I think Bush's reticence to act is driven almost exclusively by US electoral politics. As the NY Lotto says, "you gotta be in it to win it!" He needs to win reelection before he can take further action. The IAEA referral to the UN Security Council has been delayed to November. It is a dangerous game of chicken he's playing given the reports that Iran may be 6-9 months away from having an indigenous bomb. However, he's only able to play the cards he's dealt, and his hand won't be strong enough until after the election.

Tibor makes a very good point.

What I'm wondering is, why do you let yourself be vexed by something that Newsweek is reporting? Do you think they have the inside track on what's really going on inside the administration? (I don't.)

I'm not saying "Don't worry your pretty little head," because there's certainly plenty to be worried about. But to assert that there is no plan, and there's not going to be any plan, etc etc just doesn't pass the sniff test. There are a lot of smart people in the administration, and they understand the threat posed by a nuclear Iran as well as, if not better than, anyone else. I agree, Iran just needs a good shove. But why exactly is it that you think we're not doing anything along those lines? Because Newsweek says so? Are we (or they) really supposed to be privy to every op that's underway?

I don't know. I try to be optimistic about this stuff. It's difficult enough to parent, and it becomes impossible when you're crippled by fear. We haven't reached the brink yet. I believe that some tide is slowly turning... I'm particularly interested in whether or not Russia will step up and take on an expanded role in fighting terrorism in the Middle East following the massacre in Beslan.

We may see the administration becoming more forceful if the polls show a solid, unshakeable lead for GWB. Until then, we are all very much on hold.

I agree, in theory, that the Iranian situation, on its face, seems to have easier solutions than Iraq. Personally, I think that US politics plays a fundamental, and potentially dangerous role in how we approach Iran. Iraq is a good example. Our President engaged in the right war, at arguably the right time, and has been pilloried domestically and internationally for his decision to do so. The Iranians in charge have no fear that the UN will act with any type of clarity. The Iranians have to suspect the same of Kerry/Edwards, as Edwards was recently talking about some outlandish types of negotiations with them, possibly involving nuclear fuels (Note the time that I am writing this, a few cocktails has likely clouded my otherwise faulty judgement).

Iran actually poses some threats that outweigh some of the others mentioned. Back when I was in the military during and after the first Gulf War, Iran had the largest standing army in the Middle East, and if memory serves, was as large as the rest of the Armies in the Middle East combined. Despite that, we could end their nuclear capabilities, were we to have the spine to do so, rather quickly, efficiently, and with minimal bloodshed. By the way, I believe that to be one of the flaws of the Iraqi war model, ie. the citizenry must feel like it lost, crush the will to resist, etc ... Anyhow, Israel previously showed with Iraq that a few strategically place missiles can cripple a nuclear program, and we could probably do that in Iran just about any time we felt like it.

Ultimately, it will come down to the will to take action.

P.S. I am still pretty new around here, and the content just keeps getting better. Hope my contribution does not take away from your excellent work.

Chapter CXVI: The Lament of the Vodkapundit...

Chapter CXVII: Things Are Seldom What They Seem...

Stephen, I have to concur w/the others above. Why would you put your faith in the accuracy of Newsweek? And even that publication noted how much work is being done under the radar.

Bush can't take proper action till after the election, but that's a small setback in the grand scheme of things. This election is historic, not just for what's on the ballot, but because the Mainstream Media did everything they could to torpedo Bush and it wasn't enough. They are declining and have already passed the point of control on their way down. End of an era and good riddance.

"In fact, Bush has done worse than nothing. By failing to stand up against Iran's mullahs in Fallujah, he has actively discouraged Iranians from standing up against their hated government."

I don't get the link between Iran and Fallujah?

2) "Slightly more fantastically, we could abandon Iraq's Sunni Triangle to the civil war they desire, while setting up a pan-Shiite nation and government in the region around Basra." (see also BARRY RUBIN)

Out of moral, personal (I would never ever betray the Fadhil Brothers and the other peaceful pro-American Sunnis relying upon Americas promises to a democratic Iraq) and security reasons ('civil war' is exactly the situation that cultivates terrorism best, see Afghanistan, Sudan, Jordan) I'm all against abolishing the Sunni population as a whole.

If you want to punish the Sunni strongholds and the Bathists, you have to do it yourself. To say we are unable to do it, but then move out and look the other way while thousands get slaugtered, just because they are Sunni, would be sth that I don't want to put in words here.

I concede that point 2) might not be central to your argumentation, but I didn't find a central point (let alone a plan) at all.

I'm sorry to have to disagree that hefty, mostly I enjoy reading here quite a lot.

Come november we will all be wiser, I guess.

a last (maybe even central) point:

if throwing a lot of money in all directions was a winning strategy, heinz-kerry-soros would be in a better shape now

Again, I would argue that, though Islam might be the last of the major religions to be founded, the dead civilization in which it is embedded is half a millennium or so older than Western culture.

Islam was the Reformation of an increasingly Eastern civilization, one which founded a new religion, like Buddhism in India or Confucianism in China (and reading the "New" Texts suggests that it had a lot less in common with philosophical Taoism than Wang Mang tried to put across). Its Enlightenment was Mu'tazilism, long since repudiated in favor of Ash'arism.

The murderous antics of Islamists today are not the signs of young, undisciplined religion; they are the twitchings of a corpse.

We are waiting for September 2005. Why? Many reasons:

1. The American People are not ready for another war. The re-election of the president is more important than waiting a year for pushing into Iran
2. The US Armed forces are waiting for the logistical chain to catch up. The factories can only manufacture goods so fast without a flat out WWII style ramp up. We are even out of 5.56mm rounds and are forced to buy them from Israel. On a side note, there was a US representative that demanded a promise from CENTCOM that no Jewish ammunition would ever be fired by an American soldier in Iraq.
3. The US Armed Forces are now Rearming, Resting and Refueling. If you look carefully at the current order of battle in Iraq, you will see that the primary fighting divisions are not here. 24th ID, 3rd ID, 3rd ACR, 4th ID, 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne (with the exception of a brigade each in Afghanistan) are state side. The ones that are here are great units, but 1CAV had not deployed since Viet Nam, 2nd ID is a speed bump short division out of Korea and so is 2nd Armored out of Germany. Everyone else is National Guard. There is a MEF here and some Air Force and Navy, but the bulk is stateside. I expect to see a deployment of 82nd, 101st and the ranger bats before a covert op in Iran. Also pay attention to the location of the carrier groups.

The only spoiler to that would be a nuclear weapons test by Iran. Then all bets are off. US would have to go into Iran or let Israel do it. Of course, Russia could pre-emptively strike into Iran, using Beslan as a reason, and save us the problem (but creating a new problem)

Ever heard the term "keep it on the low"?

Of course Bush has a plan for dealing with Iran. He doesn't want to outline the plan for a new war right before the election (one that may not even be necessary to fight), and he doesn't want to tip his hand to Al Qaeda and the mullahs when there's no reason to.

Look for the push to come on Iran after Iraqi elections are held in January. And don't misunderestimate Bush.

I agree with your basic premise, but I think that you've mixed up where Iranian influence is most heavily felt. It's not in Fallujah (where the problems are cause by Sunni Baathists and foreign fighters from Syria and Saudia Arabia), it's in the southern Shiite areas that you suggest could be given a "pan-Shiite nation and government in the region around Basra." That would be playing directly into the hands of the Iranian, Shiite, Mullahs.

What we need to to is make sure that Iraq stabilizes, Afganistan develops, and that Pakistan continues to modernize and secularize. Iran is squashed between these three nations (and Turkmenistan, which isn't exactly a center of political gravity), and if we can succeed in building democratic, modern societies here, our success will (eventually) spill into Iran, particularly if we're helping by providing financial and moral support to dissident groups.

That leaves the question of whether or not the mullahs could be gotten rid of soon enough to prevent a nuclear Iran, but my feeling is that Israel is going to take care of that. It's not as if they have much good will left in the places that would condem them the most, and it would certainly earn them points with any American administration.

