier group is reportedly being mobilised.

You may be right, but officially, the Reagan is slated for the Western Pacific to replace the Stennis (which is in the Gulf, along with the Eisenhower).

If you are right, the sight facing Iran in the Gulf will look something like this (not exactly these specific vessels, but close enough). I would think this would give pause even to those trying to pave the way for the Mahdi.

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- cooler heads are begining to prevail.

So much for that idea....

Al-Qaida suspects color debate over Iran - Washington Post 2/10/2007

Violation of U.N. resolutions
Bush administration officials pointed to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373, which state that harboring al-Qaeda members constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and authorize force to combat that threat. The resolutions compel nations to share any information on al-Qaeda suspects and give the United Nations authority to freeze the assets of suspects and those who provide them with safe haven.

Two U.S. officials said the administration plans to argue that Iran is violating those resolutions. A team of senior U.S. officials has been holding briefings for visiting European diplomats on the issue while administration lawyers prepare options for holding Iran in violation of U.N. resolutions.

..it is interesting isn`t it...?

...and it could be an agenda driven entity...
..Killfile.imhho, you underestimate US capabilities.And by the way things look,we will see who`s right..

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Iran sends shoulder-borne QW-1 anti-air missiles to Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Hizballah to shoot down US and Israeli helicopters

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3820

..oh they have no problem with those,I`m sure you`ve been in a video store,far more deviance can be found there...so yes they can conform to whatever message they choose..in living HD color..
...speaking of deviance...

http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf

..ha ,now thats rich,and you where supporting who..?...pleeeze..

..treacherous set of lies..

..that's a interesting statement,maybe you could quote those lies,who,what,when please lets not perpetuate the treacherous set of lies..

..being wrong is one thing but being a liar is quite another,and I take quite offense to that.Prove it.

Even yesterdays Senate report showed that poor judgement was made in the intel,but it most certainly didn`t show willful deceit.Quite the contrary,and it was found lawful...

..simplistic..yeap quite !

...the build up...

..sorry KF for the muti posts..but hey there's a very telling revelation in that piece..
...the Canuks are coming...((:...

Are you a patriot or a traitor?

..that dosen`t even deserve a response..and you will only have to trust me on this...one was well on the way...then the realization came someone needed to be the adult here..so discussion over..have a nice day..do a good deed for someone,it wont hurt and you will feel better for it..

Makes sense. Buchanan was/is strongly against war with Iraq as well, if I remember correctly.

It's starting to remind me of a West Wing episode. Let's hope that reality likes Aaron Sorkin writing.

Killfile, perhaps The Decider has not yet decided. Still, such brinkmanship can easily spin out of control. The consequences are daunting. Is the risk worth it?

I really get the idea that Ahmadinijad believes he is some kind of spiritual tool of Allah in wiping out Israel and causing enough "chaos" in the world to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. With this in mind I think his strategy is twofold: obtain nuclear weapons and use them on Israel, and provoke the U.S. into war. These strategies are essentially the easiest ways to obtain his goals.

Count on it. See here. And just as scary is the extent to which this belief is subscribed to on the American side, as well. When you have two adversaries, both eager to embrace an apocalypse, and one side is massively endowed with nukes while the other is striving to get them (and is currently engaging in multiple weapons deals with Russia) you have a recipe for disaster.

We're getting close to time for the rapture, according to this.

Airstrikes alone may not be able to eliminate Iran's nuclear program

Well, maybe not conventional air strikes alone... : (

For one, it's not in Iran's interest at all to stop it's nuclear weapons program regardless of consequences.

Unlike North Korea (and the jury's still out on this 'deal'), Iran is far from being a broke-ass country. Maybe many many years of sanctions could create a suitable environment for negotiation, but that time is just not available.

I do not believe we are "close to rapture". The Bible is fairly open to interpretation as to what will happen at the time though it is specific about one crucial point, that there will be a peace in Israel. Which is one reason I do not believe that Iran's current situation will lead us down that path.

We've been dealing with North Korea for how long? And we just now got a decent agreement on the table (hopefully both sides hold up their ends). Libya is another great example. We can agree to energy and monetary compensation for the removal of possibly harmful equipment.

Russia needs to watch its step, I have always had a bad feeling about Putin and with recent events I doubt his feelings about democracy. He works with us in NK and turns around and sells weapons to Iran. He can't have it both ways. What he is doing is positioning his slowly floundering country into a place where it can receive oil when it can no longer produce any itself.

If Ahmadinejad wants to deal and work something out, then I say we go for it. Right now I do not think it is militarily feasible to fight Iran outside of air strikes.

Didn't Jesus say that the people alive at his time would still be when he would return?

I do not believe we are "close to rapture". The Bible is fairly open to interpretation as to what will happen at the time though it is specific about one crucial point, that there will be a peace in Israel. Which is one reason I do not believe that Iran's current situation will lead us down that path.

I don't know that I believe in it either. The thought of being on the bus one day and seeing "the righteous" just vanish before my eyes is a bit much to swallow. Really, this was an opportunity to share wha I think is a very fun site (rapture watch), and to make a point about the similar apocalyptic world views prevailing in both Washington and Tehran right now. (If only Ahmedinijad didn't insist on cracking open his hard-boiled eggs on the big end!)

I have always had a bad feeling about Putin

S'Okay. W has looked into his eyes, and says he can do business with him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can realize that this statement spoke many more volumes than we might have thought at the time).

Oh, and Oluseye:

Didn't Jesus say that the people alive at his time would still be when he would return?

Maybe, I don't remember that exact quote right at the moment. The way the bible actually works, though, laden with triple meanings, peshers, codes, metaphor and symbolism, that statement could mean just about anything. On the other hand, Oluseye...if the Government of Israel, during a time of peace, announces a large-scale human cloning program using DNA recovered from archaeological digs....RUN!

On the other hand, Oluseye...if the Government of Israel, during a time of peace, announces a large-scale human cloning program using DNA recovered from archaeological digs....RUN!

I think you meant, PRAY! ;-)

Anyway, back on topic. Do you think Washington sees this as apocalyptic times?

Rapture watch is a fun site. Thanks for sharing.

Oluseye, I do not know what verse you are talking about exactly but the way I see it, He's God. If He wants certain people alive when He returns then they will be alive ;-)

I posted the wrong comment on the wrong thread. I just hope I didn't send the check from the client to the laundry!