Here are the links (I haven’t got the hang of the URL-link thing yet because I’m computer semi-literate!). My apologies:
Iraq’s Al Qaeda threatens to attack Iran:
link
link
link
link
[links inserted – b.]

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 10 2007 12:44 utc | 4

The air-craft carrier Enterprise left Norfolk and is heading to the Middle East.
That means there will be THREE aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

Posted by: Attaturk | Jul 10 2007 14:22 utc | 6

The vineyard saker analysis is interesting, but for a so-called military analyst, the guy is badly, badly wrong in some crucial respects, especially as it neglects the interlocking political and economic issues that any attack on Iran will generate.
Back in the early-mid 1990’s, when oil prices were low and there was generous spare production capacity, there was an O-Plan that discussed the Hormuz closure scenario, which envisaged a UNSC resolution authorising the US to use military force to take the appropriate action to re-open the Straits, and assumed permissive arrangements with the Gulf states to facilitate this. From memory, the scenario required an MEF of 30,000 boots to accomplish this – against an Iranian military that had yet to re-build from the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and that possessed few strategic capabilities ( ie surface to surface missiles ) and virtually no anti-ship missiles.
The big US advantage at the time was that it had a “force-in-being” – it no longer has this as the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are, literally, consuming the ground-components of the army/reserves/marine corps. Given the expansion of Iranian military capabilities, the MEF that would be required to secure the straits and the littoral around it would now be in the region of 60k – a force that the US cannot currently get remotely close to generating, let alone sustaining.
Another problem with the analysis is that there is an assumption that the Iranians “need” to close the Straits – which they don’t – and that the US could prevent this without deploying capital ships in the Straits themselves – which they can’t. This means that the US navy is going to be vulnerable. ANY military action in the Straits of Hormuz region, or the wider Gulf region, is going to disrupt shipping and, in all likelihood, lead to the invocation of war risks by Lloyds. This alone is going to lead to a 25-50% reduction of tanker traffic – which in and of itself is a global economic meltdown in the offing. Furthermore, why would the Iranians bother to expend lots of resources to try to close the Straits when they have some much simpler options – ie targetting the Kuwaiti/Saudi/Iraqi loading infrastructure, with their missiles ( Saudi ) and artillery systems ( Kuwait/Iraq ) – to achieve the same result…only better.
Saker also doesn’t explain how the US can put troops, which the US doesn’t have, into Iran in large numbers without actually putting its ships into proximity of Iran’s ASM’s and other attack options. It also strikes me that to even try such an operation would require a serious training committment, which has been neglected due to the pressures of the current CI/occupation focus of the US military, and the levels of unit/brigade/division cohesion that was evident for the 2003 Iraq invasion would need to be restored – and this is something which will take Iraq+5 to accomplish.
The talk about the nuclear option has always suggested to me that the US military has done the maths and told their political masters that they can’t win this one conventionally in the sort of time frame necessary to forestall major economic damage and without some serious consequences with regards to damage to key economic infrastructure – and that’s assuming they think that they can “win” at all.
FWIW, the US military has been saying since 2005 that it doesn’t want to do this, and since the replacement of Rumsfeld by Gates, who also has no appetite for a war with Iran, there is now a fracture in the chain of command. This makes it very difficult for Cheney to get a war on – as he’s dealing with a military that is at STRATEGIC odds with him.
As regards ominous signs, there is no chance of the US launching military action against Iran during the summer hurricane season, especially when oil prices are around $75 per barrel and there is no respite in sight. The Enterprise will be back in the ME in early-mid August, at which point the Stennis, having left Norfok on 16th January, will be heading back to the US; it’s a routine rotation.

Posted by: dan | Jul 10 2007 14:52 utc | 8

#4 this al baghdadi character just popped up on the scene in a way that reeked of cia.. to me anyway. very telling he is threatening war w/iran. the enemy of my enemy is … my friend. US/IS in bed w/AQ? wouldn’t be the first time.

Posted by: annie | Jul 10 2007 15:56 utc | 10

Great post b.
My 2 cents.
Iraq is going south BIG TIME with so many GOP heads calling Bush on teh surge.
Gates is working big time on talking to the USM and trying to ferret out the kool-aid stars.
Cheney wants war, Israel want war, so what are a few nukes, they want a new world order.
Bush is drinking Jack Daniels (Cheney leaves naggins in the WH restroom, as a special favour).
Bush is incoherent. Poppy call’s and messages are unanswered.
Back to NWO (new world order), Cheney’s mates in the Airforce want the F22 so badly…………. they might do anything.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 10 2007 17:32 utc | 12

Dan,
Excellent comment. Most of everything you said was very logical. (However, the mention of hurricane season or oil prices being a deterrent to a U.S. attack on Iran somewhat baffles me. Is it that after the Katrina disaster someone in the Bush Administration might actually care about national welfare, or at the very least, popular opinion?)
But as b illustrates so well in his comment, logic doesn’t comfort much when discussing the attitude and possible actions of Bush/Cheney: “Logic? We don’t need no stinkin logic!”
And what has Gates done to bring sanity to this bunch? What has Gates done to prevent the lunacy of this “Iraq Surge”? There is now just as much if not more death and carnage in Iraq than ever before. And spending 12 Billion (US $) a month is not chickenfeed and I believe the dollar costs are far greater than that. So many other troubling factors as b points out – this especially bothers me – ”Syria is asking all its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately.”
And perhaps these words of yours are the least comforting of all:

“The talk about the nuclear option has always suggested to me that the US military has done the math and told their political masters that they can’t win this one conventionally in the sort of time frame necessary to forestall major economic damage and without some serious consequences with regards to damage to key economic infrastructure – and that’s assuming they think that they can “win” at all.”

Posted by: Rick | Jul 10 2007 19:36 utc | 14

Rick
The Bush administration is acutely sensitive to the domestic political ramifications of high oil prices, and the 2004 hurricane season demonstrated how parlous the US’s domestic oil supply situation can become during the summer when there is the combination of high demand and high storm interruption/damage risks.
If you cast your mind back to the 2005 hurricane season, a number of important IAEA meetings that were scheduled to discuss the Iran nuclear dossier were postponed because of GoMex hurricanes. In poker this is a massive tell.
The last thing that the Bush administration would want to risk is the potential for a double disruption in both Gulfs – a bad month in Gomex can knock out up to 80 million barrels of US inventory, and that’s before we add in any refinery problems that may ensue – add the potential for another 200 million barrels to be knocked out of global supplies due to a problem month in the Persian Gulf, and you’re well past global economic meltdown territory. At any rate, oil prices in the $120-150 range will result in Americans killing each other, let alone Iranians.
Noirette
The Turks are not worried about the US – they already have their hands full in the rest of Iraq and simply don’t have the resources available to do anything about it; that’s before we consider the effects of the closure of Turkish airspace to US supply flights, the impounding of US planes at Incirlik ( a tasty addition to the already capable Turkish airforce ) and the closure of the border, thereby killing the US military in Mosul and Kirkuk which relies on supply convoys from Turkey for fuel. The Peshmerga, however, would make life difficult for them – but the flip-side is that the Kurdish units that are helping the US in Baghdad and elsewhere in Arab Iraq would head back to their home turf to fight, thereby leaving the US even more short-handed and bereft of reliable allies. That said, the Turkish army is not going to invade Iraq – this is a game of political leverage which was played in summer 2005 and summer 2006, when the Turkish military also moved to the border and made lots of threatening noises.

