October's Harpers Notebook - Iran Invasion

[Charlie Monoxide]

Has anyone here read the latest Harpers magazine article in the "Notebook" section?

It's a short essay by Daniel Ellesberg (I'm writing this from memory, excuse speling mistakes) about how he and Richard Clarke could have stopped the Vietnam/Iraq debacles, in that order. Both had access to documents and leaders that were clearly misrepresenting (err lying) facts to justify a war. Daniel does conceded that such actions would be at minimum career killers, and most probably involve some quality jail time for divulging state secrets. This is what drove both him and Clarke to keep quiet.

The part that concerns me is Ellesberg is describing the same saber rattling that preceded both the Vietnam and Iraqi war with regards to Iran. I personally can't imagine an invasion into Iran at this point. On the other hand, this current adminstration has yet to shock me with common sense and decency as well.

Obviously the Iranian invasion plans are in the works, as well as other various US plans to invade other countries. But this plan is acquiring legs and we hear more of the Iran bashing coming from the right-wing ideologues currently in power.


Charlie (scary stuff) Monoxide

[Beerina]

Well, if you're not prepared to actually do it, it's not a credible threat.

The point comes down to which do the Iranians believe:

1. That the US is capable of, and willing to, invade? Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq show yes, and Libya's recent turn-arounds shows the threats also work.

2. But the US is over-extended, as well as it being much more politically difficult to get the US population convinced. Both of these concepts the Iranians might take to mean the US will never invade, barring actual use of nuclear weapons by Iran, and hence Iran will proceed powerfully forward until it actually has weapons.

So what will stop it? A mere threat of after-the-fact devastation by nuclear war should they use even one? That won't stop development. And now you have something that gives the West pause.

[Dave1001]

I personally think a U.S. invasion of Iran is inevitable. Consider the true stakeholders: the rest of the freaking world (despite their bluffing and anti-U.S. positioning). The other middle eastern states, and europe, are both terrified at the idea of a nuclear Iran. Or even of an indepedent Iran. They want U.S. troops in that country. They just don't want to be seen as wanting U.S. troops in that country. That's my assessment anyways.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, if you're not prepared to actually do it, it's not a credible threat.

The point comes down to which do the Iranians believe:

1. That the US is capable of, and willing to, invade? Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq show yes, and Libya's recent turn-arounds shows the threats also work.

2. But the US is over-extended, as well as it being much more politically difficult to get the US population convinced. Both of these concepts the Iranians might take to mean the US will never invade, barring actual use of nuclear weapons by Iran, and hence Iran will proceed powerfully forward until it actually has weapons.

So what will stop it? A mere threat of after-the-fact devastation by nuclear war should they use even one? That won't stop development. And now you have something that gives the West pause.
*claps*

It seems that US political capital and emotional energy for war has been expended in Iraq. This was a case of the kid drinking the entire keg, rather than a few beers at a time, when presented with the "Post 9-11 political support beer barrel."

In the 3-5 years it will take Iran to weaponize nuclear material (based on some recent estimates) the US, regardless of which party gains or loses advantage in the next two elections, has immense work to do to refill the keg of political capital necessary to undertake a coalition operation versus Iran.

Step one? Make nice, real nice, with Russia.

That's how I see it.

DR

[Charlie Monoxide]

I personally think a U.S. invasion of Iran is inevitable. Consider the true stakeholders: the rest of the freaking world (despite their bluffing and anti-U.S. positioning). The other middle eastern states, and europe, are both terrified at the idea of a nuclear Iran. Or even of an indepedent Iran. They want U.S. troops in that country. They just don't want to be seen as wanting U.S. troops in that country. That's my assessment anyways.Are you confident that "the rest of the freakin world" really wants the US in Iran? We're not exactly loved over there (Euorope, middle east and Russia) and our track record with Iraq, so far, is pretty nasty ....

Charlie (hug an Iranian and steal their plutonium) Monoxide

[Dave1001]

Are you confident that "the rest of the freakin world" really wants the US in Iran? We're not exactly loved over there (Euorope, middle east and Russia) and our track record with Iraq, so far, is pretty nasty ....