That we could have Iran almost completely isolated with clear successes in Iraq and Afghanistan is why I'm so dismayed at Bush's half-assed efforts in both countries. He's got great instincts, but shitty follow-through.

While it would be comforting to know Bush's plans for Iran (if they exist)I think most people would agree that it would be folly to put them out for discussion at this point.

Besides, I agree that it appears Iran could change dramatically with some type of "shove". The question is, what would the "best" shove be?

If this were Clinton's to handle I'd be concerned but Bush, by going into Iraq, showed he is willing to go against the political winds to do what (strategically) needs to be done in the long term interest.

Be a little patient. Bush is a card player. You don't tip a strong hand nor do you give up an opportunity to bluff the hand of a weaker player. Iran is weak. They are supporting terrorism in Iraq to get the US out and quash both the external threat of our forces as well as to intimidate internal opposition. But they are weak and they know it. If they fail to push us out of Iraq before it is stabilized this failure may well give the Iranian opposition the opening they need to "shove".

No hand is a sure winner but if you hang in the game and know your opponent's weaknesses there will come a time when you can shove all the chips in to close out the game.

One thing I forgot to mention in my comments above is the spinelessness of France, Germany and, alas, the UK, in pressuring Iran over their nuke program. After Israel, Western Europe has the most to fear from a nuclear- (and ballistic missile-) armed Iran. That's why we had to put off the threat of sanctions until November -- our "allies" were unwilling to go ahead with sanctions at the September IAEA meeting.

Remember, it took 3 years of battling the Japanese in the Pacific before America went after Hitler who could do far more damage (militarily...)to America than Japan could at that time.

So, be patient. Why would Bush tip off Al Queda or other enemies now by revealing a plan? That would not be smart, or "prudent".

I believe that Bush is asking Israel to be at the ready when it comes to Iran (and Israel would be their target...) until America can regroup, re-supply, and then join in the fight.

We will tackle Iran soon, I fear, unless the other UN countries actually do what it is they say that the UN does.

In other words: we will be at war with Iran soon.

Just a thought but perhaps the non plan is the plan, bare with me here .. isn't it possible the bunker busters that Israel is purchasing from us are telling us a little about what is going to happen?

christian wrote: "I don't get the link between Iran and Fallujah?"

I think he meant Najaf.

"140,00 troops pacifying Iraq aren't available for invading Iran."

That's not the problem. The problem is that, given Iran's ability to stir up trouble in Iraq, those 140,000 troops become more vulnerable in the event of a US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. I suspect that's been a major factor in the Bush Administration's indecision.

Regarding Iran and the Arabs, I think it's worth noting that many Iranians who oppose the regime see Kheomeinei's revolution as the second Arab invasion of Iran. They see the regime almost as an Arab colonial imposition on their country. And as you probably know, there's no easier way to piss off an Iranian than to call him an Arab.

All in due time...

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, now Syria.

Soon Iran and North Korea.

"At the time of our choosing."
President GW BUSH

ALSO: always remember that there is no "Arab nationalism" to the Jihadoterrorists, just pan-Arabism, just the Ummah.

AND, always remember that dysfunctional parenting breeds sociopaths, and dysfunctional parenting is RAMPANT in the Ummah -reinforced by Islamofanaticism.

By which I mean: until Islamic parents stop teaching their children Jihadofanaticism (and tolerating child abuse, and horrifying sexual discrimination) we will be in a state of war with them. (Just look at any of the many pohotos of children dressed upo as Jihadis, if you don't know what I mean...)

This means that virtually all of Islam MUST adapt in order to allow for modernity - such as equal rights for women, (as exists somewhat in Indonesia and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq).

As long as fanatical Islam tolerates intolerance and tyranny they will be the enemy of our civilization.

And we MUST fight and defeat our enemies.

Najaf and it shrines are the keys to victory in Iran. Think about how important West Berlin was in the cold war. The Soviets knew what West Berlin could do to their power. Iran understands the Najaf problem. Why do you think Sadr occudied the shrines ? Iran wants the US to destroy them. Destroy the shrines sow discontent in Iraq and shore up support in Iran.

A growing and wealthy Najaf will show the pilgrams from Iran there is another way. This will cause even more discontent among the people of Iran. But when Iran closes the border to Iraq , The revolution will begin.

You have almost completely left out the reason actions you are suggesting cannot be done.

Politics at home have been as much as or more of a factor as the Arab resistance in the Vietnamization of the Iraq war. The unrelenting barrage of negative reporting and anti-war support in the major networks and press here at home have encouraged the resistance in Iraq and discouraged the will of people at home. Oh, and throw in the presidential race competition searching out any negative molehill in Iraq to make a mountain for political fodder.

There is not enough support at home for ANYmore military action. We will be lucky if we can finish the action in Iraq in a halfway respectable fashion.

Stephen,
I believe that we need to wait until after the election; the gloves are going to come off and the real Bush doctrine will take effect. One hundred years from now history classes will teach about the greatness of GWB, how he faced down the threat of Islamofascism and brought the Islamic world into the 21th century. [notice the lack of superscripts; I am using the old selectric]

Don't you think Bush needs a vote of confidence? He's juggling so many balls now that he needs a big win in November so he can set an agenda for Iran, North Korea, etc. This constant sniping from the right and left, lies and distortions in the MSM media who are aiding and abetting the terrorists, etc.

Bush is our only hope for ridding the earth of terrorists. Kerry is so weak, I really think Hillary will replace him as the Dem candidate in a stunning coup. That's the October surprise.

Bush better win big! or the world will be run by fundamentalist Islam in the not too distant future.

Most of you are whistling in the dark. Old Vodkapundit here at least has the excuse of being half-smashed, but the rest of you?

"However, he's only able to play the cards he's dealt, and his hand won't be strong enough until after the election."

GWB had all 52 cards in the deck at his disposal when he chose to invade Iraq. He had about 40 of them at his disposal after the fall of Saddam Hussein. He has systematicly frittered his options down to a pair of deuces.

He has no "policy" for Iran because 80% of our usable ground troops are still trying to establish control of Iraq and Afghanistan--and Iran will be prevented from going nuclear ONLY by serious threat of military force, not just a few bunker busters. They learned from Saddam Hussein's experience with Israel and have the nuclear resources in far more than one place.

The invasion of Iraq was a potential strategic blunder from the get go. The incompetance and sheer bone laziness of George W. Bush has made it into an actual strategic blunder of titanic proportions.

A nuclear Iran is all but a done deal. A nuclear Iran will be a permanent haven for Islamic terrorism which we will not be able to reach.

Quit yammering about how much worse John Kerry would do and OWN IT, along with owning the inane idiot and his strategically challenged neocon "advisors"--who are completely opportunistic and bereft of mental principles--whom you wish to prop up in office for four more years.

The most important plan is a military one, and that wouldn't normally be the subject of cabinet-level meetings. The airy assertion that the plan "horrifies U.S. military leaders" is laughable nonsense. It's also funny that Phil Carter is concerned that there is a plan: "Hopefully, these reports are being greatly exaggerated by overzealous think-tankers and policy wonks . . . "

And for those who believe Iran will take care of the problem for us, I'd suggest rethinking the issue. In the first place, the target isn't an empty reactor vessel, and any strike would be much less certain. Second, the distance from Israeli bases is much greater, and third, the logical strike route would would have to overfly Turkey or Iraq--and skirt those air defenses. Possible, perhaps, but not terribly likely, IMHO.

Finally, having a credible force in Iraq is essential for any action against Iran. At a minimum, they have to have to be able to threaten to invade. A refit period (ongoing) followed by a buildup of heavy equipment is a prerequisite.

joseph marshall my boy welcome to vodkapundit. Seems you've taken a big gulp of the same bitter liquor I've been drinking for a couple weeks now. Goes down smooth.

Steven wrote an unbelievably concise and insightful primer for anyone who doesn't have the time to scour policy, and the best these clowns can do is bash newsweek?

1. I'm guessing he consulted *a couple* more sources than Newsweek, and

2. This Fox'News' crowd doesn't know how to digest something that would dare be critical of W's miserable failue after failure after failure after...

