Iran - Are they Inviting Attack, if so, Why?

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060405_iran___are_they_invi.htm

Iran - Are they Inviting Attack, if so, Why?
Are the Mullahs and Ahmedinejad Stupid, or is there something we are not seeing?
by Steven Leser


http://www.opednews.com

As someone who would rather not see us (us meaning the United States) engage in yet another war, I am utterly frustrated at the actions of Iran. Forget which side of the political aisle you are on and forget whether you are anti-war in general, with regards to the current Iraq war, or anything of the sort. What we know is that the current US Administration is not shy at all about going to war; one might even describe them as somewhat trigger-happy. In the face of that, the Iranian regime seems to be doing just about everything they can to provoke them. You could argue that countries have the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear power. However, combine that assertion with a country that recently has developed and tested MIRV missile technology, combine that with a country that has recently developed and tested missile technology that has a low radar visibility, and a country that has just tested extremely advanced torpedo technology, one for which there may be no current countermeasures AND you add the historical hostility between our country and Iran that includes an unthinkable violation of international law and diplomacy that was the invasion of our embassy, and you see the reason for the title and thesis of this Op-Ed piece. What are the Iranians doing? What are they thinking? What is wrong with them?

I realize that my very own articles have opined that the US does not have the conventional capability to deal with Iran if they started behaving aggressively, but we could certainly mount a number of different non-conventional type conflicts with Iran that would be horrific, both to Regional and Global stability, and to the poor Iranian people. We could follow-up cruise missile and air attacks of Iranian Air Force and anti-aircraft sites with sustained (I am talking about months of) B-52 carpet bomb attacks on Iranian population centers and military sites. We could add terrible munitions like napalm and fuel-air explosives to the mix. The conflict could descend into complete madness and we could end up using tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. Again, what do the Iranians think they are gaining by provoking the Bush administration?

I have as much as said that one possibility is that they may think we are too bogged down in Iraq to do anything about their provocations, but I have shown the folly of that logic in the above paragraph. There is another possibility. After his election, Iranian President Ahmedinejad said, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of XXXX (the current Islamic year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world ... The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." This is even more ominous when combined with one of his campaign statements, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government ... This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government"

Similar to what I believe are the goals of Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, the above could indicate that Iran, or at least their new President and the Mullahs he supports, hope to initiate a World War with the West, i.e. US and its allies on one side and the 1.9 Billion believers of Islam on the other. There is little other sense to be made of Ahmedinejad’s statements and the actions of Iran under his leadership. Knowing that this might be the case; shouldn’t this alter our reactions to Iranian provocations? Of course, I am just guessing with my theory, but regardless, shouldn’t the US do everything short of appeasement to defuse the situation, prevent a further destabilization of the Middle East and the pushing of its peoples into the camp of the Radical Islamicists? We can but hope that between Condi and the rest of the people at State, there are enough people who realize the danger and enough people with the practical understanding to prevent a greater conflagration from erupting in the Middle East. So far, during this administration, they haven’t shown us much.



Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by actual interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties. Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries.

[zelduh]

1. A Silver Lining 4 Bush -if we preemptively attack Iran: Marshall Law

If the US decides to mount a preemptive attack on Iran ("Operation Desert Gold"), then Bush can declare Marshall Law.

If Marshall Law is imposed in the US, Bush can finally use those secret prisons that Hallibuton (et. al.) is building across the US to house "anti-war seditionists" (like the Quakers), anti-Bush terrorists (like you and me), all Islamics, and anyone who looks like an Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi, Yemeni (or is friends with any of them.) I understand that the construction of those secret prisons will be completed no later than the 4th of July.

If Bush imposes Marshall Law, he can stall the mid-term elections and the GOP's control of Congress can stay securely in place.

But Bush won't do this unless Diebold, ES&S & Sequoia are unable to report to him that they have adequately fixed the mid-term elections.

-Zel

[Strelnikov_]

4. "Martial" Law n/t

[yurbud]

9. No, it's really "Marshall"--Marshall Kistle, Joe Albaugh's former roommate

and substitute dog groomer at the poodle ranch.

He's going to be in charge of domestic law enforcement as long as he kicks the contracts to Albaugh.

[bemildred]

2. No offense, but this is stupid.

What does a lizard do, when if feels threatened?
It tries to make itself looks as big as possible.

The premise here is that the US needs some casus belli and that Iran is providing it. That is false, and Iran is attempting a.) to deter the attack and b.) to prepare to resist if the deterrence fails.

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Who give US the fucking right to threaten any countries in the world.

Fuck it this is a no issue
US make it a issue
Iran no a threat to any countries
So why need to go start a war for no good reason

All this shit just to make US look good
True colour shown it Iraq
US a criminal country now
Break trust of being a good nation
You need to earn trust by your action
You be judged by your action

Judged GUILTY
Dont matter how Americans try to justified it
GUILTY
Thanks your idoiy of a PRESIDENT.

