U.S. moving towards talks with Iranian “nexus of terrorism”
posted at 11:23 pm on November 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Something on the lighter side for Saturday night: on the same day that Iran offered to arm Israel’s neighbors (read: Lebanon) with ballistic missiles, Hezbollah pulled out of the Lebanese government, and Tony Snow labeled the Iranian-Hezbollah axis a “global nexus of terrorism,” the Times of London reports on Robert Gates’s strategy as the new SecDef. A potential key component? Talking with Iran:
[T]he pressure is on Gates to do more than canvass opinions. Will he be able to take the hard decisions necessary to chart a new course in Iraq? Bush claimed last week that he was “open to any ideas” on how to win in Iraq. He is to meet members of the Baker commission tomorrow to discuss their thinking. On Tuesday Tony Blair will give evidence to them by video link. He will urge the Bush administration to open talks with Iran and Syria on a Middle East settlement.
Gates will not take much persuading from Blair, having argued for dialogue with Iran two years ago. “He comes from the old Bush 1 school that it’s important to talk to your enemies, but we can’t underestimate the role the president plays in all this and he’s been pretty intransigent,” said a colleague on the Iraq Study Group.
The New York Times says Gates was the choice in no small part because he and Condi Rice work well together. Gulp.
They’ve also put up a new editorial which (a) notes that the Democrats might want to start thinking about a plan for Iraq now that they’ve been swept into power, and (b) stresses that whatever they come up with probably won’t matter.
Let us be clear. The responsibility for all that has gone wrong lies squarely with Mr. Bush. Even with control of the Congress, the Democrats’ role in changing things will be hortatory…
Under Republican control, Congress has exercised virtually no oversight of the administration’s misconduct of the war, and the new Democratic leadership is eager to hold extensive hearings. The public deserves a full accounting (backed by subpoenas, if necessary) of how prewar intelligence was cooked, why American troops were sent to war without adequate armor, and where billions of dollars in reconstruction aid disappeared to…
[Ideas like partition] deserve a full discussion, something the United States has not had since its troops first rolled into Iraq. We are not sure that any shift in strategy can contain the disaster.
They do make one interesting suggestion — threatening to pull out and leave Nuri al-Maliki to the wolves if he doesn’t crack down on the Shiite militias immediately. Time is of the essence.
Update: Oh, sweet Jesus.
Update: Ohhhhhh, sweet Jesus.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Are those mixed signals I’m hearing? An administration in conflict with itself? The wolves won’t only be in Iraq if this continues.
lorien1973 on November 11, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Speaking of talking with the “nexus of terrorism” SNL had a hillarious opening skit mocking incoming Speaker Pelosi and the new Dem. majority. Farovite part: having Pelosi declare al-Qaeda’s #2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the head of US intellegence.
noble_eagle on November 11, 2006 at 11:40 PM
What can one say but, God help us all! At the same time this is going on, the Bush administration is getting their heads around the fallout of the elections and understanding the new political landscape. Meanwhile, the security of all Americans hangs in the balance. The Democrats have not offered a clear solution on the Iraq situation other than “cut and run”. I predict they will quickly adopt the Baker commission report to avoid the fallout of any potential failed decisions on their part – and because they actually have no idea what to do. For all the partisan bickering, they know the situation in Iraq is very serious and will have serious consequences if it doesn’t end well.
thedecider on November 11, 2006 at 11:41 PM
*gulp*
SouthernGent on November 11, 2006 at 11:44 PM
Time for new leadership.
Editor on November 11, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Gingrich, Pence, Steele and Bolton! Let’s go!!!
thedecider on November 11, 2006 at 11:52 PM
Iran – HA the nexus of terrorism? This administration really needs to get its story straight. Al Qaeda wahhabi inspired terrorism is completely different from the Iranian support to shia groups. In Iraq, the “central front” remember, we’re still mainly fighting AQ – inspired and Sunni groups, not this so-called “nexus” of terrorism.
I really wonder if the Administration has any understanding of how terrorism and terrorist groups have changed and evolved since 9/11. Judging from their recent rhetoric, they are hopelessly clueless, and this stupid “nexus” statement is just the latest example.
NPP on November 12, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Can someone find me a peanut farmer… pronto!