Anyway, kudos steven from someone you don't give a s*** about getting kudos from and to the rest of you, read the article again- you could learn something.

It seems a bit misplaced, all this lamenting the lack of a plan. War is not some linear, progressive, predictable occurance for which every moment can be planned in advance. The obvious plan is to invade, kill or capture the enemy, install democracy and self-sufficiency, and beat big feet the hell out.

How one accomplishes all that changes constantly because of the unforeseen. Anybody who offers a concrete "plan" is pissing into the wind.

Joseph Marshall: "[Bush] has no "policy" for Iran because 80% of our usable ground troops are still trying to establish control of Iraq and Afghanistan..."

No. They are not. Dammit, I go visit Lefty sites, especially European ones, and get diatribes about how Bush's Iraq adventure must be condemned as imperialism; then I come back here, and supposed righties are busy condemning the guy for not being imperialist enough, and I have to pause for the RCOB moment.

Gaining control of Iraq and/or Afghanistan is the absolute last thing Bush wants. Our troops are making *no* effort to "gain control," because gaining control is a loser. The goal is to create indigenous forces that can gain control, and they start from 'way behind.

Bush is *not* gonna pacify Fallujah; he's gonna continue to work toward the day when Marines hold the Iraqis' coats while they pacify Fallujah. It won't happen soon, but if it doesn't happen at all it means the whole effort against Islamofascist/Waha'abi terrorism is lost. Setting up puppet strongmen, or conquering the place ourselves and installing occupation Governors, won't even put off the inevitable long enough to matter.

As for Iran -- the other thing about Iranis is that they are strong patriots. Even the emigres have pride in the history of their country and a strong tendency to defend it. If we attack Iran overtly, whether militarily or via propaganda/UN sanctions/political action, that patriotism will swing into action. That's how the mullahs stay in power in the first place, by hollering "they're attacking us!" and depending on the resulting support.

If you, I, Steven, or Newsday knows what the "plan" in Iran is, that plan by definition won't work because it will generate counter sentiment among Iranians. So take heart. The fact that you think there isn't a plan may well mean the plan is working.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Sorry,

"And for those who believe Iran will take care of the problem . . ."

Should be "Israel" of course.

You conclude Bush doesnt have a plan because it hasnt leaked properly yet? Un-uh. It would be entirely out of character for this administration not to have quite a bit of energy going on right now to develop and impliment a plan. As this article notes, there are very few effective options with a public face. The only way we would know about a potentially effective option being implimented would be if it was exposed, and hence failed.
In other words, dont sprain a wrist wringing your hands just yet.

I agree with most of the posts here, and I'd like to put it together:
1. President Bush cannot act until after the election.
2. Bush has been doing something. He has given the Europeans a chance to resolve the problem. If they fail, he can say, "Well, I gave them even possible chance."
3. Bush has exposed Senator Kerry's weakness. European diplomacy, which Kerry is betting on, is clearly failing, and his Iran policy is very similar to the Carter/Clinton policy in North Korea.

Bush's military options a better against Iran than Iraq. While Saddam controlled Iraq, Bush cannot move on Iran becasue Iraq will immediately get involved. Iraq is no longer a threat to the region. Therefore, Bush can bomb Iran from the air, taking out all military and government assests: essentially a Kosovo strategy.

It would be a lot easier to take on Iran after the election if Bush would make the case before the election. It's not a matter of "tipping off the mullahs" -- they already know we're at war and don't care. The only thing preventing action in Iran is domestic opposition within the U.S., and Bush could solve that by obtaining a mandate on November 3.

On the other hand, if Bush soft-pedals Iran now, only to crank up the war machine later, Democrats will justifiably accuse him of having "misled" us "again." I'm a
Republican and a hawk and proud of it. Kerry is such a lousy candidate Bush is virtually certain to win anyway -- so why not turn the election into a mandate for war against Iran?

The left's failure to grasp the strategic situation in the Middle East and the Islamic world (and, indeed, the world in general, for the past, oh, fifty years or so) is pretty well illustrated by Joseph Marshall's post. I'd love to Fisk it, but there is a more important point to be made, one which even the typically outstanding post by Stephen Green seems to have missed.

And that point is how Iraq is -- and perhaps was always intended to be -- a stepping stone to Iran.

Think about this a second. If we had not invaded Iraq, from where precisely could we invade Iran? We have troops in Afghanistan, but the Iranian border with Afghanistan is mountainous and easily defended. We've tried to keep a low troop presence in Afghanistan in any case. We could not invade from Kuwait or Turkmentistan. That leaves Iraq. Long border with Iran that's mostly flat desert. In Iraq, we now have a base of operations from which we can deploy into Iran or invade it outright. We could NOT do that from anywhere else.

Am I wrong on this? Why is the strategic value in an attack on Iran of our presence in Iraq not being discussed anywhere?

TO JOSEPH MARSHALL

PAIR OF DEUCES?

That's why Libya caved and Syria is playing ball, I guess...

Sheesh...

Joseph Marshall:

Your card playing analogy makes no sense. It's cute but empty.

Your statement that Iran will only respond to military force is laughable given that Senator Kerry's program for Iran is so unbelieveably weak. Kerry's plan: if Iran fails to comply, we will got to the UN to get a resolution. This is a repeat of the failed Carter/Clinton policy in North Korea.

And here's a biggest weakness in your post: your claim that Iraq was a strategic blunder.
1. Look at a map. The sources or primary supports of Islamic terrorism were: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. We did something about Afghanistan. What next. Well, we now have 120,000 pairs of boots on the ground in the one country that borders all of the others.
2. As I stated above, if you have to put boots on the ground, it really has to be Iraq or Iran. If you try to do Iran first, Saddam jumps in, and you end up fighting both armies at once.
3. You can't leave Iraq in chaos or Iran steps in to take a piece of it. Once you take out the Iraqi army, you can take out Iranian assets by air without fear that a weakened Iran becomes a target.
4. Iraq has the biggest military: showing American power is a big part of eliminated the "strong horse/weak horse" argument being made by terrorists.
5. Bagdad is an important politican center for the arab world.
6. Iran has very poor WMD technology to give to terrorists. Iraq's WMD, particularly sarin, was a threat.
7. A safe, prosperous Iraq becomes the model for a new Middle East.

How did we defeat Communism?
We used containment, confrontation, and offered a better alternative.
You cannot contain terroism: the terrorists are in every country, including the US.
Confrontation (one wonders what Kerry thought he was doing in Vitnam) and the alternative are necessary.

If this was 1942 there'd be a bunch of people screeching that North Africa didn't bomb Pearl Harbor as our troops battled at the Kasserine Pass.
It would be nice to pacify Iraq before the next step, the cold reality is that our pacification efforts are for the benefit of the Iraqis, all we need to pacify is the areas immediatly around our bases, not particularly difficult in a desert area. We don't need all of Iraq, we just need the area around Basra and part of the Western Desert to keep the Syrians pinned between us and the Izzies.
With our troops and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Turkomanistan and Turkey, as well as the fact that the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf are American lakes where our Carrier Battle Groups roam at will, Iran is forced to expend it's resources in a defensive posture, slowing down it's nuke program. Meanwhile Bush can dick around with diplomatic efforts, most that we don't see while our factories repleish the supplies we've expended in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Who knows, the diplomatic and clandestine regime change efforts for Tehran might even work. Might as well try while we restock on cruise misslies and smart bombs.
There is not one square inch of Iran that is an hour's flying time from somewhere our land and sea based fighter-bombers can take off and land. Much of Iran is in easy range of our attack helos.
Anyone who thinks that Iran's air defenses and armored units aren't pinpointed by our eyes in space and our Predator drones is silly. If Bush gives the order those air defenses are gone in days, if not hours. Then our aircraft can take out the Mullah's Armor, their tanks and APCs, the only thing in the world keeping the Mullahs in power.
The Iranian people will march on the disarmed Mullahs under an American umbrella of F16 mud movers and Apache Helos.

