POLL: Will the US go to war against Iran?

Remove all ads!

Mrs. Wurmser dreams of is an American empire, like most neocons. It is really just a reinstatement of the old Imperialist viewpoint that the nation's principles and values are superior to everyone else's, and must thusly be implemented by any means, including military force, throughout the rest of the world.

Her notion of "training" a proxy government and military to "rule" in Iraq, and the Bush adminstration's failure to do so, points out the depths of her nationalistic hardening, which is at the core of her belief. Bush was really the idealist, believing that he could just setup a democratic-republican government out of almost thin air for the people of Iraq. Even for a neocon, I think Wurmser's ideas are quite extreme. The word "Machiavellian" regarding her views, comes to mind - but I would not want to insult Mac.

 

Chandos,
I think Mrs. Wurmser is more complex than that. She is clearly in the belief, and I'm not sarcastic here, it's purely factual, that she can at the same time promote Israel's and America's interests. The irony there is, neo-cons are often accused to put Israeli interests first, before US interests. Which is sort of lame, as many Israelis think neo-con 'aid' is doing more harm than good to Israel.
She is a point in case, when blaming Israel for not being hardline enough, and is promoting a policy that seems to go even too far for right wing Israelis, probably with the exception of the real whackos like Benny Netanyahu and Avigdor Liebermann. That tells you something about how neo-cons tick. Ideological true believers.

She thinks that America's and Israel's interests in the Middle East are the same, and can thus promote her hardline views honestly. She clearly holds the view that 'reshaping the Middle East' is in both Israel's and America's best interest. She also fervently believes she is right. Much like her hubby. He authored 'A Clean Break', co-authored by Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and his spouse Mrs. Wurmser. Maybe the other names are vaguely familiar. They're a driven lot.

[ February 14, 2007, 20:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Dream, you say? We have over 700 military bases overseas. I think it's closer to reality than it is to dream. Or was. It's in decline, and that shows no sign of changing.

Just ask Panama. Or Guatemala. Or Nicaragua. Or El Salvador. Or Honduras. Or Chile. Or...you get the idea.

 

That's very hard to believe, and I'm not being sarcastic either. I don't deny that you may be correct in that she may believe that, but everyone else in the whole world knows that America's interest in the ME is because of oil; while Israel's are its security and very survival. Most Americans could give a flip about the ME without its oil. I'm not discounting the relationship between America and Israel, since we are good allies and should remain as such, IMO.

 

Chandos,
the biggest beef I have is that the neo-cons aren't exactly upfront about what they do. Yes, they made these very explicit policy papers, which can be read by everybody with internet access and the time and interest to do it.
But they do not simply say: We want to re-shape the Middle East and that's why we want to attack and regime-change Iran. So let's have an open debate about it and discuss benefits and drawbacks. Not happening, probably because, as Stephen Colbert said so well, 'talking is the gateway to thinking', and should thus be avoided at all costs. Instead 'feel' the threat. And consequently, they engage in threatmongering, like when they inflate the 'Iranian Threat'

Talking straight doesn't go well with the 'moral clarity' and 'bold leadership' part. In a discussion everyone is equal, and the uninformed, coward, defaitist and unwashed masses have their say also -- and that's bad. To quote the godfather of neo-conservatism Irvin Kristol

That is fundamental to their philosophy: They need to (mis)lead us, to make us idiots do the right thing because we're so stupid that we don't get it by ourselves. We need to be (mis)led for our own good. It it takes a lie, half-truth, distortion, spin, backstab or a deep hit for that -- nevermind -- it's in fact virtuous, and that end justifies the means. And that equally applies to the domestic audience as for allies, or the CIA. And it needs a deliberate fiction like the 'Global War on Terror' to make people follow their lead and 'do the right thing', so be it.

