CNN's March to War: Iran

[Neecy]

Has anyone else had a creepy, Iraq-war-buildup feeling when watching CNN these days?

For months and months now, Blitzer has been hectoring his guests about 'military options' with Iran. It almost doesn't matter who the guest is - seldom is the guest an expert in military strategy - and you get the feeling he's planting the seed that a war with Iran is plausible. It's almost has a psy-ops feel to it, that's it's a deliberate attempt to massage American public opinion into thinking a war with Iran is a valid option instead of a batshit crazy idea.

Blitzer is not the only CNN anchor to do this, but he's the most persistent. Strangely enough I have yet to see much of this chatty "Should we take out Iran?" banter on MSNBC.

If CNN was an honest news source (and we know they aren't) one would think that they'd examine the capabilities of the Iranian military, as well as the depleted state of US equipment and troop levels before suggesting - daily - that a war with Iran is even a remote possiblity. They weren't honest with the American people before the war in Iraq, and they aren't being honest now.

We have 140,000 troops in Iraq. Here's an interesting graphic:



Even cursory research on Iranian military capacity brings out loads of information that you'll never hear on CNN. According to Center for Strategic and International Studies, "Nevertheless, Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

MILNET comments on the Iranian Navy:

The CSIS report cites various sources of mines used by the Iranian Navy including some 2000 mines from China, North Korea, and ex-Soviet mines. Iran has claimed to produce their own magnetic, influence, remote control, acoustic and free floating/free contact mines as well as sophisticated set timer mines. CSIS also reports on the possibility of the Iranians of having purchased Chinese EM-52 or MN-52 rocket propelled mines. These are fairly sophisticated and lie dormant until activated and target acquisition, sufficient to harass Gulf surface traffic.

It is also significant that the Iranian Navy has shelters and covert hides along the coast in on islands under their control in the Gulf, and clearly look to dominate the Gulf should the need arrive.

...The Iranian Revolutionary Guard's land based anti-ship missile force combined with the capable high speed and maneuverable surface fleet make a deadly and near unpredictable asymmetric attack capability that creates an enormous threat to the Gulf.

A smaller, but as capable force is also maintained in the Caspian Sea along the Iranian northern border to that body of water, and thus Iran can create havoc there as well.

Thus it is MILNET's analysis that the Iranian Navy, despite its small size and underwhelming Naval Warfare bulk, remains a clear threat to the Persian Gulf -- CSIS analysts echo that conclusion as well.

Add to the above depleted US supplies, equipment, and troops thanks to the festering sore that is Iraq and you have anything but a cakewalk. Yet CNN puts this scenario on the table day and night, time and time again, without asking - is it even remotely possible? What would be the consequences for our 140,000 troops in Iraq should the US or Israel attempt an airstrike against Iran's hardened, hidden nuclear facilities (and remember how unsuccessful airstrikes were in Shock & Awe, as well as the recent Israeli operations in southern Lebanon)? Would this be a terrible bloodbath? Would Iran be successful in halting Gulf shipping, thus plunging the world into an energy crisis?

None of this matters in the breezy world of Blitzer and company. None of it even exists. And this should worry us.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. It is probably a matter if when, not if

There is some honor from 1979 to take back by those who are calling the shots.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Problem is, Iranian memories are twice as long. . .

going back to 1953.

:evilfrown:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Had things gone "better" in Iraq they would do something. However

they are bound up really bad, even worse than they are letting on in Iraq. Furthermore, the Lebanon thing was a disaster. All they can do is put up a transparent bluster.

[savemefromdumbya]

3. Blitzer is BAD