Harm and Pain, Two

by emptywheel

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post speculating about what kinds of harm and pain Iran might inflict on the US if we were to attack its nuclear program. I complained in that post that the Bush Administration was insufficiently imaginative about what Iran might do. Well, for better or worse, the possibilities are coming into clearer focus.

The Telegraph claims today that the Brits will have a high level meeting tomorrow to consider consequences of war for Britain.

A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

They've included a handy little picture that describes the potential US attack, complete with graphics of Iran's defensive ability. But they consider only Iran's military defensive ability--not any of the 4th generation warfare ability in which Iran really excels. (Meanwhile, Britain's MOD officially denies it is holding a meeting tomorrow to plan for war.)

Now don't get me wrong. Iran wants you to believe it will use its military to defend itself. Or at least I assume that's the message Iran intends to send with its warning that it will carry out a naval exercise in the Straits of Hormuz.

At the same time, Iran is preparing a military reply to go alongside the diplomatic one. A demonstration of Teheran’s strength will take place from 31^st March to 6^th April in the Strait of Ormuz, which links the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. Naval exercises will be carried out there, according to unofficial information with the aim of demonstrating to the whole world that Iran controls this essential stretch of water, through which 80% of the oil refined in the Persian Gulf region makes its way onto the world markets.

But what I'm more interested in are the maneuvers that took place at the UN last week, because some of the parties revealed a few more of the cards in their hand. Sure, the Security Council agreed to give Iran a 30 day deadline to prove to the IAEA that it was ceasing its uranium enrichment plans. The US had wanted to impose a 14 day deadline; China and Russia sought a 6 week deadline. Why does this remind me of the period in March 2003 when the UNSC was trying to buy time for the inspectors? Only this time, no one expects that the deadline will bring any resolution. Iran has already rejected calls to cease enrichment. More importantly, Russia and China have both made it clear that they will be no readier to punish Iran in 30 days than they are now. They will not support sanctions, and they do not favor doing anything more.

During a news conference after a three and one-half hour meeting here today, Dai Bingguo, China's vice minister of foreign affairs, rejected the idea of sanctions and offered a thinly veiled criticism of the war in Iraq when he said, "The Chinese side feels there has already been enough turmoil in the Middle East. We don't need any more turmoil."

[snip]

As it is, both Russia and China bluntly declared that they had no interest in imposing sanctions or taking any further action against Iran, though both countries did express concern about the nuclear program. Both countries said they wanted to refer the issue back to the atomic energy agency.

"Russia believes that the sole solution for this problem will be based on the work of the I.A.E.A.," said the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.

Meanwhile, Condi keeps trying to convince the world that the UNSC is united against Iran.

Ms. Rice alluded to the sort of sanctions the United States will likely propose when, speaking to reporters, she said the United States and its allies will look at "how a strong message can be sent to the Iranian regime that it's the regime that is isolated, not the Iranian people."

When in reality, any unified effort to curtail Iran's nuclear program seems to be in deep trouble.

Later, after Russia's and China's public rebuke of the idea of taking any further action, a senior administration official, briefing reporters, offered a different goal for the meeting, saying it had been an effort to keep the coalition of nations opposed to Iran's nuclear program together.

Someone ought to tell Condi that she's misreading the interests of Russia and China on this issue. Because she appears to be totally clueless.

Meanwhile, China continues to build closer ties with Iran, further diminishing the chances it will do anything except defend Iran against American strikes. And Venezuelan President Chavez makes it clear that he's watching the international pressure on Iran closely. Oh, and have you noticed the Shiites in Iraq are getting impatient with the US of late? Condi must have, because she and Jack Straw made a quick trip to Iraq to try to salvage the mess Bush has made of it. In any case, a lot of the questions I asked in my first Harm and Pain post--Chinese, Venezuelan, Iraqi Shiite involvement--seem to be real possibilities here.

And finally, finally!!! It took an excellent reporter like Dana Priest to notice what the Brits (or at least the Telegraph) seem to be missing. Iran's great strength is not its traditional military. On the contrary, its great strength lies in its ability to wage 4th generation warfare in many parts of the globe.