Charlie (hug an Iranian and steal their plutonium) Monoxide

Oh, the world doesn't like us. But the truth is that the middle eastern states and Europe fear a nuclear (or even independent) Iran far more than they fear the U.S. putting troops in that patch of land between the U.S. troops in Iraq and the U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Public opinion in the U.S. doesn't even matter that much on this one, in my opinion. I think it's as close to a sure thing as any world event that U.S. troops will be in Iran, and that there will be regime change there.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, the world doesn't like us. But the truth is that the middle eastern states and Europe fear a nuclear (or even independent) Iran far more than they fear the U.S. putting troops in that patch of land between the U.S. troops in Iraq and the U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Public opinion in the U.S. doesn't even matter that much on this one, in my opinion. I think it's as close to a sure thing as any world event that U.S. troops will be in Iran, and that there will be regime change there.
Congress "authorized Pres Bush to use force" (but didn't declarer war) in Iraq? Well, do you think in the current political climate, that Congress will be that much of a doormat again?

If so, why? GW Bush cried wolf once too often.

DR

[IllegalArgument]

I can't imagine Bush thinks he can invade Iran right now, not enough troops.

Though, that doesn't rule out a quick strike against the nuclear facilities.

Israel did the same thing to the Iraq in the late eighties.

[Dave1001]

Congress "authorized Pres Bush to use force" (but didn't declarer war) in Iraq? Well, do you think in the current political climate, that Congress will be that much of a doormat again?

If so, why? GW Bush cried wolf once too often.

DR

Congress was a doormat for reasons that had nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the world's fear of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. For an analagous reason, they were a doormat to Clinton regarding Bosnia. For an analagous reason, they'll be a doormat to Dubya regarding Iran.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I can't imagine Bush thinks he can invade Iran right now, not enough troops.

Though, that doesn't rule out a quick strike against the nuclear facilities.

Israel did the same thing to the Iraq in the late eighties.The Harpers article alludes to the nuclear option as being part of the invasion plans.

It's ironic (for want of a better word) to nuke a nation because they are a threat of using nuclear weapons.

Charlie (needs a late Friday afternoon beer) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

I can't imagine Bush thinks he can invade Iran right now, not enough troops.

Though, that doesn't rule out a quick strike against the nuclear facilities.

Israel did the same thing to the Iraq in the late eighties.
June of 1981. The Osirik reactor facility This happened before Saudi's got AWACs from the US.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

I can't imagine Bush thinks he can invade Iran right now, not enough troops.

Unless he again mistakes wishful thinking for probability.

[Darth Rotor]

Unless he again mistakes wishful thinking for probability.
Or mistakes it for a strategy. :mad:

DR

[Ziggurat]

June of 1981. The Osirik reactor facility This happened before Saudi's got AWACs from the US.


I'm a little confused: are you saying that if the Saudis had owned any AWACS in 1981 that the Israelis wouldn't or couldn't have done their strike against Osirik? I'm not really sure your point in mentioning the AWACS, or how it relates to Iran. Or is it just a bit of trivia? :confused:

[IllegalArgument]

The Harpers article alludes to the nuclear option as being part of the invasion plans.

It's ironic (for want of a better word) to nuke a nation because they are a threat of using nuclear weapons.

Charlie (needs a late Friday afternoon beer) Monoxide

Now, I really doubt they would use nukes, invasion is much more likely than nukes.

I was thinking along the lines a sustained air strike against the facilities.

[IllegalArgument]

Or mistakes it for a strategy. :mad:

DR

Of course, there is the draft option. I figured at this point that would be politcal sucide for congress.

[Dave1001]

Of course, there is the draft option. I figured at this point that would be politcal sucide for congress.

There won't be a draft. And I don't think it will be limited to airstrikes or nuclear weapons (which won't be used). I think there will once again be a blitzkrief regime change, followed by U.S. troops permanently stationed in Iran, as they are in so many other parts of the world.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Now, I really doubt they would use nukes, invasion is much more likely than nukes.

I was thinking along the lines a sustained air strike against the facilities.Perhaps we can bomb them with tainted spinach and sneak in when they are on the toilet ....

