Attacking Iran: Are they nuts? By Joe Conason

[Douglas Carpenter]

snip:"If the U.S. attacked Iran, the consequences would be catastrophic -- including a possible American retreat under fire in Iraq."

snip:"Soon we will hear that Tehran is allied not only with the Palestinian group Hamas but with al-Qaida (although the latter are Sunnis and the former are Shiites). As with Iraq, suspicion that Iran helped to engineer the 9/11 attacks will be encouraged if not stated explicitly. Indeed, that inflammatory accusation has been floated already in certain precincts on the right and, if the Bush administration decides to wage war, will quickly surface in the mainstream media.

Presumably all those assertions will be treated with the appropriate skepticism, now that we understand the deceptions that landed us in the Iraqi quicksand. Congressional leaders of both parties and journalists of all persuasions must ask hard questions about the intelligence concerning Iran's nuclear program, its ambitions and its responsibility for terrorism."

snip:"Should Bush ignore their advice and order airstrikes, it is possible to imagine a disaster ensuing. At present, the coalition forces in Iraq depend heavily on supply lines that extend for 300 miles along highways from Kuwait and the southern Iraqi port at Basra. Mechanized units of the Iranian military, which currently boasts 800,000 men under arms, would not have far to go to cut those lines as soon as the United States started bombing. And their way into southern Iraq, cutting off the Al-Faw peninsula, would be paved by an uprising of the Shiite militia.

snip:"If an attack on Iran provoked full-scale rebellion by the Iraqi Shiites, then an even worse outcome is conceivable. Our forces, along with the tens of thousands of contractors and bureaucrats employed by the occupation, might ultimately be forced to retreat from an Iraq in flames. That would mean horrible casualties and utter humiliation. Think of Saigon in the Green Zone."

link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/04/21/iran/index.html?source=newsletter




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Demeter]

1. No Link--And of Course They Are Nuts!

as many people pleaded in 2000, "don't put this failure into the Presidency", they had to steal the office.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. sorry I added it now

although it might require registration...However Salon will grant one day free day passes if subscription is required for this article..thanks for the reminder



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[habitual]

2. From The Republican Point Of View

The Democrats winning a a chamber in congress this election -- Are you nuts!!!! if they have to nuke iran to keep control, believe me, they will do it. The worst thing that could possible happen to the repubs is to lose control of the house or senate. They will do everything they can to avoid that. EVERYTHING. For if they don't have total control, they will have nothing. and they know it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I would hate to think that they are they cynical

but..... :eyes:





http://www.dontattackiran.org

[sarcasmo]

13. This is why an Iran invasion, IMHO will happen prior to October.

The Dem's in October winning either the House or Senate should stop any Iran Invasion

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Another prospective historical regurgitation of "The Ring Cycle" by

Richard Wagner where in the "Ride of the Valkyries" degenerates into the "Twilight of the Gods". View the new generation of brainless warriors with too much hubris, waiting for their moment.

[Nederland]

6. IED attacks are one thing

...conventional military maneuvers are another entirely. The notion that the Iranian army would have a prayer in cutting US supply lines is laughable. Such an attack is not at all like the attacks by Iraqi insurgents, it is a classic military maneuver involving huge numbers of troops and equipment. It is, in other words, precisely the type of conventional military scenario that the US military was designed and trained to confront. During the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians never won a decisive battle, and never pushed Iraqi forces more than a few miles over the border. That same Iraqi military was decimated in a matter of days by US forces in the first Gulf War. Why then anyone would believe that Iranian military poses a serious threat to the US military is beyond me.

No, the real danger in bombing Iran lies in what Iran can do by indirectly in Iraq. Increasing supplies to insurgents, stirring up trouble in Shiites areas, etc.

[depakid]

20. It's beyond you because

You haven't done much analysis of the situation.

Iran has the capability of shutting down the straits of Hormuz and has anti-ship capabilites that, while they may not threaten the US Navy directly (unless the US makes some blunders) they can attack a variety of other targets that affect the US's ability to function in the region.