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

[snip]

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[snip]

Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory "would be regarded as an act of war" by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. "There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action."

[snip]

Iran "certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur," said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. "That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance."

Thank you Dana, for pointing out the obvious. Do you suppose the Bush Administration is going to hassle Priest for this article, as they did with her reporting on the secret prisons in Europe? Well, Priest may realize the obvious. But apparently the Bush Administration still doesn't get it. As one of the experts cited by Priest says,

"I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this."

One more thing. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state. It does not have an internationally recognized right to protect itself. Iran does. If we attack Iran without UN backing and incite terrorist attacks in response, it will change the entire conceptualization of terrorism. Depending on the targets Iran hit, these terrorist attacks might well be legal. If we attack Iran and it responds primarily with 4th generation tactics, it may well represent the full maturation of 4th generation warfare, as a legitimate tactic wielded by a internationally recognized power using its legal right to defend itself.

 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

This whole war-with-Iran scenario seems so misguided, ill-informed, insane and downright stupid it is hard to credit, except that it is led by the certifiable Dick, Cheney.

You neglected to mention the great financial leverage China has over the US dollar in the form of their holdings of US T bills and bonds. Considering the vacancies at the Treasury Dept (including the one at the top), it is not surprising that BushCo seems not to have taken this into acount.

Part of me would almost (but really not quite) like to see then try something, and then deal with $4-a-gallon gas and rising import prices just before the midterms. Iraq couldn't retaliate, but the far bigger, richer and smarter Iran certainly could, and it is hard to believe that a majority of the public (all non-Bushbots) wouldn't see the connection between an attack on iran and a falling dollar and rising oil price.

[emptywheel]

Yeah, I didn't mention the reserve currency problem, mostly because I didn't want to cover Senatorial bloviating about exchange rates.

mr. emptywheel, who is usually loathe to discuss these kinds of issues, did some wargaming with me this morning. And we decided this was a plausible response to a US strike in Iran:

Iran makes Iraq living hell
Iran conducts a strike somewhere (the UK?) that attacks competency rather than civilians, perhaps the dreaded strike on Saudi oil fields
China moves first 5%, then another 5% of its currency into Euros

The likely response would be greatly incrased calls for us to withdraw in Iraq (and perhaps the necessity to do so), increased oil prices, and much higher interest rates in the US, which will lead to increased foreclosures and bankruptcies. It also might spark a smaller Asian country (we picked Thailand) to precipitously move all its currency into Euro, in an attempt to beat China to that step. Which might lead to a panic on the dollar. A certainly could lead to the bankruptcy of the US.

[Dan Robinson]

Hey EW,

Good post.

Here is a link that talks about fourth generation war.

http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

=

[dan]

I suspect that a big part of the problem is that no one really has a clue as to what the Iranians have up their sleeves as countermeasures - they do seem to have an awful lot of options at their disposal, and these extend into the political, diplomatic and economic spheres as well. I'd pay very close attention to the price of oil as the ultimate arbiter of this for 2006 - I suspect if there is another major hurricane that hits GoM oil production then the military option will rapidly disappear.

This current round of military exercises is at least the third in the past 6 months - and they keep unveiling some nifty military hardware designed to make oppo operational planners baulk. My own assessment is that Iran's conventional military is seriously underestimated, and that they have aces up their sleeves that will come as big surprises if the Bush administration pushes the button on this.

It's hard to see any positive political outcomes in the wider Islamic world from another attack on flimsy pretexts - and the potential for political destabilization in Gulf states that are important US military bases ( Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait for example ) should not be underestimated. Obviously there will be some kind of kickback in Southern Iraq that would put severe pressure on the US military, and would be potentially fatal for the UK and assorted allies whose presence in the key areas around Basra, Nasariyah and up to Karbala/Najaf is vital for the US logistics chain from Kuwait. It will only take the introduction of MANPADS and some stand-off anti-armour weaponry to re-shape the battlefield there; the Iranians probably have these pre-deployed in the south, along with sufficient personnel to make life really unpleasant for those supply convoys; and I wouldn't rule out the option of the Iranians taking Nasariyah - which is a pivotal location.

