The trigger will either be pulled on Iran this year, or the trigger will fail to be pulled.
America will either succeed in militarily forcing itself into a position of control over the oil spigots of the Middle East and Caspian Basin, or it will fail to do so, and win only ashes.
It is so simple.
All that needs to happen is for Iran’s government to fall, and their new government to seek very close relations with America. Long term basing agreements, oil production contracts, arms sales from Lockheed and Boeing, and all will be forgiven. We can put the Shah’s son in charge, or Allawi, or Maliki’s sister’s nephew, whomever we choose.
And then we can base a lot of troops in the far north of Iran, and start pressuring Azerbaijan to see things our way. Accept some bases, buy some planes, do some business.
And then Turkmenistan. And then Georgia. And then Uzbekistan.
And then Russia will be staring straight down the barrel of our forward missile bases right on their southern border, and have no choice but to follow us around on the world stage.
And China and India will have to buy oil through us, and on our terms, and using our dollar, and in amounts we think are appropriate for stability in our empire.
It is so simple.
Just pull the trigger, and things will get better, by stages.

Posted by: Hobson | Apr 8 2008 14:24 utc | 4

Watching on CSPAN2 –
Levin opening was bashing Iraqis. “Why don’t they pay for reconstruction?” “We must put more pressure on them …”
McCain, Petraeus and Crocker agree that all is fine …
Kennedy is wondering about AlQaeda in Basra(!)
bloviaters ..

Posted by: b | Apr 8 2008 15:11 utc | 6

Lieberman wants to take on Iran over what Petraeus named “Iranian backed rouge militia” …
Gareth Porter has a good one on those in ATOL: Iraqi rogues and a false proxy war

The idea of Iranian-backed “rogue” Shi’ite militia groups undermining Muqtada’s efforts to pursue a more moderate course was introduced by the US military command in early 2007. These alleged Iranian proxies were called “special groups” – a term that came not from Iran or the Shi’ites themselves but from the Bush administration.
…
The interest of the Bush administration in keeping the proxy war line alive has nothing to do with Iraqi realities, however. As a strategic weapon for justifying the administration’s policies toward both Iraq and Iran, the theme of Iranian interference through “special groups” is bound to be a central thread in the testimony by both Petraeus and Crocker.

Posted by: b | Apr 8 2008 15:19 utc | 8

O Bearded Friend In The Sky;
When you gaze down upon our great nation in its current state of disrepair and discouragement, and see that we have discarded our manufacturing base in favor of a top heavy society based on consumer excess, finance, real estate, insurance, and armaments will it not be immediately clear that we must either go forth and conquer the lesser nations, or perish by Overdraft at the bank?
If you will not shower us with gold and diamonds directly from the heavens, at least bid godspeed to the printing presses over at the Treasury Building so they can provide fresh pallets of the mighty paper dollars in abundance. Let the fleet of armored cars be fleet in moving those greenbacks to the Federal Reserve, and let there be no delay in moving that money to Wall Street to save us from having to pay for our excesses. Such punishment is for lesser peoples, Argentinians, Poles, and Ugandans. Not for Americans.
Do not let us descend, O Spirit In The Sky, into a nation among equal nations, working for our daily bread instead of taking it or making deals to get it. Let us not turn to caring for our citizens, nor being good stewards of the land and air, nor become dispensers of medicine unto all who apply. Spare us from pursuing domestic pursuits, and let us live large upon the world stage, first among nations, without equal, for we have no equal while we possess weapons and the will to use them ruthlessly in your name. Amen.