Charlie (god bless e. coli) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

I'm a little confused: are you saying that if the Saudis had owned any AWACS in 1981 that the Israelis wouldn't or couldn't have done their strike against Osirik? I'm not really sure your point in mentioning the AWACS, or how it relates to Iran. Or is it just a bit of trivia?
The Osirik raid depended on the generally poor air EW posture of the Arab countries over which Israeli pilots had to fly to get to the target. In 1981, the presence of Saudi AWACS would fill that coverage gap, and make a surprise attack harder.

The lack of airborne early warning aircraft patrols between Israel and the target was one factor that allowed Israeli jets to approach the target undetected, below the radar horizon, (while exploiting some gaps in Iraq IAD setup) and achieve surprise. WIthout tactical surprise, that raid doesn't work.

As it stands now, the likelihood of F-16's successfully flying such a track between Irsrael and Iran is remote. For one thing, the US radar sites in Iraq the airspace they'd have to fly through. Second, better IAD by most countries in the region -- purchased from US, UK, Russia, China, etc -- leaves fewer gaps through which to sneak armed jets.

Now, if the Turks provide the Israelis with a safe corridor through Turkish Air Space into Iran (not likely, but possible I suppose) there is still the matter of tanking the aircraft so they are not on a one way suicide mission.

Or maybe IAF pilots would sign up for a suicide mission if it meant knocking out a nuclear weapons site in Iran. Couldn't say.

DR

[Garrette]

The lack of airborne early warning aircraft patrols between Israel and the target was one factor that allowed Israeli jets to approach the target undetected, below the radar horizon, (whyile exploiting some gaps in Iraq IAD setup) and achieve surprise.

As it stands now, the likelihood of F-16's successfully flying such a track between Irsrael and Iran is remote. For one thing, the US radar sites in Iraq the airspace they'd have to fly through. Second, better IAD by most countries in the region -- purchased from US, UK, Russia, China, etc -- leaves fewer gaps through which to sneak armed jets.

Now, if the Turks provide the Israelis with a safe corridor through Turkish Air Space into Iran (not likely, but possible I suppose) there is still the matter of tanking the aircraft so they are not on a one way suicide mission.

Or maybe IAF pilots would sign up for a suicide mission if it meant knocking out a nuclear weapons site in Iran. Couldn't say.

DRWell said, but there's no chance in hell Turkey would allow overflight, even if the refueling problem could be solved.

Beyond that, even if the flight portion of airstrikes were not an issue, the number, locations, and construction of the target facilities are. Gone are the days when there were a few critical facilities, built for all the satellites to see on an expanse of desert plain. Now we face a proliferation of sites, dispersed to unknown locations, and built beneath both desert and mountain.

[egslim]

They want U.S. troops in that country.

Before I, as a European, want U.S. troops in Iran, the U.S. first has to demonstrate conclusively it can effectively pacify and stabilise Iraq.

A U.S. that regularly overthrows stable though undesirable governments and replaces them with civil wars is a bigger threat to world peace than a nuclear armed Iran.

Note that I didn't claim Iraq is in a civil war right now. But it will be if the U.S. leaves under current circumstances, and it won't be able to maintain its current presence there indefinately.

[Garrette]

Separate from any morality or issues of justification, it is my personal opinion that any Iranian adventure would be close to the opposite of what has been experienced in Iraq, i.e., the invasion itself would be far more difficult while the provision of security and stability afterwards would be easier (not "easy," just easier).

[davefoc]

Before I, as a European, want U.S. troops in Iran, the U.S. first has to demonstrate conclusively it can effectively pacify and stabilise Iraq.

A U.S. that regularly overthrows stable though undesirable governments and replaces them with civil wars is a bigger threat to world peace than a nuclear armed Iran.

Note that I didn't claim Iraq is in a civil war right now. But it will be if the U.S. leaves under current circumstances, and it won't be able to maintain its current presence there indefinately.

This seems like an entirely rational view to me. As Americans and Brits, we are experiencing a double negative, our resources are being used and the war appears to be making things worse as far as world and our own security goes. And of course as you noted, it's not looking like such a great deal for the Iraqis either.