Moreover, if you're even considering US troop in a land war with Iran- that would be insane. Iran is not a flat, defenseless nation like Iraq. The US military would suffer heavy losses and, as Conason notes, would probably end up in a full scale retreat from the region.

[populistdriven]

7. Magic Carpet Ride Over Iran

// That * is even considering this as a solution is absurd to the extreme:

A prominent "neocon," still in good odor at the White House and OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense), speaking privately, assured us that by the time President Bush leaves office in January 2009, Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions would be history.

Assuming tough sanctions – draconian or otherwise – don't bring Iran's mullahs to heel, we inquired, trying not to sound too wimpish, what would be Mr. Bush's next step? "B-2s," not nukes, this prominent armchair strategist replied. "Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets." With a crew of two per bomber, only four American lives would be at risk, an all-time record in the history of warfare.

~snip~

These stealthy bombers have one major drawback in the Persian magic carpet mode. They can attack only 16 targets simultaneously – one short of the 17 underground nuclear facilities pinned red on Mossad's target-rich PowerPoint presentations to the political leadership. Presumably, that's why two B-2s would be required.

For the cognoscente, the B-2's payload offers a rich and varied menu of seriously harmful goodies/nasties. Either the multibillion-dollar bomber can carry 34 CBUs (laser-guided Cluster Bomb Units), or 16 JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munition), or 8 BLU-28s (daisy-cutting, satellite-guided bunker-busters), or 16 JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon), or 16 JASSM (Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile). Whatever the option selected for Iran, it would be 40,000 pounds of explosives delivered with a standoff capability, or about 15 miles from the target.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/11/225413.shtml

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran by Juan Cole

March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

snip"Bush’s allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and actually came out this past January and apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies."

_______________

And be sure to watch/listen/or read transcript of Sy Hersh's interview on Democracy Now. He pretty much says that baring unforeseen events a major attack on Iran is almost certainly going to happen in the not too distant future:

link to listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254

snip: "Everybody I talk to, the hawks I talk to, the neoconservatives, the people who are very tough absolutely say there's no way the U.N. is going to work, and we're just going

[megatherium]

15. The Israelis have never acknowledged having nuclear weapons and they

have said they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the middle east. Why should we give the Ayatollah's fatwa any more credence than the statements of the Israelis?

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. or vice- versa. I see your point.The Fatwa itself does not prove anything

but what governments say in their political positions does matter. I would add though that there is a particular kind of religious authority to Ayatollah Khanamei's Fatwa against nuclear weapons in an extremely religious-theocratic society.

When we consider this Fatwa along with the IAEA reports which did not find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program this has to be considered important. It's interesting to me that the Fatwa and any conciliatory statements by the Iranian government have never been reported in the American mainstream media.

When we also must consider that the Bush Administration has rejected any fact to face talks with the Iranians and numerous other diplomatic possibilities.

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.
______________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[megatherium]

17. Your point is likewise well-taken: The Bush administration is not to be

trusted, regardless of the sincerity of the Iranians or Isrealis. In any event, I oppose war against Iran.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. yes no state is to be completely trusted when it comes to matters of war

In this particular circumstance I do however give a little bit more credence to the religious side of Ayatollah Khamanei's Fatwa against nuclear weapons--the political side I am less certain about. Still when Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq was leading armed attacks against coalition forces-he did stop once Ayatollah Sistani gave a Fatwa calling for an end to such strikes by his followers. Even Muqtada al-Sadr only holds status because he is the son a late prominent Marja'a.

Having known and worked with a number of Shiites over the years--I know that as people they take the religious requirements of the Fatwa of a Marja's very seriously. And Ayatollah Ali Khamanei is first and formost a religious figure especially to the Shiites within his domain.

Most Fatwas concern exclusively religious matters like how to purify oneself properly before prayers.