I suspect that one of the reasons that Jack Straw regularly shouts "there is no military solution" at the top of his voice is because UK military commanders have intimated that an attack on Iran will lead to the elimination of the British military presence in Basra.

Iran's biggest asset will, of course, be the fact that as things stand any attack on them will be an unambiguous act of aggression that has no legal warrant.

I'd take issue with the notion that they will undertake "terrorist" attacks against civilian targets in the West or elsewhere - they will be more likely to employ classic "commando" or "special forces" tactics against "state", "infrastructure" or "military" targets. They won't be targetting rush-hour commuters - but they might well attack key electrical or petroleum infrastructure or industrial targets. There's nothing like knocking out the power supply to 50 million Americans for an extended period to get people very grouchy.

Incidentally, my reading of the Telegraph article, which cites an unnamed FO official as, quite literally, the only source for the piece, is that it is bluff - there may well be a high-level meeting set for this week, but I suspect that the MoD brass is just as likely to be telling the government that they'll be handing in their resignations if there's any UK participation in such an ill-advised and illegal venture; it's all part of the psychological games that are being played to try to convince the Iranians that there is a genuine chance of military action - so just fucking watch it and play nicer.

[John Casper]

Brilliant post ew, as usual. Wrt your comment, our status as a debtor nation provides some limited security. Our creditors don't want us to go bankrupt and neither do the people who cash our checks paying for their oil.
Another very small thing that may cause Bush to hesitate is the Strait of Hormuz. IIRC, it's 100m deep and two-miles wide wrt navigable water. Just sinking a couple of ocean going vessels in such shallow water quickly makes it unnavigable. Bush's support of the Dubai Ports signals that he at least appears to understand the importance of this very narrow channel.
Would you care to guess what the chances are that Bush would launch against Iran?
I am going to be optimistic and say 25% for an attack, 75% against it. History may record that the Administration didn't launch primarily because DeadEye shot Harry in the face. (BTW, Taylor Marsh called Dick "DeadEye" this morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal.)
Is there anything FDL's "netroots" could do in your opinion, to pressure Congress, to try to pressure Bush not to launch?

[Meteor Blades]

ew, one thing you don't want to do at the moment is check out the rightwing blogs. They're all puffing themselves up as if they were going to be in the vanguard of whatever attack is undertaken on Iran. God, gold and glory, as the conquistadors used to say. Scary stuff.

There has been plenty of looking into the possibilities of what Iran might do in response to any attack. Jeffrey White, for instance, back in May 2003:

Long-term Reaction. In the long-term, Iran would attempt to take steps that would insure itself against another attack on its nuclear program or a broader attack on the regime. Tehran would almost certainly rebuild the program, reflecting its status as a high-value national asset. Unless significant numbers of scientists and technicians were killed in the strikes, there is no reason why Tehran could not restart the program; as long as it possesses the necessary knowledge and skills, Iran will have the basis for such a program. Indeed, Iran would likely accelerate both its nuclear and long-range-missile efforts in order to achieve a measure of deterrence as quickly as possible. The regime would also increase security for the program by instituting or increasing hardening, dispersal, redundancy, and active defense measures.

In addition, Tehran would likely plan and then implement asymmetric attacks on high-value U.S. and allied targets. A number of such possibilities exist, including using Hizballah to attack Israel with long-range rockets from southern Lebanon; launching asymmetric attacks on allied forces or on the transitional government in Iraq; attacking U.S. allies in the Gulf; or sponsoring terrorist operations against U.S. interests abroad or on U.S. soil. By using proxy elements, Tehran probably has a better chance of successfully arguing for plausible denial (at least with some audiences) than Washington would for any attack on Iran. Finally, the regime would attempt to use the U.S. attack as a means of rallying domestic political support. Any political forces seeking accommodation with Washington would be put on the defensive, if not written off completely.

And The Oxford Research Group came out this February with Iran: Consequences of a War.

The consequences described above relate to the immediate responses from within Iran or from associates in Lebanon. Probably the most difficult response to predict would be the effect of a military confrontation with Iran on the attitudes and reactions from within wider Islamic communities. Although there is an uneasy relationship between Iran and the al-Qaida movement, and between Iran and the Arab world, any attack on such a significant Islamic republic would inevitably increase the anti-American mood in the region and beyond, giving greater impetus to a movement that is already a global phenomenon.