Editor on November 12, 2006 at 12:03 AM
And before people start shouting that Gates is a terrorist apologist, remember that we held many talks with Iran regarding Afghanistan, and, for the most part, Iran was actually helpful. So talks with Iran have already happened, though it seems few are aware of this fact.
The sad thing is, we probably should have talked with Iran about issues related to Iraq a few years ago because now we are in a weaker position and Iran knows it. So if we try to somehow come to an understand with them now, the price will be quite a bit higher. Threatening Iran, predictably, hasn’t worked so I agree that it’s past time for a new strategy with regard to Iranian involvement in Iraq.
NPP on November 12, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Yes, it can get worse. So THAT’S the answer we’ve been waiting for: another dictator. So glad the NYT has come forth with the obvious solution. I will grant anyone that the idea of democracy in a country that has lived under a brutal dictator may seem like a pipe-dream, but isn’t it really better for Iraq if democracy can flourish? I know all the arguments about the strategic difficulties we face in prolonging our involvement there, but there is also a bigger picture with much more at stake, not only for Iraq, but the world at large, and the people of the country we invaded. No matter your politics, these are people who live their lives afraid to go out in public in many parts of the country. They recall the days when Saddam “controlled” the violence – albeit in a sorry, disgusting way. They have not lived in an environment where the rule of law was fair. It might seem monumental to continue helping them develop some form of democracy, but it would just be cruel to “cut and run” at this point.
thedecider on November 12, 2006 at 12:20 AM
These professorial, doctore types make me nervous. Though might not be liberal, I can’t get the oxymoron conservative college professor out of my head.
StuLongIsland on November 12, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Noble_Eagle
I hope YouTube has that opening act of SNL on soon.. I was laughing so hard I was crying. I loved NewsUpdate too. It showed the visit between Nanct Pelosi and Bush but Nancy had to cut the meeting short because she had to get an Abortion.
It was too funny!
GoodBoy on November 12, 2006 at 12:44 AM
Aight folks I have been saying this for awhile in other blogs, but we are trending towards another Cold War. The current stalemate (a self imposed stalemate)in Iraq is getting us nowhere fast. Do we want out of Iraq in a way we can manage or not? Hostile yet stable governments are what we like. As long as we an keep Iran in it’s current dogma and throw them the bone of talking to them they WILL get complacent, power tends to corrupt. Being a “rogue” Middle East state that has bent the “Great Satan” to its will, will give then a hubris we can use to make them predictable and stable. That is where we want them. Let them waste money on nuclear technology, so what? This is a state that displayed a torpedo technolog we considered useless decades ago as weapon to make the west cower. Do we really think they can build a nuclear weapon?
Hamas and Hizbollah are Irans nice little proxies, which cannot form untiy government because the West controls the purse strings. But you say “Won’t Iran just supply them with money if we do not?” Maybe, but who really cares if they keep sending suicide bombers to Israel? The point is to get them to spend those petro dollars while protecting our currency from counterfeiting. An Iran spending its petro dollars to aid their proxies could cause a schism in OPEC when we start pumping gobs of oil out of Mexico and they need to keep output down… Etc., etc., etc. you see where I’m going.
We do the Cold War like no one else. Who would not want the stabilty of the 1980’s? I do not care what party is in charge as long as they are taking care of business. If we play our cards right we can get the old guard uber liberal left out of the Democratic party. I’ll take Heath Schuler as my Congressman over Susan Davis anyday.
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 1:23 AM
Why do we need a new strong-man for Iraq? Ahmadinejad would probably pay a good price for our withdrawal.
pedestrian on November 12, 2006 at 1:23 AM
Concerning the Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, linked above, it might be helpful to know something of this man’s world view. I think this quote from his book “The Technotronic Era” written in 1981 says it all.
Above Quote From:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor for the U.S. under President Carter, member of the Committee of 300 and Council on Foreign Relations member, above quoted from his book “The Technotronic Era” (1981)
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 1:40 AM
Iraq needs a strongman? And yet when the millitary drops the hammer . . .they’re up for court martial, or called a cowboy.
- The Cat
MirCat on November 12, 2006 at 1:44 AM
Maxx does he want to implement these things or he just giving a description of possible scenarios?
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 1:49 AM
I don’t really know, all I have is that quote. But he doesn’t sound very upset by it.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 2:16 AM
The number of Iranian agents commenting on this post is amazing.