[davefoc]

Separate from any morality or issues of justification, it is my personal opinion that any Iranian adventure would be close to the opposite of what has been experienced in Iraq, i.e., the invasion itself would be far more difficult while the provision of security and stability afterwards would be easier (not "easy," just easier).

I am just amazed that Bushco is seriously floating this Iranian invasion.

But if the US did invade (presumably completely unilaterally, I don't think there's another willing and able country in the world that would go along with this) I am not so sure that post war Iran would be all that great. Iran has a serious division between the fundamentalists and the moderates and the moderates might not be too keen to side with the Americans when it means getting blown up. So Bushco would be in the position of using its awesome skills of managing a muslim country that have worked out so well in Iraq where that Muslim country has strong sectarian differences whose strongest common ground is their shared dislike of Americans.

I think there is something to be said for the case that Bushco has helped to solidify the position of the fundamentalists in Iran as a result of the Iraq invasion. I think the prewar Bushco theory on this was that stuff was going to go so well in Iraq that the Iranian government would be under enormous pressure to reform and become more friendly to the western interests. And if they didn't reform then Bushco would just invade and create the same kind of shangrila in Iran that they saw themselves creating in Iraq. Oh well, guess Bushco didn't quite get it completely right there. But I don't think they've given up on their desires for an Iranian invasion. I just hope that there is enought common sense and morality left in the congressional Republicans to stop this.

[egslim]

Separate from any morality or issues of justification, it is my personal opinion that any Iranian adventure would be close to the opposite of what has been experienced in Iraq, i.e., the invasion itself would be far more difficult while the provision of security and stability afterwards would be easier (not "easy," just easier).
I think the Administration felt the same way about Iraq, at least with regards to how difficult stabilising the country would be. But I don't want to take another such a gamble in a part of the world that is both volatile and economically important.

I just hope that there is enought common sense and morality left in the congressional Republicans to stop this.
I expect that if the Republicans maintain a majority after the Congressional elections, Bush will want to attack Iran.

[Mephisto]

Now, I really doubt they would use nukes, invasion is much more likely than nukes.

I wouldn't be too sure.

Fallout from Bush's Tactical Nukes on the American West
by Alex Roth

Late in May, the Bush administration won a major legislative victory in its push toward development of smaller nuclear bombs. Although criticized by some, President Bush's efforts likely received a warm welcome in southeastern Washington State at Richland High School (home of "The Bombers"), whose mascot is a giant mushroom cloud. The school's emblem was inspired by the nearby Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which produced the plutonium for countless nuclear weapons, including the bomb called "Fat Man," which obliterated Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945.

At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)

America has built no nuclear weapons since 1990, while deactivating many. Nuclear testing stopped roughly a decade ago, as did development of tactical nukes. The tax money just appropriated for tactical nuclear weapons research is quite small in proportion to military spending. But the president's policies are a distinct reversal of prior administrations' slow, steady retreat from the nuclear brink. Bush has made clear his willingness to use nuclear weapons, even in so-called pre-emptive strikes against non-nuclear countries.

Bush's nuclear policy, like Richland High's mascot, is a bizarre throwback to a bygone era, familiar in the American West, when the government thoughtlessly promoted military technology as a cure-all for ethical and diplomatic challenges.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-06.htm
_____________

"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
______________

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?

by Michel Chossudovsky

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense".

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032
______________

FROM DEBKA INTELLIGENCE FILES
Tactical nukes deployed in Afghanistan
Military sources say Bush, Putin agree on weaponry

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan in a single 70-minute conversation two weeks ago, according to military and intelligence sources reports DEBKA-Net-Weekly.

The arms would include small neutron bombs, which emit strong radiation, nuclear mines, shells, and other nuclear ammunition suited to commando warfare in mountainous terrain, according to the independent intelligence service.