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[PATRICK]

9. The ultimate consequences

in Iraq would be a turning of the majority Shia population against the US. That means we are out whether we want to be or not. We are losing now with only the Sunnis partially risen up against us. Any unifying spark might actually be welcome relief from the civil war that keeps the American oil vampire embedded in their nation. For the vast majority this time, not the conniving rivalry of political activists and militant warriors.

It need not be the dramatic scenario Conason envisions and that pragmatists can pooh-pooh as "unlikely".
As with our other judgments concerning Iraq, it is not a matter of whether there will be an immediate fiasco and precipitous catastrophe, it is the 99% inevitable grinding bad consequences that must ensue. Some of those consequences are part of the plan twisted into the Bush team perspective of perpetually enriching war- which is why, having dismissed the dangers of the quick catastrophe scenario they plunge grimly on. What do they care about the long term or the chaos? They plan on gaming that steadily through blackmail, retreating briefly to let some Dem or other blunder about while they regroup.

It is not an argument about WWIII or a great defeat for the US happening it is about what must happen in ANY scenario and why Bush/Cheney does not care. In the big picture and long haul they will be wrong too but in the meantime, learning the hard way without having the big crash happen all at once will mean more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more sidebars and dramas to keep from tracking down and destroying our own neocon terrorists.

What Joe says might be true. What the Bush team dreams of as the "rosy" picture cannot be. What will actually occur will likely be a grinding mess with terrible results no one in their right minds should enable, especially since the pretext is a stale, arrogant rerun of the pre Iraq War run-up. here at Du we ruminated on all these things before Iraq was invaded. You don't need a crystal ball, the CIA or a think tank to see the inevitable. Presenting the quickest dramatic failure of engagement denotes a failure of impressing upon Americans the force of reality overall. This where we are at. Dreaming dark dreams and not awaking to act.

[cliss]

11. I think you hit it on the head -

the outcome is grim, as you say. But Bush and Cheney do not care. They just plod grimly on.

There's another word for this: suicide. You have to wonder: at what point does a select industry, (in this case the military industrial complex), allow spending to go to such an extreme that it threatens the entire economy?

Isn't there some kind of self-regulating mechanism? Or would the military contracts just mushroom themselves so they absorb the entire domestic economy? You have to wonder about that. Because even a tapeworm knows when to stop. If it drains too much nourishment from its host, the host dies and the tapeworm dies as well.

If that's true, then the system is self-destructing. We have historical examples! Lots of them.

And yet.....it's hard to believe that it's going to happen to us.

PS I really enjoy reading your posts! Have for a long time (I assume you're a writer).

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. I do not believe that Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq could remain silent

If an attack were to occur. Although he is a different Shiite marja'a with a different following-he is close friends with Iranian Chief of State and Supreme Religious Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.

If he removed his instructions on his followers which include the overwhelming majority of Iraqi Shiite to restrain from confronting the U.S. occupation or if he delivered a fatwa against the occupation -- the U.S. forces in Iraq would have hell to pay for any attack on Iran.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. Supreme Ayatolah Ali Khamenei's fatwa agains nuclear weapons

Grand Ayatolah Ali Khamenei is the Chief of State of Iran and has the final say.

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. No other mullah, ayatollah or marja’a can override Ayatollah Khamanei’s fatwa. It is irrevocable. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture.

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August. Even if other mullahs or ayatollahs would disagree or make a contrary declaration - Ayatollah Khamanei's decision would over ride them and would be the final word in matters of the Iranian state and to any Shiite believers within Ayatollah Khamenei's domain which would include almost all Iranian Shiites.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran - link:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

Iran-Nuclear-Statement
Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.

The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.

The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.

"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.

"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. kick

http://www.dontattackiran.org

[classysassy]

18. "Tomorrow the world"

whenever I see a member of the Bush cabinet,I am reminded of the 1944 movie "Tomorrow the world",Bush and his insane thugs seem to be saying today Iraq,tomorrow the world.