One of the most significant developments of the past four years has been the ability of the al-Qaida movement and its associates to survive and thrive in an intensely antagonistic environment. Since 9/11, the movement has experienced the loss of many key leadership elements, either killed or detained, has lost its main operating areas in Afghanistan and has seen over 70,000 people detained for lengthy periods. Even so, the level of activity in those past four years has actually been substantially higher than in the four years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Of particular significance has been the evolution of suicide bombing. Historically, this phenomenon has been widespread and has not been restricted to radical Islamist groups, but individual campaigns involving suicide bombing have been narrow in their geographical focus. These have included the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, Kurdish separatists in Turkey, Hezbollah supporters in Southern Lebanon and Palestinian radicals in Israel/Palestine. These have all been directed at responding to occupation and perceived oppression in a localised region.

For the first time, at least on a substantial scale, suicide bombing has gone transnational, often involving well-educated individuals who are motivated to respond not to their known immediate circumstances but to the wider circumstances of co-religionists. They are aided by the huge increase in information now available through satellite TV news channels and the internet, and may be prepared to travel substantial distances to undertake their actions.

If the United States is prepared to extend its current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, this trend should be expected to get a substantial further boost, with consequences that are difficult to predict. It will certainly be yet another example of a reaction that will serve to damage US security interests in the region and beyond.

I have to disagree with you, dan, regarding the range of likely Iranian targets. Certainly, soft industrial targets would be among their choices, but fourth-generation warfare tries to avoid hard military targets both because they are hard and because taking them out can be so very, very costly to the attacker. I'd be less concerned about embassies and air bases and more concerned about chemical plants and shopping malls.

[Mike G]

Isn't there a clear possibility, based on previous Bush administration "errors" that a counter-attack by Iran on US civilians is *exactly* what Bush wants? Not that it'd work, but BushCo could be hoping for a rally-around-the-flag effect and the chance to impose martial law.

[mamayaga]

Bushco may be very well aware of the potential side effects of an attack on Iran, including 4th generation warfare carried to our shores. But who says that's a downside for Bush? He got huge approval ratings and carte blanche to throw away the Constitution the last time that happened, and he could sure use some of the same now. As for Iran, they are, as you say, very smart, and have learned the lessons of recent US belligerance very well. Specifically, 1) if you want to forestall a US attack, get yourself some nuclear weapons (see: North Korea); and 2) it doesn't do you any good to cooperate with a UN inspection regime if you're hoping to keep Bush at bay (see: Iraq).

[emptywheel]

Re: counter-attacks.

I think I'm at a middle ground here--I imagine, if Iran were to strike in the UK or the US, it would strike something that wouldn't kill civilians, would do some damage to the war effort, but would be recognizably an Iranian strike. Perhaps something creative to the air bases we borrow in the UK? Not a direct attack, but an annoyance.

But I think the larger underlying counter-attack--the oil weapon--will not have the effects BushCo desires. This country is more dependent on oil than any other, everything from food prices to commute prices to production prices would skyrocket if Iran were able to interrupt supplies of oil (particularly if you're talking either cutting traffic through Hormuz or a joint Iranian/Venezuelan/Iraqi withdraw). That kind of counter-attack isn't going to raise BUsh's approval ratings. And Iran knows this.

All Iran has to do to become the regional power it wants to be is to outlast us in Iraq (and make sure the Shiites retain control), which should be a cinch for them. Step one in outlasting us is getting rid of Bush and driving down his popularity.

[zanzibar]

Good to discuss the Iranian response to military attack issue while there is still time to analyze it and before it is too late.

Iran is not Iraq. They do have some conventional military capability and have spent some serious money on beefing up that capability with arms from Russia and China. They have recently test fired long range missiles and just last week test fired a radar evading missile that can carry multiple warheads.