While I agree with you that the way to go in Iran is to foster internal revolution, I don't think it's a good idea until after the elections. Why throw Kerry a wild card that he may be able to use to help him. In the meantime I have read that we are selling 50 of our 2000 pound bunker busters to the Israelis. I wonder what kind of use the Israelis would have for such weapons.

The plan for Iran is the same as the plan for Iraq -- keep it off media radar screens so there'll be plenty of time, space, and energy to talk about a 30-year-old lost war and the loser who helped lose it -- and who also wants to lose this one.

In a hard-news vacuum, which plays better -- high-minded idealism about spreading democracy -- or cranky, carping defeatism about alleged American "failures"?

On Nov 3, we begin a vigorous cleanup of Iraq and a somewhat slower "unveiling" of a plan to do the same for Iran.

Joseph Marshall is a nimrod.

I feel better now that I got that off my chest.

Something like 90% of Iran's oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz out of the Gulf. That's why the November IAEA meeting is key. If they refer the matter to the UNSC, sanctions are a real option. We need to stiffen the spine of the UK and insert a spine in France, but the real threats facing them should win the day. China, that most irresponsible of nations, may be a problem, but a newly-aggrieved Russia should be on board. Let's all pray for a W win in November and some resolve from the IAEA and UNSC shortly thereafter.

Here is one thing Bush is doing and the leaders of Iran are clearly mad about it:

Iran condemns US anti-missile defence test

Google "anti-missile defense iran" and you'll get a zillion hits. Add in "boost phase" and you get articles like this one:

Future Anti-Missile Research Directed to Countermeasures

Clearly anti-missile defense is a finger in the dike until other actions can be taken. Still, it's obvious that Bush wasn't pushing this for all of this time because he thought Russia was going to nuke us.

I agree with Wildman that Bush could make this election a mandate for Iran...but Bush is already saying that he won't let Iran go nuclear...and I'd rather see Bush reelected for sure than risk things with too much "Iran War" talk in the next 5 weeks...even if the lefties go bats later at being "misled." So its best to say things like Powell said today (he used the phrase "no war plans, but all options remain open").

The 800 lb gorilla is that Bush is constrained until after the election. Also...not attacking Iran keeps Iran and the terrorists from causing a spectacular attack in the USA before and after the election. Russia could have already sabotaged the Iranian nuke effort as well.

The problem is that, even many conservatives believe that Iraq has become a quagmire when for instance StrategyPage.com clearly shows that it is not. We still need to deconstruct the MSM as much as the Mullahs.

Regarding the lefties: don't be so sure that Hillary and the Dems who survive after Daschle gets the boot...won't do some housecleaning about their foolish swerve to the left this past 18 months.

Basically, a huge turnout of "Security Moms" on November 2nd will give Bush all the mandate he needs to talk tough with Iran. Then he can have a vote in the Senate and watch the Dems squirm about what they could be doing to their chances in the 2006 election.

I would love to see a Senate vote on Iran in October...but it would be too risky. I would want the vote if Bush and Kerry were now tied in the polls, but the election is now Bush's to lose so the go slow strategy is probably best.

Yes, the Straits of Hormuz could be blocked with Germany and France concurring by Christmas if Bush wins. No need for Bush to risk France saying no by getting the Senate to split on a vote before that. France will see a Bush reelection as the mandate it needs to get on board with this issue.

That was a phenomenal article Stephen. If you can do that while drinking, I'd hate to see you sober.

As a conservative who voted for Bush based on the possibility of replacing Supreme Court judges, I'm not too encouraged by talks of 'wait till next year'.

Furthermore, I think that the term NUCLEAR is just a scare word. It is well known that Syria has plenty of WMD and that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. I think that the greater concern is the willingness of people to use them, and the question of WHERE they would use them. Pakistan is a threat to India, not the US. If Iraq still existed, they would be the target of the Iranian's wrath. Now Israel has every right to be afraid of a nuclear Iran, but I'm not sure that the US does, unless they hit our bases in Iraq.

I might be a little uninformed, but I don't think that even Khomeni is dumb enough to hit the US mainland. I think that it is highly unlikely that any NATION would use nuclear weapons, except as a tool for posturing.

I'd love your thoughts on the likelihood of Iran using a nuke against US.

Stephen,

I have dealt with the Iranian nuke issue on Winds of Change a couple of times.

This is from my first post:

Iran's Spoiling Attack
by Trent Telenko at April 20, 2004 03:23 AM
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004885.php

"Iran's mullahs are developing nuclear weapons, which they view as a magic shield against America and a sword to destroy the Jewish state. They have made overt threats to nuke Israel as soon as they have nuclear weapons, and said they believe Iran would survive any exchange of nukes with Israel. The mullahs do not at all understand that their inflammatory rhetoric intended for domestic political effect has a whole new meaning for other countries when backed up with nuclear weapons.

This brings up the following question:

Does anyone doubt for a moment that Israel will, absolutely, positively WILL preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, with nukes if necessary, to prevent another holocaust?

Since Iran has taken steps to see that an Israeli conventional air attack, such as that against Osirak, Iraq http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm can't work, Israel must use nuclear ground bursts, producing highly radioactive short term fallout, against Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.

But it won't be just against those. The remorseless logic of nuclear conflict with an irrational opponent will force Israel to eliminate Iran as a strategic threat for the long term. That entails hitting more targets than just those currently known to be working on Iranian nuclear weapons.

A Democratic President would create this worst of all possible worlds, where pre-emptive nuclear attack is used as a tool of state policy. It is not a world we want to live in.

Iranian casualties (@10 - 20% will be dead) would range from several hundred thousand to several million, depending on the target set, weapons selection and local weather patterns. In short, welcome to the world of Wretchard's "Three Conjectures." The EMP from this attack (high altitude bursts to disrupt Iranian C3I) will affect American forces in the area, including in Iraq, and devastate Persian Gulf oil production.

It is therefore unlikely that the USA will let this happen by doing nothing. A friend I spoke to thinks that Iran will have domestic nuclear weapon production capability by spring 2006. I agree. He is also in print that nuclear weapons will be used in anger by 1 Jan 2006 unless we invade Iran first. The only way I can see to prevent this future from coming to pass is with the near term conquest of Iran.

Bush will do this in time, if reelected. Kerry won't. Even Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recognizes the willingness of Bush foreign policy to destroy unacceptable status quos.

Given the certainty of Israel's nuclear preemptive attack on Iran, I don't see America waiting for an Iranian revolution. We will do it ourselves no later than my friend's fall/winter 2005 prediction. We both feel that the deal between Sharon and Bush on this has already been made. If a successful Iranian revolution makes the invasion unnecessary, fine, but we won't take the risk of delay.

Iran is at war with us whether or not we want to be at war with them. Nukes are on the table now, and they are not our nukes. We are on a count down to invasion to keep the nuclear genie from escaping.

Much more is at stake in November's presidential election than President Bush is willing to admit."

This was my second post:

Iran's October Surprise -- I Told You So!
by Trent Telenko at August 11, 2004 09:21 AM
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005351.php

"The reality of Russian pre-enriched uranium feed stock for its centrifuges means that Iran is months, and by that I mean less than a year and perhaps as few as six months, away from having weapons grade highly enriched uranium for nuclear devices.

What was learned when Libya turned "states evidence" and revealed the wide spread dispersal of Chinese fission warhead designs via Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, means these devices will be operational missile warheads of a proven design.

SHARON WILL ACT AGAINST THAT THREAT!"

There are more players here than the USA. Israeli impending conventional attack on Iran is the "October Surprise' of the 2004 Presidential election. It will be intended to delay Iran's entry into the nuclear club and shape our electoral politics.

It may even happen with the Bush Administration's assistance. FWIW, the US government just sold Israel 5000 JDAM bombs, including a number (200?) with BLU-109 penetrator warheads.

Think through the implications of that one.

ProCynic: "Am I wrong on this? Why is the strategic value in an attack on Iran of our presence in Iraq not being discussed anywhere?"