Posted by: dan | Jul 10 2007 20:12 utc | 16

interesting analysis dan, I don’t share your view on the airstrikes however. I read that over 250 aircraft are stationed at Balad alone. There are other large airbases in the region and that would include Israel too who would likely have to participate in the attack on Iran. There are bases in Afghanistan that would be used in another shock and awe style attack. You should also recall that some of the first bombers to hit Iraq in GW1 came from Louisiana nonstop and returned to base without landing…. those in addition to others from Diego Garcia. By now most of the cruise missiles have been replenished as well as the SLAMs (Standoff Land-Attack Missile), Patriot batteries are in place, satellites and drones should have mapped most of the fixed air defense systems and special forces will have decided what targets they will take out when the whistle blows.
I wish I knew more about Naval ops but two carrier groups carry a lot of firepower in addition to the aircraft launched from them, they pretty much control everything on three levels; air, surface, and underwater. it is certainly something Iran will consider when the best they have is a couple old diesel subs.
I don’t understand how the occupation of Iraq has become so expensive, in the beginning it was costing around a billion a week but now it is costing much more, almost twice as much. perhaps that money is being used for something else???
It would not be necessary for the US to invade Iran so these vast numbers of ground troops probably wouldn’t be needed. some small group in Iran could be talked into running the oil rich Khuzestan province for the US similar to what was attempted in Iraq…perhaps some version of Kurd?
whether the US uses nukes or not is not really that astonishing anymore. the US has always had a first use policy even though it was denied or not talked about domestically. the damage done from very large conventional bombs and small tactical nukes is not really that different and not at all noticeable to the recipients. there would hardly be any need to worry about world opinion and or backlash at this point either….in for a penny, in for a pound.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 10 2007 20:54 utc | 18

@dan:
Your excellent analysis has left me with two huge lingering concerns:
1) The USAF is run by fundies of the worst order, whose contingency plan is to be raptured. They will likely follow orders because they are itching to ‘stare into the face of God’ and find out if their pastor has been BSing them all these years. To complicate matters, the officers in the other service branches are being replaced with similar-minded troglodytes.
2) Cheney et al are now positioned to profit from any economic collapse and disappear into some jungle redoubt, never to be seen again. They are NOT concerned one whit about the ‘political costs’ of $150/bl oil, nor are they concerned that America will slip into 3rd-world-labor-pool status once the deed is done.
Up until this period, I have always refrained from wishing bodily harm to anyone, preferring that criminals like these see public justice within The System. However, the other night I found myself crossing the line and wishing and willing with all my might that Cheney would drop dead of a coronary soon. After all, I told myself, it’s for the good of Humanity.

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Jul 10 2007 21:19 utc | 20

dan of steele @ 18
one part of the answer to your question about why the Iraq occupation is becoming so expensive is fuel costs. Since there aren’t sufficient boots on the ground the AF has resorted to bombing the shit out of anything that moves and much that doesn’t and besides being an idiotic counterinsurgency tactic and a war crime in itself it’s incredibly expensive.
another big factor would be all the contractor/mercs we now have supporting this clusterfuck. there’s now more civilians than uniformed personnel and these guys make huge bucks.

Posted by: ran | Jul 10 2007 22:06 utc | 22

dan of steele and ran/
Deception and propaganda are hallmarks of the crazies – and these tools are implemented on American citizens to a far greater degree than on any unlucky military adversary who falls in our crosshairs. IMHO the actual costs of both wars has always been LESS than advertised – and what I mean is Congress is given a huge figure for an appropriation and the check does get cashed; but the money is not going where advertised.
Remember, we have always been told how one of Rumsfeld’s great errors was ignoring the Powell doctrine in fighting the war on the cheap. They view the entire operation as a hostile corporate takeover, and the spoils are divided up among the contractors, who are simply and extension of the pioneers, who bought their way into the game with very big political donations. The more money spent on things like body armor, the less profit. This also has the added bonus (in crazy world) of bankrupting America, thereby creating at least the possibility of dismantling the Great Society and any semblance of fair taxation. Now, to guarantee future profits, huge investments in permanent super bases is seen as critical and part of the cost of doing business.
The U.S. Treasury is moving into the hands of a very few radical right wingers. This is why, despite Nixonian favorability ratings and a hugely unpopular war, Bush and Cheney are still mocking Congress – take a look at the cash just the oil giants now have on hand, and it’s easy to understand how a very few can defy Congress and the American people. To say this will probably not end well is one of the bigger understatements ever made.

Posted by: Mart | Jul 11 2007 2:49 utc | 24

costing around a billion a week but now it is costing much more, almost twice as much
Three times as much. It is $12 billion per month in the new budget and increasing. Lots of it is actually “investment” in new fancy and useless equipment. But nobody knows for sure

Procurement of war equipment is also up from $23 billion in 2006 to $45 billion in 2007, reflecting an October 2006 guidance statement by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England to purchase for the “longer war on terror.”
…
The report points out that the costs of the Iraq war in particular have been increasing rapidly with this year’s expected tally of $135 billion amounting to a 40 percent increase over 2006. It notes that the average cost of a single U.S. soldier in Iraq last year was $390,000, up 22 percent from the $320,000 it cost in 2003.
…
In presenting the estimates, the CRS said it encountered difficulties in projecting costs because the Defense Department has supplied few specific details on how war funding is being spent and past supplemental funding often was mixed with money from the services’ regular budgets.
…
Although the U.S. plan is to bring U.S. forces back from Iraq, the CRS report notes President Bush’s plan to add 92,000 personnel to the Army and Marine Corps by 2012. The planned addition, the CRS report says, “appears to assume that the United States needs to be able to deploy substantial numbers of troops on a permanent basis.”

The old equiment gets wasted. The air-force seems to daily use its very expensive and few B-1B bombers stationed at Diego Gracia over Afghanistan. These are really big strategic bombers that cost some $35,000 (that number is from 2000 – guess its more like $50,000+ now) per hour to fly. A round time trip of 4-5 hours to flatten mud-huts or for some “show of presence”

A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer provided shows of presence with flares for a forward operating base and a Coalition convoy near Orgun-E.

Why use cheep A-10s when you can use-up a B-1B and buy new more expensive planes later?
Some money is also needed to further disable the Army through Fattening menus for troops in Iraq

The Army has loaded the menu at the 70 chow halls, run by contractor KBR, with a buffet of fattening fare, from cheese steaks to tacos and Rocky Road ice cream. Many soldiers gain more than 15 pounds on a deployment, military dietitians say. They are also seeing soldiers return from Iraq with higher cholesterol, mostly due to their eating habits.
Lt. Col. Maggie Brandt, a surgeon at the 28th Combat Support Hospital who had just come from a swim, said she was dieting but couldn’t resist the pistachio ice cream.
…
Most MREs, or meals ready to eat, contain about 1,300 calories; three a day are recommended. Supplemented with energy bars and drinks, they give soldiers the 4,500 to 5,000 calories they need for an active day of patrols or on the front line.
But many of the 400,000 meals served daily at chow halls in Iraq are consumed by soldiers who spend most of their time on base or at desk jobs.
And dietary misconceptions abound. Some soldiers load up on high-calorie meat to avoid perceived protein deficiencies. They guzzle sugary sodas, energy drinks and fruit juice to avoid dehydration when they’re better off with water.
…
Of course, soldiers also snack between meals, on care packages full of cookies, candy from the post exchange, or fries, pizza and Frappuccinos (“liquid sugar” to military dietitians) from fast food purveyors. There are 73 such outlets on U.S. bases in Iraq, according to the Army & Air Force Exchange Service, which operates them. They include Burger King, Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
…

The way congress lets the military handle the financial side of the war is simply insane. But it fills a lot of bank accounts …

