The Iran Thread (Now with everything!)

[Mr. Coffee]

Quick question... How covert an operation can it be when everyone and their fucking brother knows about it?

[Rogue 9]

Quick question... How covert an operation can it be when everyone and their fucking brother knows about it?

Not everyone knew about it before the New Yorker broke the story.

[Sriad]

Gee, I wonder what a war with Iran would do to oil prices?

[Elfdart]

The last time Iran was in a major war, the price of oil went down -way down because Iran and the rest of the Middle East opened every spigot to pay for it, and to make up for oil lost when both sides in the Iran-Iraq War targeted oil tankers in the Gulf. The price went down so much that it caused a recession in other oil producing parts of the world.

[Adrian Laguna]

Does nobody in the Bush Administration know what happened the last time the United States tried to destabilize Iran? No, of course they don't, asking them to crack open a history book is too much to ask.

I was talking with Maya last night about this very subject, how apparently nobody knows jack and shit about Iran, its present, or its history. Most talk about the place that I've seen from news sources or politicians contains implicit and explicit assumptions about its people and government that are simply unfounded.

I especially like when I hear phrases like, "Ahmadinejad's Iran". It shows blissful ignorance of the fact that the his opinion counts for jack and shit, that the President in Iran is largely a powerless figure-head, that he is regarded by the Iranian leadership as a loud mouthed idiot whose term can't end soon enough, and that the man has a domestic approval rating only Bush could envy.

Another fun and persistent one is the implication that Iranians are Arabs. Yes, let's ignore complex ethno-cultural issues and just pretend everyone in a given geographic area is the same, what's the worst that could happen?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Destabilizing Iran just simply opens a can of worms. Have they never read history? There has always been some form of power in that region and the people there have a long culture and history and are proud of it. It has been so for much of the last two millennia.

They don't care; this is the "We make our own reality" crowd. They don't care about history, or facts of any kind. They have a rather Hitlerian attitude that by sheer Will and brute force they can make reality work the way they declare it to work.

[Winston Blake]

The last time Iran was in a major war, the price of oil went down -way down because Iran and the rest of the Middle East opened every spigot to pay for it, and to make up for oil lost when both sides in the Iran-Iraq War targeted oil tankers in the Gulf. The price went down so much that it caused a recession in other oil producing parts of the world.

This is proof of George W. Bush's misunderstood genius. He is the answer to the prayers of those people who were praying at gas stations for lower prices.

This inevitable low period in oil prices will stimulate the American economy and drive ahead the progress of energy independence technologies. This is in bold contrast to the long-haired whiny enviro-peakists who want to strangle the economy and prevent such a great opportunity for mitigation.

Truly, a man of great foresight.

[Edi]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Is there anything to this, or am I just rambling?

[Wanderer]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Is there anything to this, or am I just rambling?

Oh yes, America will never admit wrong doing. Sad as I am to say this, but its time for America to be put out of its misery by the coming economic crash which even Obama can not stop. Its the only way to end our over sea commitments and allow a multi-polar power arrangement to flourish over the world.

[The Grim Squeaker]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Is there anything to this, or am I just rambling?

Oh yes, America will never admit wrong doing. Sad as I am to say this, but its time for America to be put out of its misery by the coming economic crash which even Obama can not stop. Its the only way to end our over sea commitments and allow a multi-polar power arrangement to flourish over the world.

Excuse me while I roll around in laughter at your naivete.
You think that the US, EU and the western-centric UN losing power and withdrawing will lead to what, a happy utopia full of cultural freedom and happy smiling natives? Look at Somalia, look at Africa influenced by foreign corps (Not just american ones these days), look at Lebanon (Civil war funded by its neighbours).

For all the whining, the US and EU are amazingly nice, since they try to act morally, rather than lacing the pretense of liberalism altogether. Look at how things were a longer time ago, when one nation could not act as a "global police" to restrain others, the weaker areas of the world got bully-rapped repeatedly and horrifically to the point that the effects still shape them.

[hongi]

Doesn't the Administration condemn Iran for meddling in Iraq's affairs, funding terrorist groups and spreading discontent?

Aren't the Bushites now doing the same thing for Iran? Isn't that hypocritical?

[Lord of the Abyss]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Is there anything to this, or am I just rambling?

You aren't the first to think of this; I've heard the idea before, and I'm more than half expecting Bush to do something to commit us to war before he leaves.

For all the whining, the US and EU are amazingly nice, since they try to act morally, rather than lacing the pretense of liberalism altogether.

If our present behavior is "nice", what would we have to do to qualify as nasty by your standards ? Import Iraqi children for meat ?

Look at how things were a longer time ago, when one nation could not act as a "global police" to restrain others, the weaker areas of the world got bully-rapped repeatedly and horrifically to the point that the effects still shape them.