The problem is Iran. Attack Iran and all of our terrorist problems shrink dramatically.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Bill C on November 12, 2006 at 2:26 AM
I know the NYT so well, you’d think I actually read it. I predicted the day after the election, when it was clear that the democrats would soon be in charge, that no matter what went right in in Iraq from here on out, the dem’s would get credit, and no matter what went wrong, it would be Bush’s fault, although I didn’t expect them to quote me. But then, that prediction took about as much insight as it takes to predict whether the NYT will soon leak yet another national security secret..with democrats soon to be in charge, there will be a steady supply of classified information for them to print.
JustTruth101 on November 12, 2006 at 4:16 AM
Since not much visible progress has really been made in the WOT since 2004, one has been charitably inclined to think that the lull must be tactical, given W’s steely resolve. But now, one is cynically obliged to wonder whether there is, in fact, a lull in W’s resolve. We have never seen the president act from a position of weakness before, and neither has the enemy (nor its Democrat enablers). This is scary, and completely uncharted territory, and I can’t for the life of me understand the impetus for caving in, if indeed that’s what’s happening. Could it be that W is simply tired of it all, and wants to get back to Crawford ASAP?
Halley on November 12, 2006 at 4:46 AM
As I have said: The Democrats now own the war on terrorism.
Up until yesterday, I had been saying that the Democrats would own it when the 110th Congress opened. However, yesterday, I head Sen. Dick “Turbin” Durbin (D-Al Qaeda) state that the outgoing 109th Congress should NOT consider any “important” legislation, such as giving the NSA formal authority to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda communications. And Sen Joe Biden has said that he will not allow a vote on Bolton, this means that as of yesterday, the Democrats insist on calling the shots for a Congress that they are still, techn ally, in the minority. So, as of yesterday, the DEMOCRATS OWN THE WAR ON TERRORISM, lock, stock, and barrel.
And as of now, WE may criticize, chastize, expose, and castigate the Democrats for ANY thing that they do or say.
The Democrats are responsible for any and all attacks upon Americans, anywhere in the world. THEY OWN IT!
georgej on November 12, 2006 at 5:36 AM
Theworldisnotenough wrote: “Aight folks I have been saying this for awhile in other blogs, but we are trending towards another Cold War.”
Sorry, no offense, but I disagree. Here is why.
The essence of the Cold War was the underlying nuclear strategy of mutual assured destruction. A Soviet attack upon the United States would result in such an overwhelming retaliation that the Soviet Union would be destroyed, and vice versa. MAD relied upon the national leaders of both the United States (and NATO) and the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) to be RATIONAL and avoid the destruction of their peoples by not using their own nuclear weapons in a first strike.
The fact that we are still here is proof that the policy worked. But this is not the situation with Iran, and absent a major change in the philosophy of the rulers or Iran, it will NEVER be possible to have a “cold war” with them.
It is impossible to have a “cold war” with regimes such as Iran, whose leadership (the Ayatollahs) preach jihad and martyrdom as a critical part of their religion.
The conduct of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war is an indicator that Iran is completely insensitive towards their own casualties. Their dead are honored today as martyrs, living in Heaven and surrounded by its pleasures. And martyrdom in the carrying out Jihad is honored most of all.
It is why Iran lost over a million conscripts (mostly untrained) in suicide charges during that war.
But the willingness of the Jihadist fanatic to die is only one aspect of why a cold war with Iran would ultimately become “hot.”
The transfer of weapons and money to Hezbollah and Hamas and the assistance that Iran has given Al Qaeda in transiting from Afghanistan ought to be taken seriously as a signal that given the opportunity, Iran is perfectly willing to give a surrogate such as Al Qaeda or Hezbollah nuclear weapons, when they have them.
Whether it would be for “deniability” or not, there is ZERO REASON to assume that Iran would treat nuclear proliferation with the same respect that the USA does.
Wretchard, in a 2003 blog entry explains this.
The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran LOWERS the nuclear weapons threshold. MAD no longer applies to a country governed by the martyrdom ethic who is willing to transfer them to surrogates willing to attack the United States.
As Wretchard put it:
The issue of “intent” is no longer a question because on 9/11/01, they clearly stated their “intent.”