Posted by: b | Jul 11 2007 5:41 utc | 26

DoS
The majority of the 250 airframes at Balad are helicopters – which are not much use as strategic bombers. The airbase is simply not big enough to accommodate 250 fixed-wing airframes. Note that the US requires support from naval aviation assets from their carriers to do combat air support over both Iraq and Afghanistan – this should tell you that they don’t actually have enough airframes based in either country to cover ongoing operations there. The B1’s are flying from Oman these days.
The airstrips ( Kandahar and Bagram )in Afghanistan are somewhat “austere” – which means that they’re not much use in a strategic bombing campaign as they cannot support the high-end aviation assets that are required for such operations; they’re also about 1500km from the bits of Iran that one might actually consider bombing. Afghanistan and Iran have pretty good relations – so you’re putting the US into a political conflict with its hosts.
Diego Garcia is a UK base – at best, the US will be allowed to use it for search and rescue missions for downed pilots. I’d also note that the B1’s that were based there have been moved as it’s too bloody far to Iraq/Afghanistan for operations to be sustained.
The other large airbases in the region are in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE: all of these countries, which have normalised relations with Iran, have explicitly told the US that they cannot be used for airstrikes on Iran. This is one of the insurmountable diplomatic obstacles that the US faces. The only country that actually wants the US to go to war with Iran is Israel – and they’re not going to be much help.
Iran has so much more than just a couple of diesel subs – they have hundreds of anti-ship missiles, some of which have ranges of 300km, that can be launched from fixed-wing, rotary wing, sea and mobile ground platforms – just hunting these assets down would take the combined aviation assets of 2 carriers. They also have an airforce, their own recon satellite, shed loads of mobile medium-range missiles, a very large “force-in-being”, regional intelligence networks, tactical footholds in both the UAE and Bahrain, and strategic footholds in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more Iranians travelling to Iraq and Afghanistan per day than Americans travelling to Iran in a decade – where do you think that the intelligence advantage actually lies? The UAE is an offshore Iranian colony – 25% of the population is from Iran. Bahrain is 60% Shia, Kuwait is 30% Shia, and a fellow member of the Saddamised club, Qatar and Iran have excellent relations.
The one thing that you’re forgetting is that all of the US airbases in the region are within easy range for Iranian retaliation, and that Iran actually has the means to retaliate. The ones in Iraq are technically surrounded already. I’m sure that Bernhard could give you an estimate of how many Hizbullah-style artillery teams it would require the Iranians to deploy in the Balad region to do runway denial; it’s really not that many.
There is no group in Iran that the US can task to take over Khuzestan, which is the most heavily-militarised region in Iran. It would require a force numbering in the 100’s of thousands to take this region ( go ask Saddam, he tried, and failed ) – and the US doesn’t even have 5% of the force necessary available for this. I can’t believe that after the Lebanon fiasco of last year, where Israel used everything in the US airpower playbook over a tiny battlespace and failed miserably, that you think the US can achieve a different result against an orders of magnitude bigger opponent, that is much better armed, has strategic depth, and real tactical advantages over the US that can be leveraged to its benefit; it’s insanity to think otherwise, and US military planners already know all of this.
The only reason that the Pentagon civilians under Rumsfeld started talking about nuclear options is because the planners gave them a list of requirements that they needed to do Iran – and these requirements cannot be fulfilled.
The nuclear option is a short-circuit; the downside of it is that the Bush administration goes down in history as being on a par with Hitler or Stalin – the US military knows this and is, understandably, not keen, as they’re quite content to be on a par with Pol Pot.
There are a number of reasons for the escalating costs of Iraq: entropy, reset for damaged, destroyed and worn-out equipment, rampant inflation, combat pay burdens and ultra-high re-enlistment bonuses, fuel costs, corruption and profiteering, bribing people to not attack you or your convoys etc. It all adds up.

Posted by: dan | Jul 11 2007 11:00 utc | 28

Juan
I never doubted that the US would invade Iraq – too many people had the hard-on for it, and the political campaign was relentless; Bush barely mentions Iran these days, Condi is awol and Cheney is stuck in the bunker. I didn’t think that invading Iraq made any sense or that they could successfully occupy the place in the medium term, but it was obvious by the Autumn of 2002 that it was going to happen.
The biggest reason that it was obviously going to happen, apart from the massive military build-up that was taking place, is that it was going to be relatively easy, as Iraq had no military capacities, no strategic leverage, was an exhausted mess of a country, and the US would, in practical terms, need only one ally – Kuwait – as an enabler.
Iran is orders of magnitude more complicated, and the economic, military, diplomatic and political blowback is instantaneous – not something that relentlessly creeps up on you over time.
What Bush/Cheney want is one thing – the question is whether they have the “heft” to get it; since Rumsfeld was replaced, I’d assert that they’ve lost their lynchpin – Gates is in there to do damage control, part of which is the avoidance of another conflict. Fallon has explicitly stated that there will be no war with Iran on his watch. These are substantive changes and you can’t just finesse them away as meaningless.
There has been Iran attack hysteria for nigh-on 2 years now – I want to know what you think that Bush and Cheney are waiting for, especially as every day of delay makes everything much harder, both politically and militarily.

Posted by: dan | Jul 11 2007 11:55 utc | 30

The blog Syria Comment has a long detailed post pointing to several ominous indicators of something big brewing in Syria/Lebanon in mid-July.

Anyone following Syria’s news lately would get the feeling that something is about to happen in Syria’s neighborhood during the following two months, and more specifically around mid-July.

Also yesterday Israel’s PM Olmert put out an offer of peace talks with Syria on Al Arabiya TV. One can only watch and wait to know what to make of this.
According to these various reports, the situation is apparently as follows:
– Bush is obsessed with regime change in Syria and won’t rest until it is accomplished. [Does anyone have any idea WHY? Other than serving Israel’s interests? Are there some plum locations for military bases in Syria? Bernhard?]
– Syria wants negotiations with Israel but insists that the Americans be involved.
– Israel wants negotiations with Syria but according to Olmert, gee, too bad, Syria’s Assad insistence on involving the Americans as a pre-condition is sabotaging the chance for talks. There go those Arabs again, missing a great opportunity…
– Meanwhile on the ground the armies of both countries are gearing up into a high state of readiness for an imminent confrontation.
So somehow the pieces of this picture don’t quite add up.
The blog has lots of other details as well.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 11 2007 13:21 utc | 32

dan,
Thanks for your comments. Considering Iran is left unharmed by the U.S. from direct military action, and considering Iran’s relative strenght in the region as you very well illustrate, I would like your opinion, and others here at Moon of Alabama also, on Iraq’s future, especially with regard to Iran. In short, will the U.S. be able to maintain its presence in Iraq over the years to come? What is the future for Iraq? Will it be in turmoil now for decades similar to what the Lebanese or Palestinians endure on a daily basis?
With regards to Lebanon and the increasing tension with interference from various nations, the following article today in the New York Times is very interesting to say the least:
Where Outsiders, and Fear, Loom Over Daily Life

Posted by: Rick | Jul 11 2007 13:49 utc | 34

@Parviz Answer the prayers of every terrorist – you mean Iran would play god?
🙂
—
@Dan – thanks for the info, opinion and this sentence.
The nuclear option is a short-circuit; the downside of it is that the Bush administration goes down in history as being on a par with Hitler or Stalin – the US military knows this and is, understandably, not keen, as they’re quite content to be on a par with Pol Pot.
hehe – good that the military is not overtly ambitious …
—
@Rick – Iraq’s future, especially with regard to Iran. In short, will the U.S. be able to maintain its presence in Iraq over the years to come? What is the future for Iraq? Will it be in turmoil now for decades similar to what the Lebanese or Palestinians endure on a daily basis?
1. The U.S. people lack the will and incentive to stay in Iraq. It’s either a draft or out – anything else is not tenable. But maybe Hillary finds a way to prolong the fight for a few more years just like Nixon did.
2. Future – very difficult to say – Hopefully the big neighbors would meet (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabi) and agree not to intervene militarily and to support a central solution. Then there is a chance for a short fight until some strongman or group evolves and reunites the country.
If the neighbors intervene, there will be proxy-war between Saudis and Iran which could take years until it resolves somehow with the Saudis loseing. Turkey would be get a bloody nose and lose in north Iraq and would certainly do some very, very nasty things …
3. Decades long? – I find this unlikely – Lebanon had 7 or 8 internal warparties with lots of outside forces mangling too (US, Israel, France, Syria) and ever changing coalitions. Iraq has three major groups. I’d doubt they’d take this long to find an agreement.