In other words, what WE are doing NOW. We aren't global policeman; we're the global thug, or global mob boss at best. "Nice country you have there. Shame if anything happened to it."

[Coyote]

For all the whining, the US and EU are amazingly nice, since they try to act morally, rather than lacing the pretense of liberalism altogether.

If our present behavior is "nice", what would we have to do to qualify as nasty by your standards ? Import Iraqi children for meat ?

Well, let's face it, how gentle a hand do you think the Chinese would be under similar circumstances, just as an example? But I've said it before, we shouldn't be bragging about how we're "low on the evil-o-meter compared to (dastardly country of the week)".

As for the US "collapsing" or "being put out of its misery by the coming collapse" (as others said), it's not likely to happen. The EU, China, and so many other countries have deep economic stakes in the US economy, and letting the US fall would drag them down too. No, they'll prop us up, keep us on life support, and pretend the dollar is still useful since it allows everyone else to maintain their economies. Which means no one will really learn any lessons and we'll keep doing this for years until something happens that brings everyone to heel.

[Axis Kast]

These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

Destabilizing folks who have an expansionist agenda in the region. Doesn’t strike me as all that terrible. The collection of additional HUMINT is also a step forward in the right direction.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed.

Truly, I presume we could all live without throwing money at “the Iranian problem,” waiting out the religious leaders instead. But I’m not going to get all upset because we press money into a few hands, seize wanted individuals or members of a terror unit responsible for operations in Iraq (and probably Lebanon as well), and generally remind Iran that there are consequences for its own aggressive behavior.

Reading about all of it, it makes me think and maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but weren't we doing a better job of undermining the Iranian government when we pretty much kept our mouths shut by just letting the internal dissatisfaction take it's own course rather than providing a convenient target to focus upon?

That was also before we invaded Iraq. Now, the “boogeyman” is right next door – a convenient excuse for the hardliners.

Destabilizing Iran just simply opens a can of worms. Have they never read history?

Actually, the Shah had a fairly long run as clients go, and our shortcoming was in complacency and Carter’s preference to let a demonstrably weak man “run his own show” rather than give him the explicit direction he craved.

[hongi]

These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

Destabilizing folks who have an expansionist agenda in the region. Doesn’t strike me as all that terrible. The collection of additional HUMINT is also a step forward in the right direction.

Iran isn't expansionist, it's a consolidationist (I made that word up). It's seeking to gain power in the region, but can't afford to either tick off its Sunni neighbours, or attract the attention of the international community by making outright territorial grabs.

[ray245]

Destabilizing Iran just simply opens a can of worms. Have they never read history? There has always been some form of power in that region and the people there have a long culture and history and are proud of it. It has been so for much of the last two millennia.

I think Iran needs to be renamed persia for people to wake up to that fact...

[Axis Kast]

Iran isn't expansionist, it's a consolidationist (I made that word up). It's seeking to gain power in the region, but can't afford to either tick off its Sunni neighbours, or attract the attention of the international community by making outright territorial grabs.

Iran may not seek reapportionment of land in the Persian Gulf region, but they clearly seek a measure of increased dictation over agendas in Lebanon, for example. This isn't a benign sort of house-cleaning endeavor they're undertaking, with consequences for themselves alone.

[Wanderer]

Oh yes, America will never admit wrong doing. Sad as I am to say this, but its time for America to be put out of its misery by the coming economic crash which even Obama can not stop. Its the only way to end our over sea commitments and allow a multi-polar power arrangement to flourish over the world.

Excuse me while I roll around in laughter at your naivete.
You think that the US, EU and the western-centric UN losing power and withdrawing will lead to what, a happy utopia full of cultural freedom and happy smiling natives? [/quote]

Actually I expect wars to increase, that is inevitable with Global Warming anyway. Also if economic collapse doesn't handcap the U.S. Military, the loss of our ports to rising sea levels will as I see absolutely no efforts made to try and plan towards replacing them or trying to save them by any expedient.

A new world is coming, America had its chance and blew it with incompetent idiots running it into the ground.

I like to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding out any hope.

[hongi]

Iran may not seek reapportionment of land in the Persian Gulf region, but they clearly seek a measure of increased dictation over agendas in Lebanon, for example. This isn't a benign sort of house-cleaning endeavor they're undertaking, with consequences for themselves alone.

Yeah that's what I meant by 'seeking to gain power'. The invasion of Iraq came as a godsend to Iranian interests, removing an enemy and allowing it to establish more regional control. If it's true that the Qods force are actively supporting the insurgency, then there's an added benefit of undermining American interests. The longer Iraq is troubled and separated along sectarian lines, the less Iran has to worry about a future state on its borders pushing an American agenda.

Also the regional consolidation of power explains why Hezbollah is being supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Iran is a Middle East power ascendant.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Destabilizing Iran just simply opens a can of worms. Have they never read history? There has always been some form of power in that region and the people there have a long culture and history and are proud of it. It has been so for much of the last two millennia.