Posted by: Hobson | Apr 8 2008 15:43 utc | 10

Listening, with interruptions –
London Times is wrong in emphasis, it seems. Yes, both mention Iran’s role, without mentioning actions and interests of any other neighbors. Crocker, not Petraus, refers to an Iranian strategy of “Lebanization” akin to Hezbollah activities. (Oh, that was Iran that broke up Lebanon and keeps it divided and under siege?) Still I’d be hard-pressed to describe their presentation of Iran as “highlighting.” Too many diverse and unrelated elements also presented.
On the other hand, some Republican senators (Inhofe comes to mind) ask outrageous, leading questions, full of official, administration spin.
Porter forecast about the “rogue militia” analysis was exact. Now, evidently, called “special groups”. Still, it was interesting to hear Crocker say, openly, that US is talking with Iran. Has that been officially acknowledged before?
Also interesting to hear Petraus characterize “Sadr’s organization” as one which is designed to supply welfare and social needs for people, but which has, in some cases, been plagued by elements who take up arms. Curious.
@b – I understood Kennedy’s question as a way of hammering out, for the public, the point that, while the US ostensibly went to Iraq to fight AQ, not even the lead general will claim that AQ is in Basra. In other words, the US is in the middle of Iraqi and other conflicts, having nothing to do with AQ. Kennedy wanted it to come from Petraus lips. And Petraus obliged.
Despite the resourcefulness of different senators, approaching from various angles, Petraus steadfastly dodges any assessment regarding what level of forces he thinks would be needed in Iraq and for how long, following that “pause” in July. Not even a likely range. In fact, someone (Kennedy?) pointed out that P’s statement indicates a hold on forces to July, THEN assessing, after July, what the needs would be. “How long would you need after July, before you would know what forces you would recommend?” Petraus ducked that question too.
Back to listening.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 8 2008 16:40 utc | 12

Crocker had mentioned the rocket attacks on the Green Zone by “militia backed by Iranian Qods forces”
Iran condemns Iraq Green Zone attacks

Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned for the first time rocket and mortar attacks against the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad by supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also denounced raids by U.S. forces against Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad that al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia has been using to launch the attacks.

Posted by: b | Apr 8 2008 18:21 utc | 14

Hobson @10
… we have discarded our manufacturing base in favor of a top heavy society based on consumer excess, finance, real estate, insurance, and armaments …
… and pornography…?
Seems I read that about 4,000 new films/week come out of the San Fernando valley. Somebody’s got to supply those big hotel chains, who hide this revenue stream from the accounts/shareholders.
Would love to get the stats on that % of GDP/export. Anybody know?
I never hear anything about this profit source on CNBC, dunno why.

Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 8 2008 20:44 utc | 16

@Hamburger #16:
One of the best sandwich shops in the Valley is dependent on that semi-clandestine industry. If not for Choda Boy’s appetite, the shop would go under, and no more Don’s Ultimate Chicken Sandwiches for me!

Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 8 2008 21:21 utc | 18

Tony Karon on the Iran banking ban:

The beauty of this approach, from a neocon point of view, is that it completely skirts all those troublesome international diplomatic forums where the U.S. and its closest allies have failed to convince others to apply meaningful sanctions against Iran — most of the international community is skeptical over the claims being made by the U.S. of an imminent Iranian threat (as, of course, is the U.S. intel community, as last year’s NIE showed) and even more skeptical of the value of sanctions in resolving the issue, rather than in preparing the way for confrontation.
But by using the centrality of the U.S. to the international banking and financial system, the U.S. is quite literally able to “privatize” sanctions by going over the heads of governments that might oppose such measures to lean on foreign banks. The U.S. doesn’t even need to prove its case against Iran; it simply warns foreign banks that by continuing to do business — any business — with Iran, they run falling afoul of U.S. regulatory authorities. And which international bank would want to risk being shut out of the most lucrative market of all?