Posted by: b | Jul 11 2007 14:30 utc | 36

Rick
One of the banker results of toppling Saddam was that Iran and Iraq would move towards an entente cordiale. The momentum for this began years before the invasion happened ( one of the key Baathists, Izzat Ibrahim el Douri, who is an important figure in the insurgency, was the architect on the Iraqi side of improving relations with Iran in the late 1990’s ) and was set in stone by the summer of 2003 – it took the US the best part of a year to realise what had actually happened. The US was politically defeated in Iraq by the end of the summer of 2003.
The first elected Iraqi PM, Jafaari, made very significant moves towards “defence and security cooperation with Iran”, which freaked the US out so much, that, amongst other things, the US had to create a parallel Iraqi intelligence apparatus that wasn’t controlled by, in their estimation, Iranian proxies; when Jafaari won the December 2005 elections the US spent the best part of 5 months fucking around in a desperate bid to prevent him from retaining his post. This was a “spoiler” strategy and somewhat ineffective to boot, as Maliki is in broad agreement with the EC posture. There will be considerable integration of parts of Iraq into the Iranian economy – this is already happening in the South with connections to the Iranian grid, oil-swap deals, rampant smuggling, the development of export markets for Iranian goods/produce, massive pilgrim tourism to Karbala and Najaf (with the Iranians building a new airport specifically for this ).
The Iranians are currently involved in a diplomatic demarche with some of the Sunni political groups/tribes as a means of maintaining a sort of unity front that can function politically – this is post-occupation, endgame diplomatic manouevring. They’re going to be much more successful at this than the US, as Iran has no intention of becoming militarily involved in Iraq unless they’re attacked. What’s been noticeable is the utter lack of any coherent Jordanian, Egyptian, Saudi or Kuwaiti diplomacy since the occupation began – they really don’t have a clue as to how to deal with the mess, have their heads stuck in the sand and have no confidence in the Bush administration – or the wider US polity – to deal with the situation; they’re panicking – the Iranians are quite noticeably not.
The US cannot sustain itself in Iraq for much longer and is caught in the entropy trap ( and no amount of extra airpower can save it from this ) – its ground force component is tapped out, and there is talk of having to put some 30k National Guard troops into Iraq during the next rotation to keep force levels adequate ( ie 130k upwards ); 2008 will be a nightmare, with units having to extend tours to up to 18-24 months to prevent collapses at the margins. Forget about talk of withdrawing to bases and drawing down to a 50k post-occupation occupation; all the US bases are co-located with the Iraqi population in the Tigris-Euphrates vallies ( water, roads ) and they can’t be insulated from events outside the wire.
Once the decision is made in early 2009, it will take at least 18 months for the US to withdraw, and the process will be a hideous, and probably bloody, nightmare, as the US military will be forced to abandon tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars of kit/stores/sunk costs, hostages/dead bodies; there is going to be a significant payoff for Iraqi groups that can get hold of US military equipment, stores, hostages as a means of positioning themselves for the next phase of the civil war – the “bribery” costs to forestall this will be enormous, and will involve the handover of a lot of firepower.
The burnout costs once the endgame begins are going to be unbelievable, and will likely coincide with a severe US fiscal crisis, which will impede the US’s ability to reconstruct its ground forces for at least 5 years, if not longer; this was anticipated by the JCS in 2005 – and was at the source of Murtha’s opening salvos against the occupation “strategy”.
The Iraqi civil war will continue until the Iranians and Saudis get together and impose a Taifa-type solution. The US will have to under-write the costs of this – and it will be very, very expensive.

Posted by: dan | Jul 11 2007 14:59 utc | 38

@dan – thanks again – good summary – please stick around

Posted by: b | Jul 11 2007 15:32 utc | 40

The Bush administration is acutely sensitive to the domestic political ramifications of high oil prices
The *average* opinion of Americans shows an eerie and very high correlation between the price of gas and Bush approval.
pollkatz
Hive mind? Heh!
The Turks are not worried about the US – they already have their hands full in the rest of Iraq and simply don’t have the resources available to do anything about it; that’s before we consider the effects of the closure of Turkish airspace to US supply flights, the impounding of US planes at Incirlik ( a tasty addition to the already capable Turkish airforce ) ….
OK. And I agree the Turks will not invade Iraq, they have their cards to play.. I was peering far off into the future…fanciful hypotheses…
but overall I am appalled at the tone of this discussion, including my own posts, I mean wtf, everyone is discussing all this outside any moral scope, even ignoring any UN regulations – weak and un-enforced as they are, as the UN has become a lapdog to the US plus the poodle EU – a kind of gleeful Civ. X strategy game. It is natural of course. Still, ppl are maimed, shattered, die, in some disgusting modern version of the Great Game, armchair pundits in da West figure forces, air power, territory, movements, etc. All that also ignores the energy agreements that are being made, the corps, the below ground deals, pipelines, etc. etc. where it is really happening, thereby rendering any opposition completely toothless. (Err, as if any existed anyway.)
Just like in ww2 little boys and their dads from the upper classes stuck flags into maps. Color coded! Carefully placed! Discussed quietly with hot milk on hand, knee socks pulled up, and Mama drawing the curtains.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 11 2007 18:55 utc | 42

Really good overview on Iraq, Dan – and many others on war with Iran. My own outlook on Iraq has the Maliki government about two months overdue for collapse. I think I underestimated the commitment the U.S. has(d) in propping his government up at the expense of stalling political reconciliation, alienating our Sunni allies in the region, and doing Iran a big fat favor. The primary reason the commitment to Maliki has evolved into a larger than reason commitment has been to use him as a lynch pin of control in a naturally evolving (and out of their control) political dynamic. They have stuck with Maliki to prevent this evolving dynamic of sectarian reconciliation from falling into the hands of a Sadr/Sunni alliance – that would be grounded in a U.S. eviction notice, even though most of the “benchmarks” (excepting the oil law) would have to be resolved before hand. The main player here seems to be Allawi, who is setting himself up as the pivot point, offering himself simultaniously as both the front man for a U.S. sanctioned coup and at the same time offering to join the Sadr/Sunni dump Maliki group.
Its suprising that Maliki would have allowed himself to be so easily and piecemeal cut out of the party while invitations to Allawi are being sent by all.

Posted by: anna missed | Jul 11 2007 20:18 utc | 44

If the US engineers a Gulf of Tonkin event involving Iran, I expect the US to demand NATO assistance for retaliation in accordance with Article V.
I wish NATO breaks up in that case rather than play along, but I am not very hopeful.