The neo-cons, as a result of their Straussian heritage, who witnessed democracy fail in the Weimar republic, distrust democracy. They think the electorate has to be led. In a sense, their success, and the more than muted domestic reaction on Bush's excesses proves them right. That's why they don't run for elections, but instead for being appointed into the executive branch or political aidee positions, or the propaganda branch at National Review. That is also why they engage in these little buereaucratic and propagandistic games. Mere mortals, given a say, will reject their ideas. But their 'moral clarity', or ideological predisposition, demands for these policies to be made.

So they try to armtwist the buereaucracy into following their lead - that's what the whole 'misleading on intelligence' was about. They had in their small circle decided upon policy, and were able to push it through, with the tacit backing of the President. It was no conspiracy, but a very consequent and viciously conducted buereaucratic trench fight, and the neo-cons won hands down.
Outside the government they propagate all these 'threats' around the world, because some of their more ambitious policies in a democracy inevitably require a degree of public support. Alas, so, when they ramble about threat they probably know the claims are weak, but that's beside the point as long as it justifies what in their eyes needs to be done as long as it matters. These folks get a boner over Bush being the unitary executive president who has them on a loose leash. They can live their ideas uncompromised. I mean, we now know Feith did indeed hype up intelligence -- so what? It's 2007 and it has served the purpose. The US are in Iraq today. Mission accomplished.
Their low-key policies, like Abrams Palestine policy, which basically amount to instingating a civil war between Hamas and Fatah, or their little games with Russia, they conduct under the radar.

This post is neccessarily incomplete, as I won't go into the 'freedom agenda' here, neither into their support for Israel, to keep the post 'short'.

PS: And as for Iran: There are many bad things about Iran, and I don't want to suggest they're the nice guys, but that doesn't change a thing about that the neo-cons are about to do disastrous policy. Disastrous not only in terms of the consequences in the Middle East, but disastrous for the US domestically. By trying to 'lead the masses', and getting caught in failure, contradictions and half-truths (to be charritable), they undermine trust in the whole system of government.

PSS: And as for Israel, the neo-con anger about the Israeli gvt not attacking Syria contradicts the claim that the Israelis are masterminding US MIddle East policy through the neo-cons.

[ February 15, 2007, 12:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I quite honsetly don't think that one needs to make up the Iranian threat since it's there. The Iranian nuclear programme is a threat, not so much because Iran would use it but because it together with North Korea's programme makes the NPT worthy of serving as toilet paper since it obviously lacks all credibility. What we don't want is having every damn third world nation arming themselves with nukes because they see them as a great and effective method of extorting the west. If bombs are the only thing that can stop this, then so be it, let them drop. What Iran then does is irrelevant, if it turns to aggression it will in the end face its own destruction.

 

Russia had three thousand nukes and clearly was a threat as well. But it could be dealt with by means short of war. Russia's military power forced to confront it through indirect means, whereas Iran still looks 'doable' (I dissent here, I think it doesn't).

No matter how strong the 'Shia death wish' is, the Iranians have a nation to care about, and they do care about it. They can be deterred and be dealt with. Forget Ahmedinejad, he's a nut and unimportant. The real power lies elsewhere.

Iran is seen as a threat in Israel, because it could counterweigh Israel's nuclear arsenal. That is why the shrillest tones are heared from over there. However, even Israeli security experts conede that they could live with the Iranian threat. There is no rush, and no reason for hysteria. The only thing the US need to do is to put Israel under the US nuclear umbrella. That's what they did with NATO against the Soviet Union.

 

The NYTimes reporter (Michael R. Gordon) that said Iraq had WMD's is now claiming that Iran is suppling weapons to freedomfighters in Iraq.

Once bitten...

 

Cúchulainn,
Gordon co-authored some more questionable pieces with Judith Miller, like this masterpiece. Seems to me he isn't particulary curious once a bit fits what he wants to write.

I would take his claims with a boulder of salt.

 

Bolting the barn door after the horse has fled. NK has acquired nukes (and after doing so, has acquiesced to Chinese/Russian/American demands). Pakistan and India have both acquired nukes and have, essentially, both been rewarded by the international community in general and America in particular.

