tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10089650.post116214837201482018..comments2024-03-27T01:05:36.365-07:00Comments on Culture and International Affairs: The Iranian Nuclear Crisis--Portland OR October 29, 2006William O. Beemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06410196700886326533noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10089650.post-1162411087011340352006-11-01T11:58:00.000-08:002006-11-01T11:58:00.000-08:00I just wanted to expand on your excellent points a...I just wanted to expand on your excellent points above regarding Iraq.<BR/><BR/>IMHO, there may in fact be a powerful additional impetus for Bush to attack Iran: <BR/><BR/>He may see it as the only way to get us out of Iraq.<BR/><BR/>The Iranians have played this brilliantly all along. Using dubious doubles such as Curve Ball, they convinced the pre-disposed neo-cons that Iraq was a much bigger threat than any reasonable person familiar with the topic would believe. (Langley, Foggy Bottom and the E-Ring were filled with experienced hands who told anyone at the White House who would listen that a US invasion of Iraq was uneccessary and the Mother of all Bad Ideas. But they were ignored and are largely gone now, unfortunately.)<BR/><BR/>So now the Iranians have the US, in military parlance: "fixed". We cannot maneuver at all. We can't stay there and we can't leave. Not unless we want to make Iran the dominant force in that oil rich region for a long time. Which could be described as, I suppose, the Mother-In-Law of all Bad Ideas.<BR/><BR/>So I wonder if the current view in Bush World is that the only way he can extract our troops intact from Iraq with any hope of leaving some sort of stability behind, is to change the regime in Tehran; or at least to weaken the Iranian government and/or military for several years to allow time for something approaching stability to (perhaps) blossom in Iraq. And for us to gracefully haul our asses and heavy equipment out of there. (In Halliburton trucks, no doubt.)<BR/><BR/>A popular view among the troops in WW2 (epitomized in Saving Private Ryan, I think), was that "the road home goes through Berlin." I now believe that sometime after the election but before the swearing in of the next Congress, (who might ask tiresome questions), the President will in fact mount a major sea and air attack on Iranian forces and infrastructure, (and perhaps Syria as well), in the belief that the only way home for US troops is through Tehran, as it were. The stated reasons will have to do with their nuclear program, but any reason will do.<BR/><BR/>The Israelis would certainly become involved either as a consequence or intentionally, in the hopes that if the action ultimately results in choking off Hezbollah's resources, it may be worth the significant risk of uncontrolled escalation.<BR/><BR/>Leaders go to war because it appears to them that a course of action seems correct, or even required. They may at times be delusional, or ill-informed, but it is still a choice about how to solve a problem with available resources. I suspect that Team Bush may see an attack on Iran as the least horrible option they have for getting the US out of a trap that we should have never gotten into, and for putting Iran into a "box". At least until after 2008.<BR/><BR/>The truly bizarre part to me about such an attack, is that the idea might even have merit, although not out of any actual competence on their part. I think it can be argued that this may be the least horrible option. What a tragedy. Whether or not they have the resources to carry it off, however, is highly debatable, which is where the real danger of miscalculation is. If they do try an attack on Iran, and it begins to fail, the US will be left to choose between an ignominious retreat from Iraq sans most of our equipment (along with economic chaos in the West), or the first-use of theatre nuclear weapons by America on a country that did not attack us. Welcome to WW4.<BR/><BR/>I suppose there is some comfort to be had from the awareness that things can always get worse, however if that situation ever comes to pass, that will be cold comfort indeed.<BR/><BR/>Timing? Depends on a few things: I doubt very much it would happen pre-election, but it could. If the election results get mired in confusion in a few key states becuase the margin of victory is again smaller than the margin of error, this attack would be a useful diversion. Someone else mentioned Thanksgiving. I would guess between 11/15 and 12/15, depending on how the Israelis make out in Gaza, and the importance of the Lunar phase.<BR/><BR/>And assuming the Iranians don't seize the initiative...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10089650.post-1162235033851571732006-10-30T11:03:00.000-08:002006-10-30T11:03:00.000-08:00Thank you for your very informative post.What do y...Thank you for your very informative post.<BR/><BR/>What do you think of reports in the NYTimes that due to Dr. Rice's advisor Phillip Zeliow, President Bush has offered broad concessions to Iran if it will suspend uranium enrichment? Do the Iranians feel they have a lot of leverage in this situation? Supposedly the development of nuclear technology was precisely to hedge against US invasion.<BR/><BR/>When I was stationed at Quonset Point many years ago I worked with some Iranian Naval Officers. they were among the best foreign pilots I had ever trained. I was also impressed with their critical thinking skills and cosmopolitan backgrounds. Supposedly some of these former supporters of the Shah are still in influential positions. They seemed to me to be among the least-likely candidates for stupid military or political decisions.<BR/><BR/>Regards,QuestRepublichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03058259923063099096noreply@blogger.com