I think Iran needs to be renamed persia for people to wake up to that fact...

Does it matter? The US meddled with the Shah when it was still named Persia. See what did that lead to. Yeah sure, popular rebellion.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Iran may not seek reapportionment of land in the Persian Gulf region, but they clearly seek a measure of increased dictation over agendas in Lebanon, for example. This isn't a benign sort of house-cleaning endeavor they're undertaking, with consequences for themselves alone.

That's because they see Lebanon a chance to bleed the Israelis dry.

[Axis Kast]

That's because they see Lebanon a chance to bleed the Israelis dry.

Bush saw Iraq as a chance to bleed terrorists dry. We may be doing some of that. Arguably, however, we have only increased the problem. It's like saying you haven't experienced as many problems with bee stings inside your home after you went outside and slapped the hive with a baseball bat, provoking a localized swarm. A lot of the resources we pumped into Iraq could be used to hinder terrorists on other levels, as well, meaning that it wasn't a false dichotomy between invasion or inaction if we wanted to take the initiative from al-Qaeda, et al.

I also don't see any redeeming justifications emerging from your description of Iran's motivations in Lebanon. Hezbollah is now a state-within-a-state, dictating outcomes at the top of the system. That doesn't strike me as something most Lebanese are liable to want.

[Patrick Degan]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

In the scenario you propose, it would be better to actually put a stop to the war at the earliest moment, take the momentary domestic and international opprobrium, and seek a multilateral arrangement to stabilise the region. The president who would take that course would immediately distinguish himself from his malignantly idiotic predecessor and the damage would be contained, as opposed to carrying on a criminal and baseless war for years at a stretch, wasting more blood and treasure and further destroying the moral authority of the United States in the process.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Bush saw Iraq as a chance to bleed terrorists dry. We may be doing some of that. Arguably, however, we have only increased the problem. It's like saying you haven't experienced as many problems with bee stings inside your home after you went outside and slapped the hive with a baseball bat, provoking a localized swarm. A lot of the resources we pumped into Iraq could be used to hinder terrorists on other levels, as well, meaning that it wasn't a false dichotomy between invasion or inaction if we wanted to take the initiative from al-Qaeda, et al.

I also don't see any redeeming justifications emerging from your description of Iran's motivations in Lebanon. Hezbollah is now a state-within-a-state, dictating outcomes at the top of the system. That doesn't strike me as something most Lebanese are liable to want.

Of course proxy wars are selfish. You are asking someone else to bleed for you. Trying to figure a morality around just simply doesn't work. The Iranians only care about how many Israelis killed. The Lebanese are just cannon fodder and tools used.

[The Grim Squeaker]

One thought I had yesterday was, what if Bush actually managed to push through the start of a shooting war with Iran? Assume for a moment that he manages it, whether by handwavium or something else. Then he gets dumped out of office because he's served two terms. Does it matter which candidate won the presidency, for purposes of ending the war? Would Bush's successor have his hands tied and be unable to stop it?

Because the way I see it, once the bombs and bullets and missiles start flying, the American public would not very easily condone just stopping. Imagine the next president going "We will stop this right here and now. I'm sorry we bombed and shot Iran, but we will recall our troops and stop hostilities." This would be a direct admission that the was was criminal and unjustified and that the US was the bad guy, committing war crimes. There is an enormous cultural impetus in the US to see America as the good guys, to the point that any actual, documented and proven war crimes are simply waved away and ignored by the public and the political establishment aside from a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Is there anything to this, or am I just rambling?

You aren't the first to think of this; I've heard the idea before, and I'm more than half expecting Bush to do something to commit us to war before he leaves.

For all the whining, the US and EU are amazingly nice, since they try to act morally, rather than lacing the pretense of liberalism altogether.

If our present behavior is "nice", what would we have to do to qualify as nasty by your standards ? Import Iraqi children for meat ?

Pre WW1 standards of dealing with insurgents. (OR German or Soviet methods).
If you get IED strikes nea r avillage, and it continues without the culprits being handed over, levelling the village and killing the men. make an example of it and keep on going.
Crack down, terrify, use fear and ruthless crackdowns.

Not supporting it, but it would probably work damn well. (If targetted to induce fear and to "break" the target population, it ha s along history. Medieval kings could deal with insurgents after all, without modern propaganda and the type of force multipliers modern western states have)

Look at how things were a longer time ago, when one nation could not act as a "global police" to restrain others, the weaker areas of the world got bully-rapped repeatedly and horrifically to the point that the effects still shape them.

In other words, what WE are doing NOW. We aren't global policeman; we're the global thug, or global mob boss at best. "Nice country you have there. Shame if anything happened to it."

See Coyote's comment on China.