For that matter, anyone who seriously wants them can get--or has already gotten--them from Russia.

 

This is where it all pays off:

Nancy is only being what conservatives label "a strict constructionist" regarding the Constitution. The last election now has real meaning: Bush is not the "decider," as Congress has taken back its roll as a representative body of government. It also means that there will be real attempts at finding a solution to the Iranian "problem" regarding Iraq. This could be a good or bad thing, depending upon if Iran decides to stop supporting American enemies in Iraq. The best solution would be to convince the Iranians that they have an Iraq "problem" as well. Making Iran a partner in solving the issue of Iraq can go a long way towards avoiding a conflict which neither side needs. Otherwise, America can act with one voice, with both parties agreeing that Iran is a large part of the problem in Iraq. Still, America does not need, nor should it back down from the bullies in Iran. But there are some good alternatives to open conflict.

 

Isn't that what Iranians wanted before being labeled as part of 'The Axis of Evil'? They were also the first (and probably only) Islamic nation to pay their respects to the victims of 11/9.

 

Cúchulainn,
Short: Yes. And the offer was refused by the US.

Long: Was refused for the same reason the Bush Administration killed talks between Syria and Israel and for the same reason they Bushies will oppose a palestinian unity government - no talk to evil.

It's a little bit like the good old Soviet 'njet', a question of principle rather than utility.

• 'Njet' #1 Syria
  .
  Short Version: Syria is evil.
  .
  Long Version: The Bushies want to deny Assad any success that would strengthen him domestically, as that would be a threat to the policy of regime change. The last thing Washington wants is a Syrian-Israeli treaty that would transform Assad from pariah to peacemaker and lend him any political latitude. Some Israeli officials, by contrast, see substantive benefits in ending their nation's 60-year conflict with Syria. An accord would invariably provide for the cessation of Syrian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah.
  .
• 'Njet' #2 Hamas
  .
  Short Version: Hamas is evil.
  .
  Long Version: Palestinian unity would cripple Elliot Abram's attemps to instingate a civil war between Fatah and Hamas. A share of gvt makes Fatah less likely to wage civil war against Hamas. "Unity? Heaven forbid! How dare they? They're supposed to kill Hamas!
  .
• 'Njet' #3 Iran
  .
  Short Version: Iran is evil.
  .
  Long Version: Cheney rejected Iran's offer of concessions in 2003. It tells you something about the weight Cheney then had in the Bush administration. After initially blitzing Iraq he Bushies thought Iran intimidated, and expected to get more for less after successful regime change in Iran. Pre-war plans foresaw 6.000 US troops in Iraq by 2006. US planners projected Iraq to be a stable, pro-American and democratic country after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, leaving the troops free to victoriously blitzing elsewhere, like Syria or eventually Iran, amply demonstrating US military might (sub headline 'Why Iraq?'), transforming thge middle East and proving the power of RMA so strongly advocated by Rumsfeld.

As for Iran, the irony, of course, is that Washington is now demanding at threat of military force that the Iranians now do what they were offering to do four years ago for so little, like ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Other Iranian offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility. No way, because Iran is evil and thus cannot be trustet. It seems trivial and basic, and I keep repeating it, but it's really the bottom line.

'Njet! Njet!!!' Sometimes I think Breshnev and Bush would have gotten along splendidly.

EDIT: It appears to me that, unlike what is generally perceived, the threat of military force and the US diplomacy-by-proxy with Iran isn't a two pronged approach to solve the crises along the lines of carrot and stick. First of all the US offer no carrots. It rather seems aimed on isolating Iran, as a phase 1 before an attack as phase 2 and regime change as phase 3. That reading is illustrated by this episode as reported by former US ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter:

So the intent was not to talk with Iran. Focus clearly was on make Iran look bad. When a conference is a forum for dialogue, such behaviour is destructive. And it looks as if it that was staged. It suggests to me, if there had been a genuine interest to adress the problems, they wouldn't have squandered the opportunity to try solve, at least adress, the real issues. Nothing of that sort - bottom line again - only talk to evil in form of accusations.