No your not. The very experienced military people in the Bush Administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, are far from sort sighted.

I believe the decision to invade Iraq was based on many factors having to do with the whole picture in the middle east, terrorism, WMD intel at the time, Israel, Iran, Syria etc.

Having a military base to threaten and operate from, over the long term, in that region had to be one of the bigger factors.

Oddly enough this election has evolved into a reconsideration of our war in Viet Nam and the monopoly bias of traditional media. I don't believe anyone would have predicted this.

If we are going to do anything covert in Iran we will need a similar reconsideration of the Schwarzkoff-Roosevelt (not the general and the President) overthrow of Mossadegh. The left has consistently mischaracterized this covert action and even blame it for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. This is similar to the left's claim that US anti-communism somehow caused the communist genocide in Cambodia.

I agree that covert or non-traditional action in Iran is desireable. I suspect that the next Bush administration will feel potentiated toward action in direct proportion to its elrectoral mandate. Fortunately as of today it looks like a Bush landslide.

Jennifer makes a valid point -- Bush is already making the right noises on Iran. And I'm pretty sure he's never retracted the "Axis of Evil" speech. This election will most certainly turn on the issue of national security whether or not Bush makes Iran the centerpiece of his campaign, so it won't be that much of a stretch to move hard on Iran in 2005 based on current themes.

If there's any nation on earth with a reason to wage war on Iran, though, it's Iraq. Imagine what France would be doing now if Germany were causing as much misery and bloodshed in Paris. Well, maybe that's not such a good analogy, since France probably wouldn't do a damned thing. But you get the point -- one nation doesn't do to another what Iran is currently doing to Iraq.

So maybe we should consider a two-step process. First, the U.S. flattens Iran's nuclear facilities with cruise missiles. Simple, cheap and highly de-stabilizing. But not a single American boot on the ground. This buys Iraq another 2-3 years in which to become a functioning society. After which, we leave it to the Shiite majority in Iraq to deal with Iran.

There was a time when America could count on really tough proxies to do our dirty work (Israel and South Africa come immediately to mind). Maybe that's not such a bad idea to resurrect.

ProCynic: The main reason Afghanistan isn't suitable as a staging point for an Iran invasion is that any significant amount of armor has to be moved by sea. (minor winge)

Trent: An Israeli conventional attack against Iran is not militarily feasible without active cooperation from the US or Turkey--and even then I'd give long odds against its success.

After 911 it was obvious that the entire middle east had become a hornet's nest for a death worshiping ideology-radical Islam. It was also clear that just taking out Afgan. wasn't going to be enough.

If the Islamists hate western values more than anything, then ploping some down in their midst should scare and anger them the most. The middle east needed and infusion of western ideas and I think that Iraq was that infusion and the uncertainty of Sadam's WMD's was the opportunity.

While I would have preferred Bush take out Iran because it is the leading sponsor of terrorism, stratigically Iraq was better.

First, if you're going to take the fight to the enemy, Afgan would have been terrible. Too many mountains and caves. You want to fight your enemy on an open and flat terrain where he can't hide. Iraq was ideal.

Second,to take out Iraq means that Syria now has free Iraq on one side and moderate influences on other sides.
Iran has free Iraq on one side and free Afgan on the other and even Pakistan has free Afgan on the west and a democratic India on the east.
In other words, the terrorists sponsoring nations are no longer rubbing shoulders with each other.

If I thought Bush did this on purpose I would have to regard him as stratigically brilliant.

But I share Mr. Green's frustration because I just don't know. When Bush tiptoes through Fallujah and promises Iran he won't invade them I get the impression this isn't his plan. But the way things are unfolding it seems that it is.

So, do I have an incredibly brilliant president or an inspector Clouseau (sp) type who accidently stumbles into doing the right thing because he is such a good person at heart?

God this is frustrating!

Maybe it isn't US forces that will be taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel has taken delivery of the newest version of the F-16 that has the range to hit Iran. And they've recently purchased a bunch of bunkerbuster and other smartbombs from us also.

just a thought

Bush has to wait until after the election to DO anything, and any plan has bad points.

Bad points are too much poison.

Better to try humanitarian anti-genocide regime change in Sudan, first. Giving the mullahs more chance to violate their agreements, and more chance for a re-elected Bush to get the Russians and Pakistanis on board for regime change in Iran.

Maybe simultaneously with Israeli sponsored regime change in Syria--who will also be on board for Iran change. Mullahs out, local elections NON-clerics only, keep the police, take out the military leaders...

I enjoyed reading your thoughts but I think you are underestimating the geopolitics of the Iraq war/campaign. I seriously doubt that the war in Iraq will not be won...if Bush is reelected. I will agree that we will be there for a while but I do not believe we will be there for 50 years. I also do not believe that the majority of our forces will be tied up there for more than a couple of year at most, if they are needed elsewhere. The Iraqi forces are near the half way mark of what is needed to defeat the insurgents in their country. We stayed in Europe for so long because of the cold war, not to pacify Germany.

The Iranians are probably complicit in bring the US into Iraq and they rue the day they succeeded. They have worked for a long time to bring security to their southern border…their weakest security area and the path of past conquest of Persia from the west through out history. So, the Mullahs use the fall out from 9/11, misinformation and the US’s geopolitical needs (which you pointed out very well in your post), to take care of a threat and secure their southern boarder. Their plan to create a pro-Iranian Iraq government or at least a neutral or Iranian leaning government is all but failed. The Shias of Iraq have looked north and decided that what they saw was not very appealing. (If it required them to endure the displeasure of the US) The Iranians have one political pawn left, Sadr, who is being marginalized more each day. So, they are left with playing the one card they have to try to secure their hearts desire…security of their southern boarder and their rule.

I think the Mullahs are trying to work the North Korean model to at least gain security of their rule of Iran. If Bush is reelected I believe they will fail. If they build and detonate nuclear weapon they will not be allowed to survive and I think they know it. The Persians have never shared the Arab ideal of martyrdom, especially the rulers. How will their downfall be accomplished…I am not sure. The Bush administration has shown a fair ability to work behind the scenes to shape events. I think MANY have “misunderestimated” (to borrow a Bushism) this ability. However, the Mullahs have to worry that if they are perceived as an imminent threat that Bush will abandon working to shape an outcome and just decide to smash the whole structure (which can be accomplished in more than one way) and then put it back together afterward. They know if they face the US it will be alone, no one will do more than complain loudly about it.

That has been one of the greatest accomplishments of invading Iraq…our enemies will never be sure of our actions for a long, long time.

Michael N:

RE: "If I thought Bush did this on purpose I would have to regard him as stratigically brilliant."
Your strategic thinking is, IMHO, 100% right, and, yes, I think that the President and his staff can read a map, too. This was done on purpose. Yes, all of us would have loved to have taken out Iran first to get revenge for their participation in 911. However, Iraq is strategically the obvious choice.

For a little positive reality, visit AndrewSullivan.Com's post "Bergen on Afghanistan" where he links to two positive NYT articles(would you believe, and in the same issue) on the war.

One by Peter Bergen on the progress in Afghanistan, the other a NYT interview with Iraq's Allawi. 'Hell freezes over' at the times!

--And that point is how Iraq is -- and perhaps was always intended to be -- a stepping stone to Iran.---

For those of you who have DISH, check out channel 9410 World Link TV around 1-2 AM CST.

ME news roundup, translated into Engish if the cast already wasn't in English.

Waayyyyy back in 2003 before or during the war, Teheran TV - map on the back wall.

Afghanistan highlighted where Americans are, Iraq, highlighted where they were going to be and guess which country was in the middle?

Israel can't allow Iran to have nukes. And Israel has nothing to lose by wiping out Iran's nuclear facilities, apart from routine UN condemnation.

So it'll either be them or us. Probably them.

Such blather about the lack of a plan. What was FDR's plan for the peace 18 months into WWII (early 1943). What was his exit strategy in Europe, in Japan by summer 1944? He was preparing to invade Japan in the fall of 1945. Optimistically we would subdue Japan in 1946 if the Russians helped. What would you armchair generals have recommended if the germans had repulsed us at Normandy? Pack up your things, come home and wait for the Gestapo?