And given the fact that in Islam they have no “Pope” or single ultimate leader, and the nature of terrorist organizations, once they use nukes, and we retaliate and they strike again, etc., the question becomes with whom do we negotiate a cease fire, much less a surrender, as those issue Fatwa’s for Jihad are independent operators NOT under any central control. Or are we forced to destroy 1.6 billion Muslims in order to achieve peace?
Wretchard made one final point: The ONLY hope that the world has to escape a genocidal nuclear war is to secularize Islamic countries. He calls the war on terrorism a “Golden Hour, the final chance.”
As he put it:
This is why a “cold war” with Iran would fail.
Sad to say, the Democrats and the liberals do not have a clue why we MUST succeed everywhere we engage the Jihadists, including Iraq. I have no doubt at all that they will surrender us in Iraq and that as a result, Al Qaeda or a surrogate of Iran will obtain and use nuclear weapons against us.
Woe to the Democratic Party and the left when that day happens because the resulting backlash from Americans will sweep them away.
georgej on November 12, 2006 at 6:14 AM
Gates will not be missed at A&M…he was behind the policy of ‘diversity’ at a University that, like others, is steeped in tradition…you would not believe the number of emails I received saying how glad they were he is gone. Gates will be a “wet finger in the wind” SecDef…I’m sad that he is the choice but also glad he is gone from A&M.
DoctorDentons ‘57
DoctorDentons on November 12, 2006 at 6:21 AM
George is right, MAD doesn’t work with Ahmahjihadist because he WANTS war. He thinks war is gonna bring back their messiah and lead to ultimate victory for islam. He doesn’t care how many of his people die because, in the end, it is worth every drop of muslim blood to have islam rule the world. THEN we’ll have ‘peace’.
Tony737 on November 12, 2006 at 7:35 AM
The info I got was that
Pam on November 12, 2006 at 7:41 AM
Distressingly, it seems increasingly clear that this war will not be taken seriously in this country until a lot more American civilians are killed in the next big attack, after which there should be hell to pay. Even then, I wonder if “hell to pay” has any real meaning in our feminized culture.
kmcguire on November 12, 2006 at 8:21 AM
I just saw on Fox, an Iranian drone above a U.S. carrier. Iran is asking, no BEGGING to get their asses kicked.
U.S. Forces out of Iraq … AND INTO IRAN!
The Air Force could handle this one, take out the mullahs and let the people of Iran create a democracy.
Tony737 on November 12, 2006 at 9:59 AM
It is time to encourage Dems to inpeach and convict Bush, so we can have Cheney as president. Bush has now decided he is going to lead as a liberal if his choice of Gates is any indication.
I still recall clear as day Condi Rice stating on a network inauguration day 2001 that Clinton’s foreign policy had been “terrific.” I thought this is not a good sign but that she was being gracious to the losers.
No, looking at her performance as SS she has been no different than a Democrat. Actually, she is more dangerous than a Democrat because she talks tough, acts, then doesn’t follow through. That’s deadly, and it is fairly obvious with the statement that Gates was chosen because he works well with her, she has been responsible for our errors in Iraq and our terrible foreign policy direction since 2004.
Look what she encouraged Israel to do in Lebanon; invade, but once they were winning suddenly encouraged Israel to pull out, so as to not offend Europeans.
Rumsfeld and Cheney probably had a good plan for Iraq: secure borders, invade Syria, wait on democracy, wipe out militias, limit freedoms until stability. Bush most likely listened to “moderates” Rice and Powell, screwing everything up.
The Republican party needs to distance itself immediately from Bush, who is purging conservatives from his cabinet and replacing them with liberals like Gates. These types of liberals were the ones responsible for our errors in Iraq, not the conservatives like Rumsfeld.
januarius on November 12, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Bush has lost his Mojo…. Talks with Iran? Direct talks with NORKS???? HUH????
I think he “thought” and believed that the American People got it… that he was doing the right thing and that Americans would step up… but his faith in us was destroyed in the last election…
He’s gonna roll over on everything.
Crap…. I want the dang Cowboy Bush back… the one who LED!!! The one who Confronted Evil!!!
Wheres Austin Powers… he got his Mojo back once… maybe he can help Bushy out a bit.
Romeo13 on November 12, 2006 at 10:55 AM
…everyone trying to over think…what if what if what if….Bill C is right…..EMP the Iranian lady and burn down her oil facilities. If she thinks her T72’s can take on an M1Abrams let her try. No oil, Iran goes bye bye.