I predict, should, what I don't really believe, the US enter direct talks with Iran, and Iran will come along and say: 'Look, that's all we have.', the Bushies' reply will predictably be: 'Right, but what about your secret stuff you didn't tell us about?' For that to work, the secret stuff doesn't need to exist, just like Saddam's WMD. Even if they're completely honest, the Iranians are screwed as they can't prove a negative, that they do not have what they're accused to have. The Bushies can then walk away, claiming. 'See, we want peace! We tried, but these Iranians know no reason - they kept lieing. We have no choice but ...' Iraq demonstrated that the US isn't too hard on politicos when they are a little 'inappropriate' - look at that vicious slap on the wrist for Douglas 'I only blew smoke, but didn't inhale it' Feith.

To persuade the US audience the Bushies only need 'reasonable doubt' - in dubio contra reo. That's what the current drumbeat is all about. Who are they gonna believe, affable George Bush or raving mad 'wipe Israel off the map' Ahmedinejad? It doesn't take much to persuade the US public that Iran is bad. Sad./EDIT

[ February 20, 2007, 18:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I said yes - the constant barrage of 'Iran is evil' comments from Bush etc. without any evidence presented pretty much points to one thing. I'd say that it would be more of a bombing campaign against military targets than an invasion ... but then I fully expect Iran to invade Iraq and then thing go to poo...

 

No before, but now? Bush and co. are saying the same kinds of things they said before we headed to Iraq. Someone needs to get them out of office NOW, before they can do this.

 

Will there be a war? I don't know.
Would the ass of US be kicked by Iranians if there will be a war? For sure. But so many lives from both sides (especially from Iran) will be lost if US is that stupid.

 

Iran kick US ass? What school of military did you study at?

 

Barmy,
that sort of cocksureness got Israel a beating. Hezbollah kicked Israel's ass in Lebanon. Twice. Hezbollah is the student. Iran is the teacher. Do. Not. Underestimate. Them.

Iran fought Iraq to a standstill, under tremendous sacrifices. Have you ever heared about Khorramshar? The Iranians now call it Khuninshar, or "City of Blood". The Iranians know war. And they are a great nation, a proud ancient civilisation. The US are not merely up against a rabble of mullahs but against the Persians. They Iranians are quite good at infantry warefare as Saddam had to learn the hard way. The Iranians know the people and the country far better than the US ever will.

When the US attack, they'll not only bomb the nuclear facilities but the entire Iranian armed forces. That will equal an all out air attack. For Iran that will mean total war. Iran will retaliate, with all what they have, in the Iraqi cities, against the US supply lines -- and you can expect them to extract a toll. And who sais they stop fighting when the US decide their 'limited air war' is over? The 200.000 something US troops may well be just overrun, like then at the Yalu.

 

The US cannot so much beat Iran, but inflict terrible damage on fixed targets and everything that exposes itself to it's reconnaissance and targeting complex. That's exactly what Hezbollah successfully avoided against Israel's similary formidable forces.

The US military's strongest aspect is that all of its branches of service are equipped with long-range precision weapons, which allows them in many cases to conduct "contactless" combat operations. In addition to great losses, this causes the opposing side to have a feeling of helplessness and doom, which weakens his will to resist. So it's shock and awe redux?

Not neccessarily, for a determined enemy there is a way out: For the defending side the best option is draw the US into the very thing they are trying to avoid, namely active, decisive contact operations, close and dirty. That's what Zhukov, at great expense, but successfully did in Stalingrad -- 'hugging' the German forces to avoid their superior combined arms fires and render supporting fires impossible. The Germans risked hitting their own if they tried. That led to the 'Rattenkrieg' virtually at spade's length in Stalingrad's ruins. That's what Khorramshar was about, too.

1:10 to 1:20 might be considered an acceptable loss ratio as long as it succeeds in inflicting sufficient losses on US forces.