Posted by: Migeru | Jul 11 2007 21:44 utc | 46

Debka’s lead (2006 War Anniversary) story today:
Hizballah Has Missiles for Downing Israeli Warplanes One Year after Lebanon War

Hizballah is in better military shape than ever before. Its sponsors, Iran and Syria, have not only replenished the rocket stocks depleted by daily barrages against Israeli towns and villages, but topped them up by 50%
[snip]
Hizballah has doubled the number of teams trained to launch rockets and given them a fleet of all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes for speedy movement between firing locations.

WOW! Motorbikes too!
But that’s not all:

Most of the new rocket supplies, including hundreds of Zilzal-2, Zilzal-3, and Fatah-110, which has a range of 250 km (reaching Tel Aviv and points south), are stored in large emergency depots on the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon to keep them out of sight of UN peacekeepers and out of the way of the Israeli Air Force in a flare-up of hostilities.
[snip]
Hidden there too is double the number of anti-tank missiles in service with the Hizballah in 2006, of types which caused heavy damage and casualties to Israeli tank crews. Syria has upgraded this stock with a large supply of “Third Generation” missiles bought in Russia with Iranian funding.
[snip]
Last year, Hizballah fielded 1,600 well-trained commandos, the backbone of its fighting force, and lost 750 in combat with the Israeli army. Since then, 1,200 fresh fighters have been recruited and are undergoing commando training at a special facility near Tehran.

And Debka made sure the point that Iran and Syria are behind this all.

Posted by: Rick | Jul 12 2007 4:35 utc | 48

This afternoon, the US Senate passed – in a 97-0 vote – the Lieberman Iran Amendment.
While it is a “sense of the Senate” amendment – and the last minute negotiations inserted language saying it was not an authorization for war, Ian Welsh lines it up very well over at the Agonist:

The Senate passed a bill yesterday instructing the militry to give it more details on what it calls Iran’s intolerable acts of hostility towards the US. As Agonist readers know the drumbeat that Iran is behind attacks on the US in Iraq (indeed, that next to al-Qaeda it is the primary actor) has been going on for months now. (Al-Qaeda, of course, is not the primary insurgency movement in Iraq, and the evidence on Iran is sketchy and beside the point in any case. Thank goodness the USSR didn’t nuke the US into the ground for supplying the mujahideen with weaponry, which is simply a matter of public record, not of conjecture.)
This is part of the drumbeat for war with Iran. The bill passed 97-0 and while authorization for military action was stripped out of it (for now), does anyone doubt that the military will report anything but that Iran is deeply involved in giving support to everyone in Iraq, including Sunni insurgency groups it makes no sense for Iran to work with? They certainly have in the past, and while the evidence has bordered on non-existent, there’s no reason to believe they won’t continue to do so.

And Atrios noted in an email how this will go down:

“How could you not support military action against a country committing acts of war against the United States?”
— Every single conservative and Republican in the weeks before the Iran AUMF vote.

The discussion here becomes more interesting, eh?

Posted by: Siun | Jul 12 2007 7:24 utc | 50

“I would like your opinion, and others here at Moon of Alabama also, on Iraq’s future, especially with regard to Iran. In short, will the U.S. be able to maintain its presence in Iraq over the years to come? What is the future for Iraq? Will it be in turmoil now for decades similar to what the Lebanese or Palestinians endure on a daily basis?”
Rick, America’s days in the Persian Gulf are numbered. America is considered on the Arab street (but obviously not in the palaces) as the epitome of evil. No left lost between America and Iran either. The sooner America gets out the better. There would initially be chaos, but no worse than what we are witnessing at present. U.S.-supported Arab dictators would fall one by one, and the seeds of democracy would sprout, albeit with massive teething problems. As for Iran, which contrary to its current image hasn’t attacked another country in 200 years, it would play a positive role in the region, helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and becoming, once again, the local policeman of the Middle East.
With the U.S. withdrawal the Iranian regime would come under unbearable pressure to either reform or disintegrate. I look forward to that day. So, America, we appreciate your good (?) intentions but, thanks but no thanks!

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 12 2007 8:44 utc | 52

A pleasure. You’re either a late night bird or the first to have woken up over there. I’m 10 1/2 hours ahead of Ca. so while you’re all asleep I go through the many posts. So answering in ‘real time’ becomes a problem for me, a minority of one!
Back on topic, it’s bitterly ironic that citizens of virtually the entire Middle East, notably traditional enemies like Arabs and Persians, are united by their common hatred of the U.S.A.. It shows how low America has sunk since the days of George Marshall. This is the bitter truth. It will take decades, if ever, to recreate trust between the citizens of our respective nations.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 12 2007 10:04 utc | 54

@Parviz
I also wanted to say, I welcome your voice here and I hope you stick around. It’s great to have some balancing perspectives from Iran in particular, which is so greatly demonized and so poorly understood in the US, and of course from anywhere else in the Middle East as well.
Believe it or not, most Americans to this day have little idea of what we have wrought in the region in the past 6 years. I bet if a survey was run we would find the lack of understanding simply astonishing. For that matter, it would be a great exercise to survey the entire US Congress on their understanding of the war, its impact, and the region and its history in general. I would we’d find that their knowledge of the Middle East is, at the very best, extremely rudimentary and in most cases, non-existent.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 12 2007 12:25 utc | 56

“I also wanted to say, I welcome your voice here and I hope you stick around. It’s great to have some balancing perspectives from Iran in particular, which is so greatly demonized and so poorly understood in the US, and of course from anywhere else in the Middle East as well.”
Thanks for the above comment. Did you know that Iran has a population of 30,000 Jews, a Jewish Member of Parliament, 20 synagogues, 200 churches, private clubs for religious minorities where they can interrelate freely without restrictions on alcohol and dress codes? Did you also know that Iran is America’s and Israel’s natural ally, having freed the Jews from enslavement in Babylon 2,500 years ago and supplied Israel with crucial fuel during the 1967 war? Or that Iran hasn’t attacked another country in 200 years and whose only foreign venture was to put down a Communist rebellion in Oman in the early Seventies at the request of the Sultan? Did you know that Iran freely granted independence to Bahrein in 1970 at the request of its 70 % Shi’ite majority which is now oppressed by the 30 % Sunni minority? (Looks like a mini-Iraq in the making …).
Even more recently, with Iran’s considerable assistance to the U.S. in obliging the Afghan Northern Alliance to cooperate in expelling the Taliban …. Iran’s comprehensive peace offer to the U.S. in May, 2003 …. etc.,. one really wonders what lay behind the ‘Axis of Evil’ sobriquet other than the demonization of one of the most civilized and hospitable countries on Earth, as most foreign visitors will attest, while oppressive Saudi Arabia and terrorist-breeding-ground Pakistan are considered America’s ‘allies’!!! America has indeed turned the world upside down, and it will need a lot of fixing.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 12 2007 13:11 utc | 58

Bea
OIL is a sub-component, the key phrase is SOVEREIGN AUTONOMY.

Posted by: dan | Jul 12 2007 13:51 utc | 60

Like r’giap, I also think dan’s military analysis makes very good sense. But from my Intl. Relations point of view, when I take present day trends and preparations and extrapolate them into the future, I find a very high probability of major action against Iran in the 5-8 years’ time frame.
One of the best articles I’ve read on this subject was,
The U.S. will not leave Iraq without first militarily weakening Iran.
From mega surge to dual rollback

(snip)Though premised on conventional balance of power calculations, dual containment was never intended to be an open-ended policy of eschewing force. Indeed, by the end of the 1990s, Neocon lobbyists had begun pressing for a shift from dual containment to “dual rollback,” an ambitious strategy that envisaged the use of both military and non-military pressure to bring about regime change in Iraq and Iran and thereby strengthen U.S. and Israeli interests in the region.
The beauty of dual rollback was that it accepted the logic of dual containment but turned its prescriptions inside out: If attacking Iraq meant strengthening Iran, the Neocon answer was not “dual appeasement” but dual war. (snip)

I think the article does a good job of explaining how going against Iran had always been a part of the broader project.
But the build up will be slow and ‘delicate’, and present day trends can and should be changed. The sense of imminence we all feel isn’t because the next step is about to happen right away. It is because the time to react is now. (Just like in ecology, only in the field of ecology they have even longer time frames.)