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 11:07 AM
We could have done this a while ago. The problem is we’ll never militarily act on Iraq now unless they attack us or Israel first. Gates wants to talk with Iran. The “moderates” are in charge now in the White House, and thanks to them we have lost the House and Senate.
januarius on November 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM
WE don’t have to worry about all that januarius….Iran WILL strike. Iran can’t wait. Like a kid in a candy store.
It believes in it’s heart that victory is ‘thissssssss-clossssssssse’. It is going to stike.
All this BUSH-Bad, BUSH-good, BS won’t matter at all. Israel, Kuwait, USA. They will strike.
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Two months ago the Iranians conducted a two week war game.
Lots of ‘chutzpah’, rah rah, boom-bam-bah…….after the games were over they fired their Air Force chief. Why?…because he knew the same thing that every single Iranian Air Force pilot knows…I will die.
Now you have a new chief of Air Force. Yesterday they release the drone footage of the overfly of the fleet. Why?
Because the leadership of Iran, not the Iraning militay, are calling the shots now and they believe they can win.
Hold on to your hats folks because Iran is going to strike
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Limerick- I’m hoping Israel will strike Iran soon and take out their nuclear reactors before they have a chance to attack anyone. A Muslim world armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable to anyone who values Western civilization.
januarius on November 12, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Well Ohlmert is here talking today. If you followed the statements of the Israeli government lately…like yesterdays ’sometimes the last choice is the only choice’…I think that shows someone is getting pretty nervous.
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 11:28 AM
I also think that they are getting nervous. I would too if I were Israel seeing the Congress go Democratic. They probably figure that the U.S. is not going to act and they had better act first
Let’s hope Rice and her crew of “moderate” old-fashioned Republicans will not pressure them not to strike. . .and if they are pressuring them, Israel should just ignore them. Talking with Iran is not going to work, and it is scary that Bush would replace Rumsfeld with someone convinced it will.
januarius on November 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Wow, it’s amazing the level of ignorance commenters here have on Iran in general as well as assumptions underlying Iranian intent. Those calling for us to attack really have no clue about US capabilities nor those of Iran, to say nothing of the consequences such an attack would bring.
NPP on November 12, 2006 at 12:17 PM
georgej,
Mutually assured destruction was not the sole feature of the Cold War. As I pointed out in my post Arab hubris makes very predictable leadership, as any dictator would be. What we want is to put the jihadists on simmer instead of boil.(I.E. calm down Israel we’ll keep them at bay, in return we give Israel defensive weapons like the Patriot missile system) This will make them oh so predictable, not stable enough to handle nuclear weapons, just predictable. Do we not have the ability to put CIA operatives in that country and sabotage their nuclear efforts? Do we not have the ability to feed them misinformation? Do we not have the ability to destroy them should it come to that? Do we not have the ability to hurt their oil based economy by pumping large amounts of oil out of Mexico and collapsing the price? Can we not goad them into spending what litle resources they have on military equipment that is all but useless? Can we not leave Iraq with a foothold in Kudistan? We cannot support Kurdistan, and help develop their country complete with pebble bed reactor which are near impossible to use as nuclear fuel, and juxtapose their prosperity against the rest of the impoverished Middle East? These are all Cold War strategies. This is how we wear them down, this is how we take the fight to them with there own weaknesses. Do you think we were selling wheat to Russia because we wanted the Societ to defeat us? We sold it to them for gold, we drained their economy slowing over decades. This is our game this is how we can influence the Middle East without firing a shot.
Do I want a nuclear armed muslim world? Heck no. Do I want them wasting a generation in a futile effort? Yes. Should Iran actually have a nuke, erase them. Until then let them spin their wheels, raise their rhetoric, and waste the petro dollar/euro. Jihadists that promise this great victory while keeping their country in ruins will become unpopular rather quickly. This will lead to a secularized Middle East. Look at the problems Hamas and Hizbollah are having coming to terms forming a unity government. They know that a pro-jihad stance means economic isolation. If Iran could replace Western money to fund Lebanon and Syria they would but they cannot. What they can do is supply Hamas and Hizbollah with weapons and further destabilize the region. Which is already getting old with the populace. This a trend that we can exploit. This is Iran, WE cannot outflank Iran with subterfuge, policy, and economic strategy? C’mon George.