Taking out Iranian nuclear facilities will not be that easy. As Col. Lang has posted on his blog, it will require thousands of air attack sorties in waves. So it can't be a total surprise attack as positioning all the aircraft will be noticeable. Israel can't do it on its own. Only the US can and will have to be the backbone of the attack. Iranian nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and many are hardened. Additionally US intelligence on Iran is poor so its unlikely US intelligence knows all the nuclear and missile sites.

Iran will also not necessarily sit back and wait for the attack to respond. They could act pre-emptively before their military assets are destroyed and launch their missiles at US air bases in the Gulf region (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq) and also into Israel and Afghanistan. They can sink a few large oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz and shut out oil tanker movement. They could incite Shiite's in the south of Iraq and make it difficult for US and UK ground forces moving into Iran. Shiite's in the larger Gulf region could also be incited which could cause domestic upheavals from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. Probably the most troubling would be the potential destabilization of Pakistan with the jihadis there going nuts and their decent size sympathizers in the religious political parties and intelligence and military agencies providing support to domestic protests and riots. If they were able to pick up momentum against Musharraf's acquiescence there could potentially be a coup with Islamist hardliners in the military taking over and that would be a worst case scenario. The AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network there would be nothing compared to what could potentially happen with dispersal of Pakistani nuclear weapons and nuclear tipped missiles.

Even not considering the launch of 4th Generation warfare by Iran the Middle East could be in flames and so destabilized that the economic and geopolitical consequences could not be fully anticipated. There is also no certainty that the public in the West would be passive. Western media also may not follow the Iraq script and only push the pro-war propaganda. There could be massive protests in Europe and the US that western governments will have their hands more than full not only fighting an escalating war but domestic public opinion.

The reality is that the US today as compared to before the Iraqi invasion is in a relatively weakened position and cannot undertake another major military confrontation that could have unpredictable economic and geopolitical results. Iran and the rest of the world know that. Hopefully saner heads prevail and a political understanding is reached with Iran.

[bob mcmanus]

The US is building bases in Iraq measured in tens of sq miles of concrete. Gilliard and many think we are just going to abandon the bases. I think Bush is going to create conditions that make it possible to station 100k troops in Iraq for a generation,i.e., hell in the Middle East. He is going to change the world, and be remembered for a millenium.

I also think y'all are wrong about domestic implications. If Bush can make conditions bad enough, there will not be a "rally around the flag" effect but "desperately clinging to a liferaft" effect. If Bush causes a depression and World War, I am not even sure I would want to add a civil war to the equation.
Mississippi and Utah will go to a shooting war if you push back too hard. Bush has made it known that dictatorship is an option.

The only question is before or after the midterms.

[DHinMI]

I was at a Capitol Hill round table the other day with Jim Zogby of the Arab-American institute and the embassadors of Egypt and Qatar. The Egyptian ambassadors was very impressive, and he left a few people who know him well and are attuned to his approach wondering if he was sending a veiled message. I wish I had taken notes, but in a very subtle way he almost seemed to be suggesting that if the US doesn't "grow up" about the Middle East, we could lose out influence over the pro-western governments and liberal modernizers--who both he and the Qatari ambassador said were the international business classes in their countries--to other countries, presumably the Chineese. He was fairly stern, and he in fact told this group of mostly upper-level Congressional staffers that the US needed to "grow up." It was very un-diplomatese, especially considering that he's apparently the epitome of the smooth diplomate with a soft-spoken approach.

After the event, at lunch with a couple people who know the Ambassador well, I thought of EW's repeated refrains, in person, on email, and here on TNH, that Hu Jintao is very shrewdly taking advantage of animosity toward the US to reach out across the globe to enhance China's standing as a counterweight to the US. There's little reason to think the Chinese aren't doing the same with some of our past stalwart allies like Egypt.

[John Casper]

Iran may see China as a double counterweight to both the US and Russia.

[emptywheel]

DH

Very interesting speculation. You see China reaching out to the pariahs, like Sudan. But that's only because they're the exception, the only ones who can get away with it (though we've been known to do the same in the past). But they're almost certainly doing the same with some of our best allies.