Posted by: Alamet | Jul 12 2007 15:25 utc | 62

not sure how much will have changed in 5 or7 years regarding the disparity in US-Iran military capability or the fallout scenarios.
The technological balance is tricky to call. In some ways it may actually favor Iran more as they acquire more over time. Time will also boost the overall potenccy of weapons on both side. Also,I recall seing reports that some of Irans missiles are much more potent than previously thought. Given a few more years, these factors could possible extrapolate to USA’s disadvantage.
Iran will rely on low-tech weaponry wherever it can. The USA has still not found a counter for IED’s. And barring some serious break-throughs, IED’s & other low-tech weapons will continue to be a major problem in the years ahead.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 12 2007 16:18 utc | 64

Great post, Dan. The only point you forgot to mention is that the economic situation inside Iran is deteriorating so rapidly that the Mullahs are doing America’s job for it! Today Iran liquidated the Management and Planning Organization which had controlled Iran’s expenditures and budgets successfully for 60 years. The next target is the Central Bank (Bank Markazi) which is the only internationally prestigious financial conduit to the outside world. Corruption is the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime (let’s say I’m around 60), and administrative inefficiencies under Ahmadinejad have already become the stuff of legend.
So ironically the Mullahs are finally helping U.S. sanctions to work! A great pity for Iran and America, because the country has $ 15 Trillion of proven oil, gas and metallurgical reserves which are dirt cheap to exploit. Persian Gold (an Irish company) last year discovered a huge gold mine in the North-West with a concentration of 18 grams per ton (2gms/ton is considered good), while we have among the world’s largest copper, aluminium, zinc, titanium and iron ore reserves. The country produces 30 million tons of wheat per year, 15m tons of steel and one million cars. The country’s agricultural output lies in the global top 20 in 30 different categories, etc.,. 65 % of university graduates are women. 99 % of the workforce is Iranian, unlkke nations in the rest of the Gulf whose prosperity depends on a foreign workforce comprising up to 90 % of the labour market.
What a waste! What a horrendous waste!

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 12 2007 17:06 utc | 66

r’giap, there is no wars of the future like those that have happened in the past. Iran, learning from Iraq and South of the Litani etc have decided that there are only two weapons in store for their potential invaders.
Missiles and IEDS, there will not be great battles on the field with tanks aka Israeli’s wars post 1967, and daring pilots adding another little star or whatever to his airframe.
The Israel/Hezbollah war last year changed every fucking thing about old colonial battles, and the USSR/USA conflict that was to be WW2 redux.
Gone are the days that bankers are funding/sending men to walk into machine gun fire.
There are men in the US that want to nuke Islam, didn’t some novelists predict hijacking planes etc…..

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 12 2007 17:48 utc | 68

r’giap, I’m not so sure about ‘occult forces’ behind all this. I put it all down to plain ‘stupidity’, which is what originally caused the mess, followed by ‘punch-drunk syndrome’ which is what the stupidity has developed into.
In more practical terms, Israel took full advantage of American ‘stupidity’ by leading your nation into a war against Iraq which, if successful, would have fulfilled both Israeli and U.S. aims but which, if unsuccessful, would at least have served Israel’s aim by destroying a ‘near enemy’ (at America’s expense).
Israel is behind the incessant exhortation for a military strike on Iran, to take out Israel’s 2nd perceived ‘near enemy’, after which Syria (‘near enemy’ no. 3) would collapse and Lebanon/Palestine would be deprived of further support. That’s why Israel has never uttered a single word against Pakistan which has the Islamic bomb and whose security services and military are saturated with Al Qaeda sympathizers. Pakistan is 4,000 km away and its fanatics mainly want to destroy U.S. ‘puppet regimes’ in the region, as well as mobilize Muslims in Europe and the U.S.. It’s really strange that Israel and Pakistan avoid each other so studiously. That’s a phenomenon that can have only one explanation.
If there are any ‘occult forces’ at work, they are to be found in Israel and among its blind U.S. supporters.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 12 2007 19:33 utc | 70

welcome saker –
Just as Dan, I agree with you on the Hormuz closing – Iran would have no need to do such – Dan probably missunderstood you on that one in his first comment, but he will certainly be able to argue that himself.
But when you say I am sorry to say that the rest of your points are just about as lame. that is too short of a serious discussion entry at all. If you want me or anyone here take you serious, you’ll have to expand that to some reasoning.
Dan has made some quite valuable and even irrefutable points. I think he is wrong in assuming rational behaviour in the White House, but that’s a different direction to take, not a full blown refuting of his argument.
If you want to argue what he says, please let’s hear your points.

Posted by: b | Jul 12 2007 20:11 utc | 72

Another abrupt change of plans:

Also on Wednesday, it was announced that the scheduled visit of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region [Middle East] next week was canceled. American sources said the last-minute decision to cancel the visit was made because of the efforts in Congress to pass legislation that will limit the American presence in Iraq.
At a lengthy press conference, President George W. Bush, said that Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would travel to the Middle East in early August.

Not sure if this qualifies as “ominous,” but it is certainly noteworthy.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 13 2007 1:20 utc | 74

b – I appreciate your interest in a serious conversation, but Dan really twists my points to such a degree that no serious conversation is possible. For example, he writes Saker also doesn’t explain how the US can put troops, which the US doesn’t have, into Iran in large numbers without actually putting its ships into proximity of Iran’s ASM’s and other attack options (…) Saker also doesn’t explain how the US can put troops, which the US doesn’t have, into Iran. That is just utter nonesense. First, I was discussing aircraft carriers, not something used to land troops (if you have any doubts about that, please listen to my interview about my article with Scott Horton here: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/07/saker-on-scott-hortons-radio-show-for.html
Second, there are Marine Corps forces out there which the Pentagon could use if needed. Most of what Marines train is exactly that – landing an expeditionary force under fire. The US is quite capable of landing Marines of the Iranian cost under fire after taking out Iranian C4I nodes. And Marines are more than capable of creating beach heads to allow for heavier units to come in. And please remember that I wrote “The end goal of this first phase would be to control (but not necessarily occupy) most (but not necessarily all) of the Iranian coast”. I was *not* talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Anyway – I bring up these points just to illustrate my point that Dan is in now way trying to discuss things seriously.
I am all for serious discussion, but not for “defending” points I never made in the first place, in particular when “challenged” by people who can’t read (and who calls me a “so-called military analyst”. I am not going to purse a pointless polemic with this guy, nor am I going to try to make a point here: let everybody judge me, and Dan, on what we actually wrote.
If you want to seriously discuss any of what I wrote – I invite you to my blog at http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/ and I will gladly discuss any tpic of interest to you. You can also email me at vineyardsaker@gmail.com
Kind regards,
VS

Posted by: vineyardsaker | Jul 13 2007 1:22 utc | 76

Oops, last sentence in the above post (#77) was mine, not part of the article.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 13 2007 1:49 utc | 78

Israel & Syria: Talking of Peace, Preparing for War

Despite talk of peace, both Syria and Israel are preparing for war amid mutual distrust and confusion. “There has never been such a state of readiness since the 1980s and there is a great danger of a chain reaction if one sides makes a mistake in reading the other’s intention,” said Eyal Zisser, a strategic analyst at Tel Aviv University.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 13 2007 4:31 utc | 80