There is no way to develop a fixed plan. You plan for contingencies, but no war ever fought has proceeded exactly according to some paln. Like it or not, politics and chance always enter in to it.

Remember 1950 in Korea. MacArthur practically guaranteed we'd be home for Christmas. He hadn't prepared for the contingency that the Chinese would actually cross the Yalu. They did and it took two and a half more years to fight to a draw. No win there either.

I'm personally delighted Bush failed to get the french and germans involved. The last thing Tommy Franks needed was some french a$$hole second guessing him. Give the president a break and offer some support for the troops. Fer chrissakes cheer up!

An Israeli conventional attack against Iran is not militarily feasible without active cooperation from the US or Turkey--and even then I'd give long odds against its success.

Why do you say that? Just yesterday on NPR I heard that Israel has arranged to buy 500 bunker-buster bombs from the United States. Do you think they're planning on using them against Palestine? If, by "bunker buster" they mean GBU-28, these have been successfully integrated with F-15, which also has access to some sophisticated targeting systems.

The hard part would be, of course, getting the weapon to the target zone. Basically they'd either have to go in low and fast over Jordan and Iraq or Saudi Arabia, or take the long way around into the Persian Gulf, which would probably mean IFR support would be needed.

First off. I think the Bush administration is formulating a course of action against Iran, but we will not see anything substantive until after this election, lest something goes wrong and offers grist for the political mill.

Second. I am willing to bet that after this election possibly sometime in early '05 if Iran presses ahead with its uranium enrichment, that Israel will take action. After all, even before the US, Israel is target numero uno. They are much closer to Iran.
Iran does not have the delivery system to go further. That may be the straw that breaks their theocratic backs.

Thirdly. Iran is ripe for overthrow from within. I have no doubt that this is being actively pursued.
Iran and Turkey have been functioning secular and modern states. Iran's younger population is ripe for a hange from the stale islamic theocracy and cult of death that it has been trapped with for the last 2.5 decades.

Turkey embarked on western style secular statism under Mustafa Kamal Ataturk when the Republic of Turkey was formed in 1923. Even with a rising islamist swell in that country they are not in danger of becoming anything close to an islamist theocracy like Iran.

Pakistan has more problems, but has been a semi-functional modern state. They need to subjugate, and have begun to subjugate with our prompting and support, the western tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

You are correct in your view that the arab, states, especially Saudi, are the epicenter of the terrorist problem.

However, we can only deal with the problems sequentially.
It will take time, but it is doable and we ARE winning.

THough I may disagree with our president on some of his domestic agenda, I think that so far, Bush has done a stellar job in the war on terror. Don't complain about no plan, just because we haven't seen one yet.

As Churchill said after El Alamein, " this may not be the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning."

Can I just say how nice it is to discuss these topics with an informed audience? If you're like me, your attention to current issues is augmented by an interest in military history, geopolitics, and even geography. Try interjecting that mindset into a conversation with an ABB believer. It usually goes something like this:

ABB: We have to get out of Iraq, what a mess!
Me: Yes, it's a very difficult situation, but I really credit Bush for trying to shake up the order of things, and attempting to change the world for the better.
ABB: What do you mean?
Me: See, invading Iraq is just one step in a series of costly yet necessary actions that will, in my opinion, reform the Islamic world and make the free world safer as a result.
ABB: (frowns)
Me: Bush knows that accepting the status quo was no longer an option, and that to prevent a thousand other 9/11s from happening in the future, we needed to really make a dramatic statement to the whole world, not least the people who would turn a blind eye to terrorists in their midst. It's ballsy but I admire his courage for even attempting it.
ABB: (wanders off to donate money to PETA)

(NOTE: Actually, I'd argue it was at the wrong time. If at all logistically possible – information I'm not privy to – we should have gone into Iraq earlier, in the Spring of 2002, not 2003. Anyway.)

If I had known then what I know now, I would have been all for invading in '91 or '98.

We should have dealt with these islamic militants a decade ago.

Why do you say that? Just yesterday on NPR I heard that Israel has arranged to buy 500 bunker-buster bombs from the United States. Do you think they're planning on using them against Palestine?

One of them might have 'Yasser Arafat' written on it, but only one.

The hard part would be, of course, getting the weapon to the target zone. Basically they'd either have to go in low and fast over Jordan and Iraq or Saudi Arabia, or take the long way around into the Persian Gulf, which would probably mean IFR support would be needed.

Past actions indicates 'low and fast over Jordanian airspace' is the most likely route. Jordan would make a pro forma complaint to keep the populace happy, and take no substantiative action.

Depending on the location of the targets in Iran, a discreet refueling might occur in some out-of-the-way corner of Iraq. How good are Israeli pilots at IFR?

I disagree that currently it's untrue that Islam and modernity are mutually exclusive. Take a look at the United Arab Emirates.

Interesting comments. My thoughts:
1)We are now surrounding Iran with American forces
2)We are fighting Iran in Iraq as we speak. al Sadr was just a puppet of the Mullahs and I understand they were funding "insurgents" with many millions per month in the spring
3)Bush called out 3 countries and we are handling them one at a time. It will all just take time. Iraq HAD to be first (to surround Iran and free up the Air Force to deal with North Korea)

Have faith...I do.

If anyone is going to drop a bomb on the Iranian atomic works the US will do it, not Israel. If they (Israel) do it you get a ton of ill will and force ALL the Arab states to weigh general up risings from the Arab street vs taking some action against Israel. Some of the governments in the mideast could even possibly fall, namely the Sauds and it would greatly strain our relationship with Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, because we would be force to shield them (Israel). (assurances would have to be given if we asked them to do it) Not to mention it would be like handing a loaded pistol to Bin Laden so he could shoot us.

If we do it, they will complain but the rest of the Arab world knows that Iran is playing a dangerous game with a powerful enemy and it will likely cost them at some point. They all know that we know, what Iran is about and what they have been doing in Iraq. We have also put the world on notice, in the President's State of the Union address in 2001, that if you aid terrorist or shield them the US will treat you as a hostile country. So, the world will not like it but they certainly believe (after Afganistan and Iraq anyway) that we meant what we said.

In addition, about a month ago when the Mullahs made a bunch of noise about their right to have a nuclear bomb the USAF began penetrating the Iranian air space a number of times in the following weeks. The Iranians were powerless to do anything about it. So, a few days after that they started talking publicly about the peaceful use of their program. But that was before Sadr was put out and their hope to pressure the US with general Shia unrest went up in smoke. Al Sastini(sp), moving closer to the US orbit, put the brakes on that and ended the Iranian plans. Now Sadr sits in the slums in Bagdad and his "army" is getting smaller every day as US and Iraqi forces battle them.

The really scary part of this picture is that the Iranians are counting on US intelligence being good enough to know that they have not made a bomb and have not become an imminent threat. So if the Mullahs start getting nervous that US intell is not getting a clear enough picture to assure Bush they will invite the inspectors back in soon. Unless........

If anyone is going to drop a bomb on the Iranian atomic works the US will do it, not Israel.

Concur, but for different reasons. But if so, why are we selling the Israelis all those JDAMs?

If they (Israel) do it you get a ton of ill will and force ALL the Arab states to weigh general up risings from the Arab street vs taking some action against Israel. Some of the governments in the mideast could even possibly fall, namely the Sauds and it would greatly strain our relationship with Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt,

That sounds a lot like the predictions of what would happen if we invaded Afghanistan, and then what would happen if we invaded Iraq.

I'm not worried about the 'arab street' any more, and every time arab countries have picked a fight with Israel, they've gotten their butts handed to them. I'm not worried about it.

because we would be force to shield them (Israel). (assurances would have to be given if we asked them to do it) Not to mention it would be like handing a loaded pistol to Bin Laden so he could shoot us.

I disagree, for reasons given above.