And meanwhile, Bush can't even manage dignity at a meeting with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

[teacherken]

Meteor Blades has it just about right in my opinion. I think there are those who would expect Iran to act through resources or assets and actually launch attacks in the U.S. which could then be used as a justification for doing things like going to conidtion Red, suppressing free speech, even cancelling the elections. Remember that this group has had 5 years to try to replace the command structure with people they believe will be compliant.

And at the first attack all of a sudden we will begin to here how Iran sheltered key leaders of Al Qaeda, with some reference to the son of Bin Laden who was apparently under house arrest in Iran. With critical voices shut down because of condition red, the administration could have complete freedom to do whatever it wants.

And if Iran does not launch such attacks, it will be spun that the naysayer who predicted it were wrong, that the show of strength has intimidated Iran.

I have slight acquaintance with a few people on the edges of neocon circles, largely from the time more than decade ago when I regularly attended th synagogue at which Joe Lieberman can be found on Satrudays when he is in DC. While I have had little contact with these folks in the past few years, from what I remember of their thinking, this would be about par for them.

[teacherken]

Meteor Blades has it just about right in my opinion. I think there are those who would expect Iran to act through resources or assets and actually launch attacks in the U.S. which could then be used as a justification for doing things like going to conidtion Red, suppressing free speech, even cancelling the elections. Remember that this group has had 5 years to try to replace the command structure with people they believe will be compliant.

And at the first attack all of a sudden we will begin to here how Iran sheltered key leaders of Al Qaeda, with some reference to the son of Bin Laden who was apparently under house arrest in Iran. With critical voices shut down because of condition red, the administration could have complete freedom to do whatever it wants.

And if Iran does not launch such attacks, it will be spun that the naysayer who predicted it were wrong, that the show of strength has intimidated Iran.

I have slight acquaintance with a few people on the edges of neocon circles, largely from the time more than decade ago when I regularly attended th synagogue at which Joe Lieberman can be found on Satrudays when he is in DC. While I have had little contact with these folks in the past few years, from what I remember of their thinking, this would be about par for them.

[Griffon]

The Telegraph is widely known as an MI5/6 mouthpiece. Their story and graphics are aimed at the punters, presumably to give them the idea that Iran will be easy to defeat.

Dana Priest's article is about linking Hezbolah in Lebanon with Iran in the public's mind.
My guess is that the shooting match will start with Israel premptively attacking Hezbolah in Lebanon. They want the water resources in Lebanon and would be hoping to provoke Syria. If Syria responds then an air attack from Israel and US ensues.
US will be hoping that Iran honours it's treaty with Syria and comes to it's aid. This triggers the US bombardment of Iran.

However the attack on Iran comes about, it will be military targets that get hit first long before the nuclear facilities.
As for Iran's reponse, they will be at war and there are far more pressing targets to take out before US chemical plants or shopping malls.

All efforts will be to combat the air raids. They know the US can only win by bombing Iran back into the Stone Age and that that is exactly what US wants to do for multiple reasons
Iran is a way different scenario to Emmanuel Bin Laden.

Please remember that the corporate press advance the Industrial Complex's agenda and that the target audience is the US and British public. It's one big psy-op to them.

Siun over at FDL posted this link to an informative article. I don't know about the authors speculations but the facts in the first half are worth pondering at least.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12593.htm

[teacherken]

One other thought

if the US were to attack Iran and the Brits were shown to have anything to do with it, my guess is that Blair would quickly lose a vote of no confidence and be forced from office. I'd be interested in how others might read that situation.

[shooogarp]

Great analysis and comments. This is what happens when a boy tinkers a complex world.

[Griffon]

I agree with teacherken's scenario except it is far more likely that the terrorism on US soil will be perpetrated by Mossad with or without CIA help.
That's their MO

[texas dem]

From zanzibar's comment:

"Iran will also not necessarily sit back and wait for the attack to respond. They could act pre-emptively before their military assets are destroyed... They could incite Shiite's in the south of Iraq and make it difficult for US and UK ground forces moving into Iran."

Wildly speculative question from the uninformed:

I never have known what to make of the fact that the security guards at the Golden Mosque were captured and tied up unharmed. Maybe there's a practical reason, such as that gunshots would have attracted too much attention to allow enough time for the bomb-rigging. It sort of looks like humanitarian concern, which one surely wouldn't credit to a Zarqawi type.