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Wow, it’s amazing the level of ignorance commenters NPP on November 12, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Yes it is amazing NPP….time will fix that.
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM
You sound just like a typical liberal, underestimating OUR military capabilities while overestimating an opponent’s. I bet you were one of those who stated we would lose ten of thousands of Americans–just in the invasion phase of occupying Iraq.
Also, what are the “assumptions underlying Iranian intent” and how are they different from the truth? I bet you are one of those who believes that Iran simply wants nuclear power. If they don’t simply want nuclear power and instead want bombs, why not take them out now?
januarius on November 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM
“I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits… It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples would renounce force against each other forever. The German people are ready to make such a pledge.”
Adolf Hitler – 14th October 1933
NPP probably would have clapped at this. After all that was his ‘intent’ afterall.
Limerick on November 12, 2006 at 1:19 PM
NPP….and you do ???
Enlighten us oh all knowing one.
DoctorDentons on November 12, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Theworldisnotenough,
I understand your point about the maneuvering short of total war with the Soviets with respect to Iran. However, you, I think, missed the point about how fundamentalist Islam makes things different.
There was no undercurrent of suicide/martyrdom prevalent in Soviet society or even Russian history. The Soviet Union did not raise children to grow up to become suicide bombers. The Soviets were, after, a mostly EUROPEAN country with a shared culture with us, including a heritage of Christianity (the Russian Orthodox Church).
It is true that some “Republics” had a Muslim heritage. However, Communism renounces religion, and the Soviet Union was formally “atheistic” and both Christianity and Islam were suppressed.
Iran, on the other, has a government run by religious fundamentalists whose precepts include martyrdom as a major component of religious and civil life. The fact that Iran places the Koran as the ultimate foundation of their laws and society makes them entirely different from our opponent in the previous Cold War.
And this difference makes a US-Soviet style “Cold War” (as an alternative to a hot war) with Iran very unlikely.
The point I was trying to make is that MAD was the “leash” that kept the two “big dogs” from directly fighting post WWII. However, MAD has no effect when one side is willing to sacrifice a million conscripts in battle for martyrdom to their God. Iran has a proven track record in the Iran-Iraq war of doing just that.
The Iranian leadership, political and religious, have publicly stated that the destruction of Israel and The Great Satan (the USA) is their goal. MAD has no deterrent value here, because their God tells them to go to war to achieve dominance for Islam.
georgej on November 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM
Spot On!
DannoJyd on November 12, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Yup, just like in the first Gulf War, liberal “military experts” and arm chair generals predicting 200,000 dead G.I.s and 2 years to get Iraq outta Kuwait.
Just like Iraq, Iran uses the same soviet made junk. T-55 and T-72 tanks, MiG-21s and 29s. A useless navy. About the only decent weapon they have is the few Tomcats we sold them way back when and they don’t have any parts for ‘em. Ask any U.S. Navy aircraft mechanic what a nightmare that plane was to maintain.
NPP, I don’t know about your background and I can only speak for myself here, but while I was in the USAF I learned enough about OUR military and the forces of our enemies and allies to know that there is nothing out there that can beat us. We’ve proven that nobody can even put up much of a fight when we have the strong civilian political leadership to do it. It’s when we have WEAK political leadership that we might lose (think Somolia, even though our guys kicked ass, Klinton pulled out and it appeared as a retreat, hense bin laden calling us a paper tiger. Thanks Billy boy).
So, before we start the same old tired b.s. about how we can’t win, remember that we just RETIRED our F-14 Tomcats because they’re too old for us. We now have the F-22 and NOBODY will take to the skies to challenge us with HIM up there. Even without him, our F-15s can still can shoot down anything dumb enough to fly. We will sink their entire navy in about three hours, they know it and they won’t even challenge our Navy in blue water. I don’t think there’ll be a ground war, but if so, the Army and Marines will destroy their army in a matter of weeks.
I get so tired of hearing libs cry “We can’t win!” No, we can’t, not with libs in charge. Anybody remember what they said about Afghanistan? “OOOOOOOhhhhhhh the Taliban’s gonna kick our ass! They kicked the soviet’s ass, they’ll kick ours too!” Well we’re not the soviets, bitch! One Army Ranger was wounded during a raid on an airfield the first night of the war and the libs cried “It’s a quagmire!”