In addition, about a month ago when the Mullahs made a bunch of noise about their right to have a nuclear bomb the USAF began penetrating the Iranian air space a number of times in the following weeks. The Iranians were powerless to do anything about it. So, a few days after that they started talking publicly about the peaceful use of their program.

What's your source for this?

The really scary part of this picture is that the Iranians are counting on US intelligence being good enough to know that they have not made a bomb and have not become an imminent threat.

I don't think anyone, even the mullahs in Tehran, is foolish enough to make that miscalculation after what happened to Saddam- assuming that the US knows the true state of Iran's nuclear program, or that we'll sit around and wait for an imminent threat, is a *very* dangerous plan.

Wow! Gettin' hot in here...

Way to stir up a pot, Stephen.

Iran may be trying to bait us into doing something that would turn them into a supersize Fallujah. They know they have the setup to mirror Fallujah and it would be a unifying development. As you said Iran doesn't need fixing. It just needs a good shove. Let Iran overextend towards us and step back and let them fall on thier face.

rosignot:

Why sell JDAMs to Israel? Pressure. The Mullahs have to know that it is better if the US carries out any attacks, but as I stated above, they can not be sure. Besides we know where they (the JDAMs) are and can purchase them back from Israel at anytime. But it keeps them guessing. Besides if Israel does the attack the logistics are bad. They will have to over fly other nations and if they fly over Iraq that could give the IIG a black eye and help their enemies from a polictical and possibly military standpoint by way of support.

I don't think the US or Israel give one hoot about the Arab street in regard to their own security. But having said that, the Sauds control of their Kingdom is frail. We have finally forced them to get moving to deal with terror networks and such. The Sauds are seriously concerned that if they go to fast or to far to fast their rule could be toppled or collapse into open war with extremist elements. Their control of their country is better but Pakistan is facing a similar problem. Ditto for Egypt. The US wants a controled burn of the Mideast not a forest fire from Africa to Asia Minor. According to Bin Ladens 1998 fatawa (sp) that is what they desire. They believe that a new Arab superstate would rise from those ashes...with them in charge. So, while I agree that the US and Israel are not too concerned about the Arab street per se but to press the war to the enemy we need to worry about these other country and the effect on them.

This is the source for the USAF/Iranian air space information. http://www.stratfor.com/
Geopolitical Diary 08/25/04 This is an independent intelligence organization that does geopolitical analysis for hire. Subscription required, unfortunately.

I agree that the Mullahs have been "crazy like a fox" and I also think that US would crush them with little provocation. However, the leadership in Iran is not transparent and there in is the rub. There are some seriously disturbed people in that government and we don't know (with absolute surety) how far their hand may be from the levers of power. The leaders in Iran are not looking so good right now to their rank and file thugs. They have mostly failed in their strategy for Iraq (see post above) that they have worked on for 10 or more years. They have seen their surogate terror organization in Syria and Lebenon seriously hurt by the Israelis. The US has all but surrounded them with US friendly nations. These turn of events, in a very short period time, is an unmitigated disaster for Iranian leadership. That is what makes the situation so scary. But the Bush administration has been pretty deft at pushing it to just the right level so far...beating them but not humilating them to badly. We will see.

Why does everyone assume that flying through Iraqi airspace would be a problem for Israel? Does Iraq have *any* air defense systems left? Do they have anyone manning what disconnected systems they might have? After 12 years of having their air-defenses pounded and the recent decimation of anything that happened to remain, why would it be a problem at all?

Sure, Iraq would complain about their airspace being violated, but that would come after the fact. I don't think there's a damn thing that could be done (other than coallition jets being scrambled, but like that's going to happen) to prevent Israeli jets from over-flying Iraq.

I trust that if the administration does have various contingency plans for Iran, "Newsweek" has been prevented from seeing all those plans.

That's not to suggest confidence such plans exist.

Meanwhile Persian-language Voice of America broadcasting ought to be stepped up. (Everybody remembers than Iranians, by and large, are not Arabs and speak Arabic only as a 2nd language, right?)

Iranian exiles ought to be sought out and interviewed and encouraged. Chalabi may have been a jerk, and among the Iranians there will certainly be jerks as well. BUT, many sucessful and talented people in France or North America have something to say about their former homeland.

Small scale covert operations by US or allied nations are still possible. (Is anybody else wondering if the two recent gigantic explosions in North Korea were other-than-accidents? Personally, I think Japan STILL has ninjas and knows how to use them...) Uranium enrichment facilities are big and complicated and dropping a monkey wrench into the works at a precisely determined spot could set back production by months. If you were working on such a plan, would you tell? (Remember how in Gulf War One the U.S. infiltrated a French firm to plant trojan firmware in computer printers which, when hooked up to Iraqi Air Defense radar computers, brought their ADA system down. I would hope somebody is attempting similar things with the technology Iran is trying to assemble.)

Slartibartfast:

"The hard part would be, of course, getting the weapon to the target zone. Basically they'd either have to go in low and fast over Jordan and Iraq or Saudi Arabia, or take the long way around into the Persian Gulf, which would probably mean IFR support would be needed."

Yes. Looks to me like it's ~1000 miles straight-line distance . . . IFR support is needed whichever way it goes. And they have to fly over Iraq or Turkey (or around SA, which is possible, but dramatically more difficult). And back. Which means they'll likely be engaged by US CAPs over Iraq unless we coordinate--and the best place for an IFR track is in fact in Iraq. (That's the "active cooperation" part--and politically I don't think it salable.) The Iranian air defenses are less formidable, but by all reports have improved in recent years.

As to the targets, they're not pinpoint like Osirak (and conveniently, an empty reactor dome that can be spotted from 20 miles away), but appear to be relatively dispersed sites. I'm not sure what exactly would need to be destroyed to render the program inoperable, and of course the critical piece is the uranium, which would presumably be removed for weapons manufacture. The likelihood of finding and targeting each component seems remote. Maybe I'm missing something, but that looks like a very risky mission with poor prospects of success.

I'm not sure I agree that IFR is needed. After all, we've got many, many airbases in Iraq that the IAF could land and refuel at. And the Israeli F-15 Thunders have pretty long legs, although said legs are achieved at the expense of payload.

Probably there'd be some political fallout if it were ever discovered that we aided their mission. I'm not sure how we'd handle that. But again, I think privately the stable ME states would be relieved if we made it so they'd not soon have to worry about prevailing winds dropping fallout on them.

Slarti, IFR is the way to go. Landing is too conspicuous, while in an IFR the only person who sees the other plane is the guy handling the refueling boom.

What's better from a 'keep it quiet' POV, telling one guy on a tanker to keep it zipped, or hoping nobody at the airbase notices the big blue 6-point star on the airplanes taking off and landing?

Mew:

I don't think the US or Israel give one hoot about the Arab street in regard to their own security. But having said that, the Sauds control of their Kingdom is frail. We have finally forced them to get moving to deal with terror networks and such. The Sauds are seriously concerned that if they go to fast or to far to fast their rule could be toppled or collapse into open war with extremist elements.

...the exact same thing could happen if they don't move fast or hard enough, and IMO, moving quickly and forcefully is the better option. Restraint is often mistaken for weakness in that part of the world, while swift and brutal action is considered a sign of strength.

We need to stop acting as if people in the middle east had the same outlook on these things as westerners.

Their control of their country is better but Pakistan is facing a similar problem. Ditto for Egypt.

Pakistan is by far the higher priority, but it's interests are also very different from the other mideast states. #1 is keeping India deterred, not solidarity with Arabs (you know pakistanis aren't arab, right?)

I'm not sure Egypt will do more than talk. The insurgency there was defeated years ago, that's part of the reason so many Egyptians are in al qaeda- they had to get out of Egypt before they got killed.

The US wants a controled burn of the Mideast not a forest fire from Africa to Asia Minor. According to Bin Ladens 1998 fatawa (sp) that is what they desire. They believe that a new Arab superstate would rise from those ashes...with them in charge.

That may be what they want, and the result they think would come of it, but I think they're completely wrong on the Caliphate.

So, while I agree that the US and Israel are not too concerned about the Arab street per se but to press the war to the enemy we need to worry about these other country and the effect on them.