Maybe in 50 years time we forget
But for now US world enemies NO:1
The most despicable countries in the world
Dont need survey
Already got top spot easy.

[Strelnikov_]

5. ..

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Eeeeeh

a reply :rofl:
:hug:

[Strelnikov_]

8. Point Being? n/t

[Strelnikov_]

7. "No Country Ever Started A War Thinking They Would Lose"

My belief is that Iran's recent belligerence is due to our weakened ground forces and tenuous position in Iraq. The majority of our ground forces are bogged down fighting 8 M Sunni's. What happens when the 16 M Shia erupt into open conflict?

I don't even think, now, that they will try to close the Strait of Hormuz or strike Saudi Arabia initially. If the hit comes, they are going to take it, use the attack to sway internal and external public opinion, and ramp up their efforts in Iraq.

Chindia and Russia are more than willing to take a back seat on round one. With Chindia's massive trade surplus, they will simply outbid us on the world oil market. As the saying goes, if the enemy is destroying themselves, don’t get in the way.

Following is an article by some Hawky types along the above lines.

Contemplating The Ifs
W. Patrick Lang & Larry C. Johnson

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/lang_johnson_tni_83.pdf (.pdf warning)

. . .

In this atmosphere of building tension, Iran is not going to sit idly by and wait for America to crush it. Tehran has nearly achieved the installation of a friendly government on its western border. While U.S. bases in Iraq could potentially be used to infiltrate Iran with spies and commandos and, more importantly, to support and launch air strikes, those bases are vulnerable politically, not to mention logistically. The supply lines of food, water, fuel and bullets to U.S. bases run from Kuwait to the north and through the Iraqi Shi‘a heartland. Iranian intelligence agencies have given Iraqi Shi‘a massive support since the U.S. invasion. The Shi‘a are well organized and control the country through which U.S. supplies are moved. Islamic militants loyal to the likes of Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr could easily cut vital supply lines.

Iran can also play the oil card. If Iran were attacked, Iran could halt its oil exports and thereby immediately impact the global price. It would be unwise to hope that Iran, as part of its national security plan, is not willing to shut down Persian Gulf oil exports. Iran is well equipped to shower Persian Gulf states and oil fields with missiles, or to shut down exports with a variety of other military, terrorist or political methods. At a minimum, a U.S. military air campaign, even if successful in wrecking the Iranian nuclear program, would severely disrupt oil markets for at least six months. Such a disruption would hurt the world economy, not just that of the United States. In addition, there are countries sympatheticto Iran, such as Venezuela, that have indicated they are more than willing to cut off their oil supply to the United States. The United States could find itself facing a 20–30 percent shortfall in oil imports (and that estimate assumes that the Saudi fields are untouched and that oil imports continue to flow unimpeded).

. . .

With nuclear weapons in hand, Iran will become the dominant local power in the Persian Gulf. They will have no pressing need to use these weapons, because their mere possession will ensure that everyone in the region, including Israel, will have to deal with them as a major power. We, too, would probably have to learn to deal with them on this basis.

. . .

What would be the posture of the United States if the Iranians gain nuclear weapons? Would we maintain forces in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq? How safe would Europe feel, given the ranges of ballistic missiles Iran is developing, plus those that the Chinese have previously sold to Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia for example)? In the end, it may become necessary to confront Iran militarily over its emergent nuclear power status, but the costs would be so high that all diplomatic resources should be exhausted before such measures are adopted.

[oblivious]

10. Here's a Russian perspective (sort of)

RIA Novosti is the Russian State News Agency

Is Iran bluffing or not?:RIA Novosti commentator

...Tehran does not seem to be bluffing because it has enough time to think and to bargain with the UNSC and the United States. Moreover, Iran could still display its determination to defend uranium enrichment rights within its nuclear program.

Experts say the United States will not attack Iran before September, if it sums up resolve to do so. General James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would establish complete control over Afghanistan this August, rather than in October-November 2006. The United States will not declare war on Iran, unless it makes sure that Afghanistan is secured, according to RIA Novosti .

On the other hand, Washington should not delay the Iranian operation in the context of the congressional election this November. Consequently, September, October seem like an optimal deadline for attacking Iran.

Iran therefore has enough time to display its determination and to accomplish several objectives.
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=41831&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

[teryang]

11. I wonder now if we will get into pre-recession hunkering down

...of business investment decisions based on the expectation of warfare. This is one of the generally unrecognized costs of the current situation.

People in the business could imagine the target list on the western side of the Gulf. This is why oil prices won't go down. I don't think election outcomes will change anything in the US. Republicans can start the war before the election as a fait accompli. If somehow outmaneuvered diplomatically, a possibility all too easily ruled out by a lot of pundits on this subject who underestimate American economic vulnerability, the war could be started surreptitiously after the election by the defense establishment to coopt the democratic legislative majority and maintaining the control of budget expenditures with patriotric claptrap.