We can do Iran in one month, God forbid we have to, let’s all pray that the people of Iran overthrow their mullacracy and become our allies in this war on islamicnaziism, but if we hafta do it the hard way, we can, and will.
Once Afghan and Iraqi troops reach a degree of proficiency high enough to defend themselves, we MUST relocate our troops to the Iranian border. Let the mullahs watch it on CNN. They will move their troops to the other side of the border, then the A.F. can wipe ‘em out. There’s a lot more to it then that, securing nuke facilities, oil infrastructure, dams, bridges etc etc. But to make a long post a little shorter, we can do it, we MUST do and we WILL do.
Sadly, some American troops will die. None of them are expendable. All of them are special to somebody and we will mourn their lose. But if we don’t do Iran, IRAN WILL DO US! How many American cities will we allow Iranian terrorists to radiate before we fight back? I want our liberal friends to pick a city they think we can live without. It’ll be a port city, attacked by jihadists in a boat with a radiological weapon. Which one libs? Baltimore? New York? Philly? Miami? Seattle? L.A.? SAN FRANCISCO???? “NNOOOOOO!!! Not San Franscisco!!!! Bush better do SOMETHING to stop this!”
Tony737 on November 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM
…Zbigniew Brzezinski…and a big, whoop-whooping sir-een goes of in my noggin!
We’re getting a Sec/Def who’s actually worked in concert with *ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI*! This is the guy — under that savant of wishful international relations, Jimmy “National Malaise” Carter — played the Khmer Rouge and their Chinese allies off of the Russians, to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dead Cambodians? This is the architect of global peace which gave us…us…er….
This guy’s the “anti-Kissinger”! …and Gates buddies up with him? Tell me it was as a “counter-point” guy…”Zbigniew, you ignorant slut!…”
What? Wasn’t Jane Fonda available? Couldn’t figure out which of the Keystone Kops would look best in the official DOD photo? (Fatty Arbuckle, surely.)
I knew that the Democrats took both houses of Congress…you have to give them the Administrative branch too…department at a time?
Having to deal with Powell and Armitage was one thing…this will bring ‘em on home….
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Aw, man, look at how long that post was! My deepest apologies!
Tony737 on November 12, 2006 at 5:07 PM
You made some great points Tony737, no apologies required.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 10:24 PM
Puritan1648 … it gets worse. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert M. Gates have written a book together, “Iran: Time for a New Approach”. Only one review on it so far at Amazon, but it claims appeasement is the main theme.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 11:06 PM
…a pro-appeasement Sec/Def?!
…what next…a Sec/State with Tourettes?
“Welcome to Camp David, President Putin…BITE ME!”
…maybe a Transportation Secretary with a thing for covered wagons? Maybe Geraldo Rivera for Dir/NSA? Rosy O’Donnell for Pope?
…somewhere last Monday night, I think I must’ve stepped through a looking glass….
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM
…what a cotton-pickin’ second! Brzezinski can write?!
Credentials aside, Brzezinski can write? He’s a walking Pollock joke!
Brzezinski as National Security Advisor, Stansfield Turner at CIA, Andy Young at the UN…the Carter Administration was to national security and international leadership what Clinton was to abstinence…and prompt dry cleaning….
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:13 AM
I’ve posted my credentials on this site before – I’m a military veteran who was an intelligence analyst for over 13 years. During the 1990’s I was an Iranian Naval analyst for about 4 years. Later on, I was an Iranian Pol-Mil analyst. I know Iran pretty well and am far from liberal. But unlike many of the commenters here I actually base my opinion on more than assumption, innuendo and common myths on Iran. Here, let me dispel some for you:
Myth #1 provided by Tony:
It may come as news to you that Ahmadinejad has little executive power in the Iranian government. The office of President of Iran is not the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces nor can he declare war. Those primary powers are held by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. There is a reason his title is “Supreme Leader.” What Ahmadinejad says and does has little meaning without the consent of Khamenei. More than once in recent history Khamenei has told Ahmadinejad to shut up and color. What Ahmadinejad says means little because the real power lies elsewhere. The western media persistently portrays the Iranian government as a unitary actor under Ahmadinejad’s leadership which is not the case at all. Like most governments, there are factions and infighting. It may also surprise you to learn that Ahmadinejad was not Khamenei’s favorite pick for President.