Posted by: L’Akratique | Apr 8 2008 23:22 utc | 20

I don’t think there’s much doubt that the Iranians would like a federalized Shiite south, as a de-facto new province of Iran. Any more than they were against the first round of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the Badr Brigade morphing into the Iraqi Army, or often act to discourage Iraqi nationalism. Except that while they would like all these things to happen – they do not want these things to happen if it means that the occupation of Iraq would continue to have an American face. Which is why they continue to support Muqtada al-Sadr. Despite his opposition to many of their initiatives, he also acts as “their ace in the hole regarding the prospects of the Maliki government continuing on with explicit U.S. assistance and dependency that may in the end cut them out of any final settlement. If you take the perspective that the 2006 operation “Forward Together” was in fact the ethnic cleansing (of Sunni resistance&support) in Baghdad, then the current Maliki operation “Knights’ Assault” in Basra and Baghdad is in effect the initiation of a second phase of “civil war” whereby the Sadrists are branded “special groups” or aka Iranian al-Qadia – or as the Sunni resistance was similarly branded AQ mosque bombers in order to make ethnic cleansing happen under the cover of a “civil war” ruberic, then its pretty clear whats going on. And why the Iranians are against it, with regards to the Knights operation. Because if Maliki were to succeed in cleansing the Sadr trend from the political landscape then the U.S. might be seen as having cleared the last obstruction to a Maliki/ Badr consolidation of political power that cuts the Iranians out of the picture. So while the objectives of political consolidation is favorable to Iran, they would much rather it happen without the U.S. as part of the picture – which at this point is very dependent on keeping Mookie alive.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 9 2008 2:36 utc | 22

anna mised, as usual excellnt perception.
small coke #21
Most of Iraq’s neighbors, including Israel, Saudis, Iran, for various reasons, fear a strong, central Iraq
fear is a weird word. imho they don’t fear it in the sense it threatens their safety, they fear it threatens their potential aspirations if iraq was able to rise to it’s full potential. in reality iraq presently is fighting for its owm survival and is not a threat to anyone except those that wish to extinguish them (iraqi/human natural defense.)
Maybe a little like European fears of a unified Germany,
hmm, except that germany attempted to take over the region and committed large scale genocide based on ethnicicity, iraq/saddam didn’t. either way w/saddam out of the pic and iraq in shatters i don’t see how the similarity coincides.
fear is what drives our culture but there is nothing/no threat. only what can be driven by propaganda.
re SA, iraq represents competition, that is a different kind of threat. if ones goal is to dominate the landscape ie opec, one could perceive a competitor as a threat. naturally iraqis are going to dominate the landscape of iraq. as long as their oil was underground they pose no competition/threat. fighting for control of oil fields is a far cry from ‘a unified Germany’ threat.
actually a moot poin† since iraq has no army to speak of that aren’t figh†ing for their own existence much less fighting a neighboring country.
iran does not fear a strong central government in iraq. that would be like fearing a ghost.all the parties you mention do not operate out of fear anymore than the US does. it’s the ol’ fight them here so we don’t have to fight them alone scare tactic. here is what the US fears, they fear if they don’t clutch before their last dying breath their ‘easy access’ means to control the world (iraqs oil) prior to the up coming dire recession they won’t have any leverage w/china who holds all our debt. fear of not attaining your empire goals is a different kind of fear than feeling threats of take over. iraq can’t take over anyone at this time.

Posted by: annie | Apr 9 2008 5:36 utc | 24

Yeah annie they use the fear of – Al Queda will take over Iraq if we leave, or the fear of – Iran will take over Iraq if we leave. I say HELLO the most powerful army the planet has ever seen can’t take over Iraq. The obvious doesn’t seem to matter. It’s like the we are in Iraq to bring them freedom and democracy meme. Nobody in the World beleives this except Americans.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 9 2008 6:10 utc | 26

Every time the US tries using its’ massive military might it looks like a brutal thug killing women and children.
looks like?
Every time the US uses its’ massive military might it is a brutal thug killing women and children.

Posted by: annie | Apr 9 2008 7:49 utc | 28

And just to add to my above post here is what the democrats are complaining about:

“Rather, we need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations,” said Levin, D-Mich.

