The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran [w/update] | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 1)

Nice diary Alexander and backed with a variety of sources. But I'm not buying. The US would have to dump a whole lot of iron on Iran (or more than several unlikely nukes) to make much difference. More than a couple of carrier groups can muster. Iran is not Iraq. I also don't see the common Shia connection as particularly important.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 05:25:38 PM EST

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (4.00 / 2)

I'm not an expert on the Middle East or Islam, so I have to rely on experts when it comes to the common Shia connection. But my sense is that an unprovoked attack on Iran would go down much worse in the Middle East than the unprovoked attack on Iraq, since the Iranian government is viewed as legitimate, which it is of course.

You don't give reasons why you're not buying. The only reason you can have that I can think of is that they can't be that crazy. But we have plenty of evidence that they are that crazy. And there are plenty of examples in history of countries getting themselves into wars that everyone should have seen were crazy.

Clearly, Bush is making very threatening moves toward Iran. Either it's a bluff, or it's for real. As someone observed on the blogosphere, bluffing is not Bush's style. The Bushies are behaving now toward Iran exactly how they behaved toward Iraq in the run-up to the invasion.

Before Bush's speech, fears that the US would attack Iran could be fairly easily characterized as paranoid. But now two establishment, very high-profile correspondents are taking them seriously (the two people who work for NBC I quoted). That means we should, too.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 05:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 0)

You don't give reasons why you're not buying. The only reason you can have that I can think of is that they can't be that crazy.

Crazy would have been doing this last fall in order to "bolster the election results for the republicans" as probably half the people on this site felt would occur, which couples nicely with the fantastically paranoid impression that the "republicans would not relinquish their control of congress peacefully." Given the track record of the left wing blogosphere on Iran, I don't think the onus is on Gringo to prove an attack won't happen. The onus is on you to prove that it will, and presenting op-ed pieces by politicians doesn't create a compelling case.

Along these lines, why won't this "second carrier group in the gulf proves an attack is imminent" idea go away? I haven't seen it presented in a military context once in the several months it has been out there, a nice demonstration of the collective lack of intellectual rigor among the public.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 06:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 0)

You offer no argument at all, only rhetoric and a straw man. No one is arguing that it is proven that an attack is imminent. But clearly, the US is preparing for an attack: those carrier groups serve no useful role with respect to Iraq. Whether the US actually will attack is a mere possibility at this point: it is possible that the Bushies themselves aren't sure at this point whether they will do it or not. But that the US is preparing for an attack is not a possibility, but a reality, a fact. This is especially the case since Bush's speech was clearly making threats at Iran and Syria.

To be honest, what you said makes no sense at all, as far as I can tell. Are you denying that the Bushies are preparing for a (possible) attack on Iran? It isn't "op-ed pieces by politicians" that are making threats to Iran: it is the Bushies themselves. And in Congressional testimony, Condi and/or Gates have explicitly refused to rule out military action against Iran, and stated that Bush needs no authorization from Congress to order it. How can you be so absolutely sure that this is just so much posturing?

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 06:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 0)

No one is arguing that it is proven that an attack is imminent.

Then I suggest you change the title of this piece.

But clearly, the US is preparing for an attack: those carrier groups serve no useful role with respect to Iraq.

Let me repeat what I just said. You haven't placed this claim within a military context, only within the context of your political views. "A, therefore B" is not a worthy argument. Prove to me that the purpose of two carrier groups in the gulf could only be to attack Iran. Prove to me that this is unusual in a historical context of the US presence in the gulf. Prove to me that Bush's posturing is in indicator of attack when his "axis of evil" speech was given over five years ago.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 07:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 0)

I agree that there is grounds for scepticism.

But you are implying in your last sentence that the Bush administration has not indicated a willingess to attack Iran since Bush's "axis of evil" speech. This is clearly not true. All the web chatter over Iran is frankly more than understandable based on the threatening posture of the Bush administration vis a vis Iran.

And if Seymour Hersh is any indication, the chatter is not only limited to the web, it is also very evident amont the US military command.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (4.00 / 2)

I agree there is a chance it will happen, but this particular piece was not well argued. That so many people are willing to uncritically accept "X means Y" arguments on topics they know very little about results in people like Jerome having to write stories like this. It's one of the biggest weaknesses of the world's political culture.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:36:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (2.00 / 3)

Don't tell me about "not well argued". I wrote a diary, not an essay, an article, much less a book. I placed the links for my quotations there for a reason: for the careful reader to follow them, to understand the background that formed the basis of my argument.