As part of the agreement between the two presidents, Bush assented to Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons units around Chechnya, DEBKA also reports. Moscow faces guerrilla forces in the region – some of whom are backed by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24829

[Garrette]

I am not so sure that post war Iran would be all that great. Iran has a serious division between the fundamentalists and the moderates and the moderates might not be too keen to side with the Americans when it means getting blown up. So Bushco would be in the position of using its awesome skills of managing a muslim country that have worked out so well in Iraq where that Muslim country has strong sectarian differences whose strongest common ground is their shared dislike of Americans.

I think there is something to be said for the case that Bushco has helped to solidify the position of the fundamentalists in Iran as a result of the Iraq invasion. I think the prewar Bushco theory on this was that stuff was going to go so well in Iraq that the Iranian government would be under enormous pressure to reform and become more friendly to the western interests. And if they didn't reform then Bushco would just invade and create the same kind of shangrila in Iran that they saw themselves creating in Iraq. Oh well, guess Bushco didn't quite get it completely right there. But I don't think they've given up on their desires for an Iranian invasion. I just hope that there is enought common sense and morality left in the congressional Republicans to stop this.I'm not trying to downplay any sectarian or secular/religious splits. I'm looking at it from a counterinsurgency-prevention point of view. For a successful CI, two things must happen quickly, and in this order: (1) The general populace must be made to feel secure (2) The established regime/administration must provide basic services.

In Iraq, we screwed up the first because we didn't view it as an insurgency. We need not be so short-sighted in Iran.

Also in Iraq, we have failed to accomplish the second (for various reasons, some related to number 1). In Iran, however, the infrastructure is in far better shape than was that of Iraq's, even prior to our invasion. If damage to the infrastructure from the actual war could be limited as it was in Iraq (and it was), then we start with a leg up.

Please note that I am not advocating for an invasion of Iran. Nor am I suggesting that success would be either easy or certain.

[Mephisto]

Will Scott Ritter become the "new" Richard Clarke? He's been ridiculed and scoffed at, but (in spite of his timeline) will he be right?

x-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent

By Brandon Garcia

02/06/06 (Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm
______________

Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
by Scott Ritter

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq. There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.

Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'

To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.

But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that 'the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this.'

President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.' He quickly added, 'Having said that, all options are on the table.' In short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-31.htm

[Skeptic]

Has anyone here read the latest Harpers magazine article in the "Notebook" section?

It's a short essay by Daniel Ellesberg (I'm writing this from memory, excuse speling mistakes) about how he and Richard Clarke could have stopped the Vietnam/Iraq debacles, in that order. Both had access to documents and leaders that were clearly misrepresenting (err lying) facts to justify a war. Daniel does conceded that such actions would be at minimum career killers, and most probably involve some quality jail time for divulging state secrets. This is what drove both him and Clarke to keep quiet.

So, let's get this straight: Daniel Ellsberg--of "Pentagon Papers" fame--is telling us that he was too cowardly / loyal / afraid of his career to make public secret documents?

In addition, now, he decides to violate secrecy anyway (it's hardly likely the contents of such documents would have suddenly been declassified)--all of a sudden not being afraid of getting arrested or having his career destroyed?

Something's not right here.

[Charlie Monoxide]

So, let's get this straight: Daniel Ellsberg--of "Pentagon Papers" fame--is telling us that he was too cowardly / loyal / afraid of his career to make public secret documents?

In addition, now, he decides to violate secrecy anyway (it's hardly likely the contents of such documents would have suddenly been declassified)--all of a sudden not being afraid of getting arrested or having his career destroyed?

Something's not right here.I believe the implicatiuon of the article is that both he and Richard Clarke suffered fron the same battle of personal responsibilities. Should they have gone to the public BEFORE the damage was done and let the public see the proof of the lies, hopefully avoiding the outcome. The impact to them would have been an ended career and probably jail time. The positive side would have yielded less American (and collateral) deaths and most importantly less hatred of foreigners towards the US. Ellsberg also hints at, whoever is in the know about an Iranian adventure should also come forward.

Charlie (what's a trusted top secret aide with a conscious to do) Monoxide

[marksman]

Bush is not going to invade Iran simply because he'll be out of office before such a decision is imminent. Any decision to invade Iran won't be needed until 2009, at the earliest and Bush will have been out of office for more than a year.