Dems want Iraqis to spend oil surplus
Oh and Senator Biden was on CNN this morning suggesting that since Iraq has lots of oil money that they should start paying for the $3 billion a week it costs to keep the US troops in Iraq. I mean fair is fair right? Let the Iraqis pay for their own occupation. Why should we pay to kill them.
annie:
looks like?
Try to think of it in the context of world public opinion and not my own personal observations. I know I didn’t make that clear but that’s becuase I’m not a writer and I have never had a desk job in my life. The battle is not just faught on the ground. Perception management is a major part of military operations. That’s why Bush quickly ran to Al Jazeera for an exclusive interview right after Abu Graib even though they made it out to be the evil network. That’s why they called off the first siege of Fallujah, kicked out Al Jazeera and waited until after the Presedential election for the second siege.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 9 2008 12:31 utc | 30

annie –
Agree about US primary objectives.
I did not intend to comment about whether or not neighbors’ fears/ concerns are justified. These are certainly concerns (is that a better word?) about Iraq in the future, not now. Status quo in Iraq, at the present, certainly assures that Iraq poses no or little external threat in many ways – militarily, economically, as oil power. And furthermore, it ties up US forces so that their ability to interfere elsewhere is limited.
The problem arises when all the interested parties try to envision what will become of Iraq and the region, when the US troops leave (or are substantially reduced), as they must in the near to medium term.
As you say, it is Iraq’s potential which raises those concerns. There neighboring interests diverge. Which accounts for much of the jostling, bargaining, lying, and fighting now. All proceeding, of course, from the initial invasion and subsequent intransigence and ineptitude of US schemes.
The ME has centuries of experience with wearing down and wearing out enemies and colonialists.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 9 2008 15:26 utc | 32

Others here know much more than I about the history and rivalries of Europe.
It does seem that Americans think only of WWII, when we think of European wars. US history lessons focus on WWII, although there were, indeed, two major European wars just in 1st half of 20th century. Perhaps the visibility is low in US because WWI was a much less devastating experience for US than for Europe.
The US, with lend-lease, actually made the transition, during WWI, from a net debtor to a net creditor nation, a status which (I think) it has maintained until the past five years. (Can someone here check that?)

Posted by: small coke | Apr 9 2008 15:45 utc | 34

to a net creditor nation, a status which (I think) it has maintained until the past five years. (Can someone here check that?)
the net international investment position of the U.S. is negative since the mid 1980s
source

Posted by: b | Apr 9 2008 17:06 utc | 36

I doubt this will get any coverage state-side:

Six British soldiers have been picked off on the streets of Basra by an enemy sniper using the same rifle, an inquest heard today.
Between the months of March and June last year, six soldiers were shot using high velocity bullets fired from exactly the same gun.
The revelation, which was attested by forensics experts, raises the possibility of a single super-marksman stalking British troops on the streets of the southern Iraqi city.
Rifleman Aaron Lincoln, 18, of the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles, was one of the victims. His inquest in Spennymoor, County Durham, today heard that he was killed in April 2007 by a single bullet to the head that smashed through his protective glasses and helmet.
Ann Kiernan of LGC Forensics told the court that it had been fired from the same gun than had killed several other soldiers in the Basra area last year.
“There had been six incidents from March to June where projectiles have all been discharged from the same rifle,” she said.
She added that the bullets were manufactured in America by Lake City Arsenal, an arms manufacturer.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 9 2008 17:38 utc | 38

@ annie- superpowers don’t need superpowers. Bad for health.
cui bono?

Posted by: small coke | Apr 9 2008 17:51 utc | 40

The Guardian’s take :
Secret US plan for military future in Iraq

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 9 2008 18:46 utc | 42

small coke #39, thanks for the report. i find it illuminating the press (here) is saying nothing, shows they have a very tight lid on this.

Posted by: annie | Apr 9 2008 22:41 utc | 44

annie:
43, when i get in the mood to argue strawmen i’ll get back to you.
First I live under a rock and now you call me names. Don’t bother. Just don’t respond to my posts and I won’t respond to yours. Peace.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 10 2008 0:06 utc | 46

sam, i didn’t call you any names. i was referring to your questions.
don’t respond to my posts and I won’t respond to yours
my preference is to agree to disagree. we just see some things differently.

Posted by: annie | Apr 10 2008 4:35 utc | 48

Should have read New York City not the entire State. (hat tip to Richard Clarke)

Posted by: Sam | Apr 10 2008 12:40 utc | 50