@Vineyardsaker – 26
Well – on Dan’s point on lack of troops taking over the Iranian coast, I think he is right.
In your essay you write

“This is were the 17000 Navy Personnel currently sitting off the Persian coast come in: by physically taking over key sections of the Iranian coast and a number of islands in the strait, the US Navy would hope to make it much harder for the Iranians to close down the traffic. “

Currently there is one marine expeditionary group in the Gulf. At maximium the US could probably deploy three together. Each has some 2200 men but not all of those fight. The infantry strength is about a reinforced batallion (some 600+ troops) each.
Three groups would put some 1200 actually on the ground and keep 600 in tactical reserve as a backup. Enough to capture some Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf, but hardly enough to do something significant on the coast.
Those 17000 Navy personel are sailors, not ground troop. “physically taking over key sections of the Iranian coast” they can’t do.
You also write “The entire idea of Iran sinking a US carrier is in the realm of fantasy, not real naval warfare.”
The last ‘unsinkable’ ship I know of was named “Titanic”.
Dan disagrees on your point (I do too)- so does Lt. Gen van Riper in the Army Times: War games rigged?

The most elaborate war game the U.S. military has ever held was rigged so that it appeared to validate the modern, joint-service war-fighting concepts it was supposed to be testing, according to the retired Marine lieutenant general who commanded the game’s Opposing Force.
…
Van Riper, who retired in 1997 as head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, is a frequent player in military war games and is regarded as a Red team specialist. He said the constraints placed on the Opposing Force in Millennium Challenge were the most restrictive he has ever experienced in an ostensibly free-play experiment.
…
As a result of Van Riper’s cunning, much of the Blue navy ended up at the bottom of the ocean. The Joint Forces Command officials had to stop the exercise and “refloat” the fleet in order to continue, Oakley said.

Van Riper did sink the carriers in a free simulation by playing uncoventional and ‘unfair’.
(Also of interest James Fallows/Sam Gardiner in their 2004 simulation described in The Atlantic: Will Iran Be Next?)
For a carrier to do air operation it has to go straight against the wind at high speed (25kn) for a quite prelonged time of 1-2 hour at least. A nice predictable target for a swarm of sunburn missiles.
As for “so-called military analyst” – neither Dan nor I do know to what degree you are a military-analyst. How could we?

Posted by: b | Jul 13 2007 5:48 utc | 82

b, I was rather shocked at Saker’s statement. Even before reading it I complimented Dan on a “great post” (66). Iran’s military sophistication today is a very large multiple of Iraq’s pre-invasion capability: Remember, Iran drove back Iraq for 8 years despite full U.S. support and access to unlimited Western state-of-the-art equipment such as Mirage jets and Exocet missiles (which is why we class the French as whores after they defied U.S. ILSA sanctions and switched sides).
Iran has spent maybe 30 % of its GDP since then (1988) on its military, there is a massive local production of traditional weaponry via the National Defence Industries Organization, and its top Revolutionary Guards Brigades (such as the elite Ghods Force) are easily a match for U.S. marines. The country is 3 times larger than Iraq and with a 3 times larger population. Much of Iran is mountainous (The Alborz range to the north rising to 4,500 metres) and the Zagros range to the south, and its most sophisticated weaponry is hidden underground. The country is fully self-sufficient in everything except gasoline, but that is being urgently corrected through rationing and other measures.
There has been no ‘No Fly Zone’ which hindered Iraq’s air capability. There has been no nationwide U.N. inspections of weapons sites and weapons production factories, as occurred in Iraq post-1991, and which helped the CIA and the Pentagon (under guise of WMD investigation) to obtain precise details of Iraq’s military capability (Scott Ritter actually admitted the inspections had a dual purpose).
Iran has land-to-sea missiles and other Missiles with a capacity to cause havoc throughout the Persian Gulf, and they could do this without closing the Straits of Hormuz. (Katyusha rockets are mosquito bites in comparison).
Finally, America is already hated by the globe’s 1.2 billion Muslims, and by much of the rest of the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement (3 billion), and they would provide everything to Iran as a proxy to gain revenge against U.S. colonialism. Not even the U.N. would sanction a U.S. attack, so America would have neither the ‘moral right’ nor the global support to attack Iran. Saker, I can tell you that it would be a massive bloodbath even for those navy personnel hiding in the relative safety of their 3 aircraft carriers.
Don’t even think about it.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 13 2007 6:42 utc | 84

…….. which simply confirms the disaster that would occur if America attacks Iran: There would eventually be not one but many rooftops needed to escape from.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 13 2007 6:59 utc | 86

I forgot to mention: When America invaded Iraq the victim was already bankrupt and with debts of $ 100 billion. Babies were dying of starvation (thanks to U.N. sanctions).
By contrast, Iran has official IMF/BIS confirmed reserves of $ 62 billion and is a net international creditor. There is a further $ 100 billion in secret funds offshore, which would be diverted to additional weapons’ purchase and global terrorism funding at the drop of a hat. In effect, U.S. accusations that Iran is “the No. 1 State Sponsor of Terrorism” would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Iran is earning an additional $ 200 million/day through oil sales, it has 16 land and sea borders (more than any other nation except Russia) and therefore it is strategically impossible to shut it off or close it down barring a full nuclear assault.
If U.S. military planners are still as stupid as the ones that planned the invasion of Iraq, they won’t be aware of any of the difficulties mentioned in my various posts.
There are radicals in Iran that are praying for a U.S. attack, believing in the coming of an Islamic saviour in the midst of chaos (rather like the Tribulations forecasted by extremist Christians), and they pray every day that America will “Bring ’em on”. This is as close as it gets to the ‘Occultism’ discussed in various posts.

Posted by: Parviz | Jul 13 2007 7:15 utc | 88

To begin, pardon me for butting into a conversation in which I am far too unprepared and unqualified to join. I found this website via a link from TPM, and the discussion on this post, in particular, demands that I become a regular visitor. To all, I say this is the most detailed discussion of this topic I’ve ever encountered – not only in viewpoints but also in specific, concrete, mostly non-partisan ideas. Bravo to you all; I will be back often to check in on the conversation.
From my layman’s perch, I submit two questions for all, for the purpose of my education and enlightenment and also to throw in an idea I’ve not found in these lengthy, detailed posts:
1.) Where do you guys all get your information? You write coherent, detailed, thoughtful analyses regarding possible conflict with Iran. I know you’re not just reading the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal: they don’t offer the depth of reasoning I’ve encountered here. So is this personal knowledge you’re basing these posts on? Internet news sites? Blogs? I ask with the selfish hope that I might be able to add those news sources to my daily diet; far too much of what passes for discourse in America these days, if it focuses on foreign affairs at all, is simply rubbish at best, propaganda at worst.
So I ask you humbly, share with me your sources. Help out this 20-something, politically-aware but obviously in-the-dark American… how and where can I become better informed?
2) From my humble perch, I offer an idea I did not encounter in my readings of the above posts. The discussion in regards to Bush/Cheney has revolved around the ideas that they are either idiots or crazies or misguided fools due to the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq. I posit that chaos WAS the goal from the beginning. I posit that continuing sectarian strife and a turbulently violent society WAS EXACTLY their plan from day one and even prior. For all the talk of the US not having a war plan or an occupation plan, perhaps they did – and they’re succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. (Remember, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton). The disgusting war profiteering that has occurred in this conflict is beyond the pale. I posit that the supreme unpreparedness of the US (ie. Donald Rumsfield’s goal to fight the war on the cheap “with the Army that [we] have”) was in itself a tactic to create chaos. Within a chaotic realm, it is much easier to loot the bank. Numerous areas of possible profit would have been flushed down the tubes if this had been truly about stabilizing Iraq or democratizing Iraq.
Dan’s right – the oil is merely a sub-component; looting America’s treasury is as well: but the chaos is the curtain.