I'm a lot less concerned about that then you are, mainly because I think al Qaeda's plan is fundamentally flawed. North Africa won't go up in flames, the local insugencies are weaker than they've been in the last couple of decades.

[snip]

I agree that the Mullahs have been "crazy like a fox" and I also think that US would crush them with little provocation. However, the leadership in Iran is not transparent and there in is the rub. There are some seriously disturbed people in that government and we don't know (with absolute surety) how far their hand may be from the levers of power.

Their hand is right on it, that's why shutting down the nuclear program is so important.

[snip]

Without disagreeing with anything you have said, I still think there are some points you failed to bring out. The most important one being, that the Bush administration is not the only body driving US foreign policy. The State Department has it's own policy, and it is to ensure "stability" in the ME at any cost, and to try to prop up all the failed states that the administration is trying to replace.

The biggest obstacle to change in the Arab world is located in Foggy Bottom. The endless stalemate between State and Defense is responsible for much of the confusion in Iraq. Of course there is the argument that Bush is responsible for resolving this, but I believe it's just about impossible to get rid of career civil servants.

Slarti, IFR is the way to go. Landing is too conspicuous, while in an IFR the only person who sees the other plane is the guy handling the refueling boom.

What's better from a 'keep it quiet' POV, telling one guy on a tanker to keep it zipped, or hoping nobody at the airbase notices the big blue 6-point star on the airplanes taking off and landing?

Oops. I guess I keep forgetting that the surveillance capabilities of other nations aren't necessarily what ours is. Still, if the IAF aircraft overflew Iraq in their mission, do you think anyone is going to buy that OUR SAM radars didn't see them?

Once you give someone overflight, you may as well invite them down for coffee and JP5. If the Thunders landed at night, no one at all (other than OUR aircrew) would notice that they weren't our aircraft. Still, something to ponder.

It's the difference between being able to prove we did, and forcing the other side to speculate about how we did it. Makes little difference to you or me, but diplomatically, it matters, and militarily, it makes it more difficult for them to keep it from happening again.

rosinot: Great points.

You are correct that they respect force. So, crush them one small group at a time. If you don't divide and conquer you are likely to end up in a huge struggle in which the outcome is not sure. It takes time to separate and fracture the coalitions of like-minded groups. The tribal connections and other division have to be exploited so the outcome is never in doubt. This method has been practiced in the mid east forever. The slower process in the Kingdom also helps to avoid economic disaster that would accompany a major disruption in oil exports with all out fighting. The Kingdom and the west would suffer great economic harm.

Yes, I know that they are not Arabs, but you missed a key facet. The extremist militant Arab beliefs have been exported to Pakistan and they have found a deep resonance in their mindset. I agree security with regard to India is their over riding concern. I think that is another reason for the US to improve their relationship with India. Pakistan is squeezed between Afghanistan and India and that is good for us, but they cannot ignore extremist’s elements in their country. If they do sooner or later one of those assassination attempts is going to succeed. There are already areas of the country that the government does not go unless it absolutely has too and that is a smoldering problem that they don’t want to fan into full flame.

Egypt has broken it extremist’s problem for the most part but North Africa and the sub Sahara have not. If you lose the support of your general population then it could easily revive. The government is concerned about that…but they do yell loudly and say most of the right stuff to keep things calm.

I think Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are at more risk today than in the past few years so going slow is fine. Anyway, timing is everything, we are not going to go looking for a new deployment until we wrap up Iraq and get a handle on Iran. IMHO.

[snip]
Their hand is right on it, that's why shutting down the nuclear program is so important.
[snip]

I could not agree more.

Mew, we agree on the big issues, the only quibbles seem to be with the details. IMO, 'faster is better' mainly because of Iran's nuclear program, if that is ended the US will have as much time as it needs.

I appreciate the need for care where Saudi Arabia is concerned, however, what I've seen in Iraq leads me to think restraint emboldens the militants, and that applies throughout the middle east, not just Iraq.

Unfortunately, the European diplomatic efforts to shut down Iran's enrichment program isn't working- the Iranians aren't even pretending to be persuadable. To me, that suggests that Iran's prorgam is far more advanced than anyone is admitting in public- heaven knows that if I was a head of state that wasn't going to have a nuke for another 2 years, I'd be speaking a lot more softly than the Iranians are.

IMO, a Bush win in november means war with Iran within 18 months, maybe sooner... and despite my hawkishness, that only looks good in comparison to the alternative: a Kerry win means a nuclear Iran.

IMO, Iran should be one of the major issues at the debates- I doubt anything either Bush or Kerry is going to say will change anyone's mind on Iraq.

rosignot:

How right you are. One of the lastest Stratfor updates gave one estimate of 6 months or less if they hold firm and refuse to let the inspectors back in and give them a free hand to look around. Very scary.

But even if they were 2 years away and Kerry won and the Kerry /Edward "solution" was put into effect the situation would turn bad VERY quickly. One estimate stated that processed fuel rods could be converted into enough material for a weapon in approx. 30 days. That assumes you take the shipment kick the watch dogs out and start the centrifuges pronto. Kerry/Edwards would be a disaster of huge proportions...IMHO.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Going Off Half-Cocked?

"... I was well into my second evening cocktail before deciding not to even try outlining the thing." -- Stephen Green

Or so it seems to me.

You sound like you need (1) another couple of brandies and (2) someone to tknoaclk some sense into you.

[Note: It's not Klingon; it's talk and knock.]

Wait til AFTER the election.

Right now, I think we're looking at two distinct targets; Iran and Syria. We have the central position on them with Iraq as a logistical base of operations.

I had thought we would do Iran first, but the recent activities on the part of Syria, testing ways to use the chemical munitions it got from Saddam, coupled with their moving combat units back from Lebanon, leads me to think they are paranoid we're going to take them down next.

So many options....too much fun for the staff planners, I'm sure.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. I think we'll do it in conjunction with the Israelis. Those 5000 smart bombs we're selling them sounds like we're equipping them to do their famous Iraq nuke plant raid again. They'll take on Iran's nukes and we'll deal with the Syrian ground forces. Iran's ground forces are not a problem. Once the nukes are neutralized, we can deal with them at our leisure.

I don't see much advantage in letting the Israelis do it instead of doing it ourselves. Iran will consider the US complicit in either case, and while keeping them nervous about the Israelis is a good thing, this seems to be the sort of mission B-2s are ideal for.

Maybe this is a move intended to give the Israelis the capability to do it as a 'deniable' cover for the US doing the job? Heaven knows the Israelis won't mind being blamed for it- it enhances their military rep, and they get blamed for everything anyways...

TO: rosignol
RE: Let the Kikes Do It

"I don't see much advantage in letting the Israelis do it instead of doing it ourselves." -- rosignol

They did it in '81. That established a precedent. And as for the deniable plausibility...yes. We can do that too.

The Israellis, God bless em, know for a fact that if Iran gets nukes, they're high on the hit list. Especially in light of the recently tested 'strategic' missile the Iranians claim to have.

On the other hand, we, the US, may be high on that list too, but we are not in missile range of the Iranians....yet.

Give them the bombs. They'll find something 'constructive' to do with them. And, it's in their national interest to do it soon.

Meanwhile, Syria is cooking with 'gas'. And WE can do something about that. Heck. If we bust in the door and take em by surprise, we'll probably find "Made In Iraq" stamped all over the stuff.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Heads up. Dunno how reliable WND is considered, but the closing graf is a direct quote, and I don't think they'd mangle it- we're not talking about cBS, after all...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633

TO: rosignol
RE: Just As I Thought....

Europe, under the 'gun'.

Now let's see the fun begin in earnest.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. And some 'people' think we don't need a missile defense system? How very 'short-sighted' of them.

this seems to be the sort of mission B-2s are ideal for.

Maybe the whole point is to keep them wondering who did it, and how.

BTW, regarding our previous exchanges: I mostly agree with you, but don't have much confidence that we can predict what will happen. Which is, in all probability, precisely the intent.