You have evidently made no effort to follow those links and read what is there. Thus, you are not a serious reader. Therefore, you have no right to make calls for better arguments.

You are evidently very lasy. Your posts have amounted to a child's mechanically asking "why?" to anything an adult asks them. Until you get your act together to make a more serious contribution, I will not bother replying to any posts of yours I might happen to run into.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 1)

Ouch...

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/1/12/43819/5386

Althought I have to agree that this wasn't really YOUR argument, so attacking you for the strength of it is a bit disingenious.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hold on (4.00 / 3)

Mill man expressed skepticism that it would happen, and he haspointed out, correctly, to the track record over the past year and more of predictions of crazy things that the Bush administration was about to do to Iran - which have, so far, and thankfully, not taken place.

That does not mean that they won't happen, of course, but it does mean that asking for more that "chatter" to use an intelligence term, is not unreasonable.

Your diary made good points, and so did Mill Man. We are in a realm of perceptions and interpretation, and we do not have enough information on either side of the debate to be conclusive.

So there is really no need to attack Mill Man personally like you did ("not serious" "lazy"). At this point, you can just agree to disagree on the significance of the carrier movements and other input you brought to us. That's fine. The ad hominems are not.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 06:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran (none / 1)

William Lind, a knowledgeable man on military history, should know that military posturing (and that is what putting more carriers in the Gulf is) does not equal a runup to war. It does signify the threat of war.

If the new carrier group is actually deployed IN the Persian Gulf this is actually an indication that there will not be an attack, as the groups will be extremely vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles and small attack craft. If the decision for war is taken, expect the big surface ships of the Gulf to steam out the straits of Hormuz at record speed.

As far as I see Bush mentioned another carrier group to "the region", not to the Gulf thought, so this do not really signify much.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

London Sunday Times story on Israel using nukes (none / 0)

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

Have you read this article? I just read it: it sounds like the Israeli's are very serious. (They have denied this, but then they would of course, if they still officially deny that they have nukes?) And the Sunday Times is not some nut blogging on his own, just making things up.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a "last resort", leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike...
Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval "after the event", as it did when it crippled Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Sounds like a green light to me. Since when has Bush ever put any pressure on Israel to stop it from doing anything?

The Israelis have made it very plain that they will not tolerate Iran's becoming a nuclear power, and once Bush leaves office, they will never get a chance like this again. I can't believe all this is just to intimidate Iran. Iran is riding pretty high right now, and has made it clear that it will not allow itself to be intimidated. And look where cooperating with weapons inspectors got Saddam...

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Fri Jan 12th, 2007 at 06:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: London Sunday Times story on Israel using nuke (none / 0)

Sounds like a media campaign to me. File under "will never happen."

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 04:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: London Sunday Times story on Israel using nuke (none / 0)

This one would be rather different though, this time once they cross Jordanian or Syrian Airspace, then they are effectively in airspace that we control. Either Iraqi airspace, Saudi airspace, or Turkish airspace. it would be rather difficult to claim it was being done without our permission. especially as it would be necessary to stage refueling aircraft at some distance over teritory we control.

Perhaps there is some sanity in the Bush camp, and the extra carrier group is there to deter the Israelis from any rash action.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jan 14th, 2007 at 07:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: London Sunday Times story on Israel using nuke (none / 1)

the only way the Israeli could do it is from their submarines. But it is ubknown if they can.

if they did it with conventional charges, the damage would probably be rather minimal.

If they use nukes, hell will break lose in the middle -east and it's far from sure that even such a strike would have the intentional effect, besides killing a lot of people.

At the same time the Israeli would expose themselves of being nuked in the future. The problem with Israel is it's size. Only 5-10 nukes even with a relative low yield and the country virtually ceases to exist, since 75% of the population is concentrated in 3 cities. The same amount of nukes on Iran would not have the same effect, even if the country would be badly hurt.

by oldfrog on Sun Jan 14th, 2007 at 08:01:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The US is gearing up for an attack on Iran [w/update] | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The cost of doing business

The importance of being England

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

No Peace In Sight

Mandatory Solar

Recent Diaries

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

The cost of doing business

The importance of being England

US War Powers, Regime Change and Third Option

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 2

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 1

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

War In Ukraine A Failed Process by NATO

No Peace In Sight

Another Execution

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

Judeo-Fascism Arises - Kahane

Baerbock Solidair with UA in Kharkiv

Mary Robinson and Fallacy of War and Peace

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea...

Israel Campaign of Illegal Acts w Impunity

Mandatory Solar

No Peace on West's Mind or Vocabulary

Energy (and Other) Events - January 2023

Occasional Series