Posted by: imjustakid | Jul 14 2007 2:32 utc | 90

@Im justakid
Welcome! As for where we get our information, the crowd here is a great start. We all tend to read a wide variety of sources — foreign press from all over, blogs, and US media — and the collective compilation here is quite enlightening. So I suggest you start by sticking around for a while and following all the posts and the links. This will, in time, give you your own wealth of sources to then expand upon.
As for your hypothesis that chaos was the goal, I completely agree. For what motive, exactly, I am still not completely clear.

Posted by: Bea | Jul 14 2007 5:07 utc | 92

Chaos is just a symptom of a failed state. The U.S. would rather have a compliant client state, but having failed that outcome they will deliberately insist no power outside of their control shall achieve legitimate state status. Chaos is a natural development after having the state apparatus dismembered. Chaos is useless in milking another state and is only useful with respect to preventing a populous/nationalist government (as say Hezbollah or the Islamic Courts)from materializing – or breaking up the formation of one that is beginning to materailize (as Hamas). In Iraq, this is the only reason that I can see that the U.S. has stuck with the Maliki government. The U.S. would like to benchmark that government into a pacified quasi-nationalist client state in spite of its sectarian horse blinders and the dismay of its regional allies. The main reason for the unlikely support is to prevent any other agency
, especially a Sadr/Sunni alliance, from developing national consensus that would deal the U.S. out wholesale. So while they complain about Maliki, his government generates about the right amount of friction or chaos needed to prevent an alien consensus from developing. While continuing to remove from Maliki his allies one at a time, while arming his enemies one at a time, in attempt to create dependency. Even the president mentioned recently, that his aim in Iraq was to reduce the chaos to a “tolerable level” or I suppose to a level tolerable to himself in washington. But nonetheless, chaos doesn’t build anything itself – and you may be able to prevent someone else from buying that property, by burning it down, but then you can’t live in it either.

Posted by: anna missed | Jul 14 2007 6:20 utc | 94

I am in two minds on the question if the chaos in post-war Iraq was/is the intention of the driving forces behind the invasion.
On one hand, almost every major decision on Iraq made by the US administration contributed to what we have today, rampant civil war. It is hard not to suspect intent.
On the other hand, applying the cui bono filter, taking a look at who actually has gained net benefits through the chaos, and it already looks much different.
The office of US administration and its bearer’s reputation has certainly not gained from the chaos. It remains to be seen if even such basic assumed benefits like permanent bases will be realised. In effect, the USA’s global position and image have suffered greatly from the existing chaos in Iraq. I can’t really see that having been the envisioned outcome that was secretly worked towards.
The neo-con dream of bringing about a more powerful and dominant USA required a successful invasion, show of control and command, demonstrating to all “rogue” nations, that the US is the one and only, can do military force in the world, too strong to oppose as it is nearly almighty. That dream was not based on never ending US casualties and ensuing civil war, but on a functioning puppet government which without further ado establishes efficient police and military control and pushes through the new oil laws. Thanks largely to the chaos and divisions in the country, the US could put neither in place yet, not the functioning puppets nor the oil laws. But instead, as result of this botched invasion, some high up neo-cons and war planners lost their job (not to mention their credibility). The neo-con dream in shatters, really.
I am certainly not an expert on the ME, but I get the feeling that a less chaotic, but more US controlled Iraq would also have been in Israel’s best interest. Whilst I do see the Iraqi civil war benefiting Israel in as much as it doesn’t allow Iraq to strengthen nor a dominant theocracy taking over, the whirlwind created by the insurgency and war has attracted many Islamic fighters into the region, been a catalyst for fundamentalism and extremist behavior, which can easily translate into Israel’s detriment. Its desire was certainly regime change, creating a tame and self absorbed Iraq under US rule, but insurgency and civil war revealing an impotent USA, leading to growing Iranian influence and possibly instability in the whole ME? Hard to fathom.
Apart from Islamic fundamentalists and other Jihadis, the only big time benefactors of the chaos I can make out are not countries, but the military industry and oil giants. They are earning themselves a golden nose. With the WH in George the Oil man’s and Dick the military industry rep’s firm grip, those two commercial interest groups were always bound to be winners in any scenario Bush/Cheney would create. However even here I reckon that their preferred method of maximizing profits would have been to have a successful operation Iraq with a puppet regime in place which regulates the oil output as ordered by Washington, leaving a proud and ready to rock US military to blow its arsenal on taking over Iran and its resources. The profits could be even bigger.
So, I do believe that divide and conquer is a popular US strategy when it comes to gaining power, but in Iraq’s case the conquer isn’t happening. Quite the opposite. To me it seems that none of the invading forces and interest groups had such an out of control anarchy in mind when picturing the outcome. It was mainly plain stupidity coupled with arrogance, greed and ideology on behalf of the decision makers which led to today’s reality in Iraq. The reasons for the chaos are less at home in the “plan and intent” corner than they are over near where “ignorance and indifference” are at home.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 14 2007 9:40 utc | 96

I will unlurk for a moment to suggest to imjustakid that a very good resource if you want to get news is NewsNow they’re a UK service which trawls through online news to provide a real-time news service. You’ll get coverage from all over the world there. This for example is what they have for Iraq news feed as I type this:
McCain criticizes Clinton on Iraq policy Santa Cruz Sentinel, California 12:00
In rare battle, U.S. troops kill 6 Iraqi police officers The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio 12:00
As Senators disagree, Iraq decision lingers The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio 12:00
Key GOP senators offer new Iraq plan The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio 12:00
Democratic rivals advocating Iraq ‘defeatism,’ McCain says The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio 12:00
Iraq PM confident in forces without U.S. (AP) Yahoo! US 12:00
Campaign Woes Overshadow McCain’s Speech Washington Post 12:00
Despite talk, Iraq shift unlikely anytime soon MSNBC 12:00
5 to 10 minutes old
U.S. troops kill six Iraqi police in rare battle Bloomington Herald-Times, Indiana 11:56 [Source requires subscription]
10 to 15 minutes old
Iraq PM Confident in Forces Without U.S. The Associated Press 11:53
Al-Maliki: Iraqis can handle security Mercury News, California 11:53
Multi-National forces condemn attack in Fallujah Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) 11:52
Diyala no longer a “terrorist capital” in Iraq — US officer Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) 11:52
At least 21 Iraqis dead in a fresh wave of violence Monsters and Critics 11:49
You’ll find a lot corporate crap there but also a lot of good reporting try selecting a few news feeds the “regions” drop down box to see what I mean.
Be warned it’s addictive (ask Siun) happy hunting 🙂

Posted by: Erdla | Jul 14 2007 11:11 utc | 98

Juan Moment, Siun, imjustakid, Dan, our regular contributors, and everyone…
Like b, I do not find these posts contradictory. Each is like a chapter in a book, necessary to understand the whole story. Such various points of view help one keep an open, questioning mind.
If there is a common theme to this thread, it is the utter disregard for the Iraqi people. In other threads, I have called it out right genocide on the part of the U.S. government. I have not changed my opinion. This same attitude applies to U.S. relations with many peoples. Not much learned since Vietnam. And the U.S. allies are not innocent in this. All of this leads to our justified worry for the future of the Iranian people.
Excellent posts, Excellent thread. Thanks to all.

Posted by: Rick | Jul 14 2007 11:51 utc | 100