Is there any chance that the Iranians blew up the Mosque?

The Sadr and Badr militias have never looked back. For Iraqi Shiites, it's become a chance to flex their military superiority over the Sunnis. And to show the Americans they're neither needed nor especially wanted, and that they can take their demands for a unity government (and the associated concessions) elsewhere. They already proved themselves in an election; since that wasn't enough, they'll assert their rights again by force.

The Iranians get to drive a wedge between the Badr/Sadr boys and the Americans. Shiite control over the country is established, and in the process, America realizes it doesn't have a leg to stand on in southern Iraq.

If you were trying to defend your own country from attack, then undermining your attacker's position in this way would be a cheap and effective card to play. It helps your pals in SCIRI too. Essentially, you're just giving a pretext for a strong military move by the Iraqi Shiites.

Stories that sound good when you possess 15% of the facts usually are wrong on their face when you possess 30%. So I'm not wedded to this. But given that funny thing about tying up the guards, I have to wonder.

So, do we know for sure who pulled that operation?

[texas dem]

Also, the most workable scenario in terms of domestic politics only would be to have the Israelis bomb Iran, have Iran retaliate against us, say by sinking a ship, and then have some Day of Infamy bluster on every channel, alongside some "we will stand by Israel, we must counterattack, etc." In terms of American public opinion that would work frighteningly well. If done right, it would even be enough to keep European and Japanese publics in line.

The facts that make this impossible are apparently that 1) the Israelis couldn't mount the type of strike that would be needed, and 2) the Iranians are smart enough to respond with an oil crunch rather than dead American sailors.

Even that's not very reassuring. I can imagine seeing an Israeli pinprick strike, something completely inadequate to the real task of destroying Iranian nuclear capacity, but big enough to provide the necessary spark anyway. The Iranians respond with something (they've got domestic opinion to think about too), and as long as they kill 100+ US military, it's on. The fact that the first two moves were symbols of an attack rather than the real thing wouldn't matter a damn bit.

[Griffon]

texas dem, reposted from FDL "The Next Iraqi Occupation"

See here:

Clueless in Baghdad
WPB | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 9:45 am | #

Thanks for the link WPB.
From the author -

"Lynch’s answer is total bullshit. The rise in casualties is not the result of insurgent violence. It is the result of government-backed Shiite death squads and government-backed Shiite militias."

Too true. British and US personnel have also been sprung with explosives. So they are pro active as well. One would expect Mossad to be indulging in all sorts of mayhem, too. It's their style and has been for 50 years.
The chief beneficiaries of the internecine violence are the Israelis and Americans and General Lynch's own chart shows this dramatically. This alone should tell everyone who's stoking the fire.
Griffon | 04.02.06 - 3:30 pm | #

The chart I refer to (worth a look) shows the Iraqi casualties(SP?) rising as US casualties falling - cause and effect?!

[Griffon]

texas dem

check this out -
http://anewerworld.org/?p=372
You'll have to copy and paste it into your browser - sorry

reposted from Fdl "Iraq The Next Occupation"-

Thanks for the link WPB.
From the author -

"Lynch’s answer is total bullshit. The rise in casualties is not the result of insurgent violence. It is the result of government-backed Shiite death squads and government-backed Shiite militias."

Too true. British and US personnel have also been sprung with explosives. So they are pro active as well. One would expect Mossad to be indulging in all sorts of mayhem, too. It's their style and has been for 50 years.
The chief beneficiaries of the internecine violence are the Israelis and Americans and General Lynch's own chart shows this dramatically. This alone should tell everyone who's stoking the fire.
Griffon | 04.02.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Google 'Salvador(e)an option" if you are not familiar with it

[landreau]

A propos of this discussion, I note a news story via Bloomberg that Iran's navy says it successfully test-fired a 223 miles per hour torpedo. This weapon supposedly can be fired from a small boat, by air, or from shore. It could turn the Strait of Hormuz into a killing zone--if they have enough of them.

I was pretty sure there were no good options for us before this latest development.

The Bloomberg link is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=alsKhANHek1w