Myth #2 again provided by Tony:
First of all, the relative quality of military equipment is less important than training and tactics. Secondly, you haven’t been keeping up on current events if you think the F-14 (a model, btw) is their best aircraft. Instead of guessing what their best aircraft are, you’d be better served by determining which aircraft their best pilots fly. Their Navy is no equal to ours, but it is hardly useless. For is primary purpose, it is very effective. Let’s see if you can guess what the Iranian navy’s primary objective is in the event of war – as a hint I’ll tell you it’s not the obvious.
Leaving that aside, if you think Iran will be a cakewalk like Gulf War I, then you have little understanding of actually military operations. If you remember, it took months to put the forces in place to attack Iraq in 1991. And by forces, I mean equipment. Personnel are easy to move about, but equipment is not. It would take us time to build forces for an attack on Iran. We have people in Iraq, sure, but not the equipment we need to take on Iran. Now, we have to stage our forces and logistics somewhere before we attack. In 1991 we had Saudi; for OIF we had Kuwait; for OEF we didn’t need a staging area because we only used light forces and used indigenous ground troops. For Iran we have two possibilities: Iraq and Afghanistan. First Iraq: Assuming the pro-Iranian Iraqi government allows this, do you really think Iran will let our ships sail unmolested up to Basrah and unload? Considering Basrah is in the heart of Shiite territory, building forces will be much more difficult, especially since Iran will be using its proxies to disrupt our staging. The other option is Afghanistan. How do you propose to get an armored division, much less a brigade, to Afghanistan? Here’s a hint – we don’t have the airlift capacity to fly that kind of tonnage in and Afghanistan is landlocked so we can’t use MSC ships. Let’s assume Pakistan is nice and lets use their ports and allow us to pass through. Then what? Afghanistan has no rail system, so all those tanks would have to drive hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain to get the Iranian border – not gonna happen. Even if all this were possible, there’s no way to resupply them once they drive into Iran.
That pretty much leaves an amphibious assault. Although Iran is prepared for this it won’t be Iwo Jima or Omaha Beach, but it won’t be a cakewalk either. And such an assault could only happen with a lot of preparation to destroy the Iranian navy and coastal defenses. Guess where Iran has spent the majority of it’s money for the armed forces in the past decade? If you guessed the Navy and coastal defense, then you get a gold star! While we are busy taking out all those targets, what do you think is happening to the flow of oil through the strait of Hormuz? This brings me to:
Myth #3: We can crush Iran by destroying their oil.
Actually, we could crush Iran by doing that, but Iran could prevent everyone else from exporting Gulf oil as well for at least a few weeks and perhaps as long as a couple of months. Since 90% of middle-east oil production passes through the straight which accounts for 40% of the world’s tradable oil, the disruption this would cause the global oil market and global economy is pretty obvious. Oh, and did you know that 23% of US oil comes from the Gulf too? Are you willing to commit economic seppuku to invade Iran? And if so, how many other countries, particularly our best allies, do you think would stand by and let us spill their economic entrails as well? Have you figured out the primary wartime objective of the Iranian Navy yet?
Myth #4: Iran wants to attack and start WWIII to bring the hidden Imam back and begin the Shiite apocalypse.
Tony again:
The hidden Imam theories are pretty fascinating but don’t have much basis in reality. If Iran wanted to start a war on that scale and invite reprisals (which is part of the prophecy) they could do that now. All they’d have to do is fire some chem and/or bio warheads on some Isreali cities. The Israelis would respond with nukes then, poof, the hidden Imam would appear, save the Shiites and vanquish all enemies. Why haven’t they done this yet? Why did Iran provide us assistance during our invasion of Afghanistan and promote and recognize the government we installed there? Why would they cooperate with us if they were on the verge of attacking us to fulfill their messianic prophecies? Hmm?
Ok, that’s all the myth-busting I have time for right now, but I’ll leave you with one more thing to consider. If we invade, and we’re successful in taking out the regime and nuclear facilities, then what? Iran is much larger than Iraq and has three times the population. How do you propose to deal with 68 million pissed of Iranians many of whom are well trained and prepared for asymmetrical martyrdom warfare? If you think Iraq is a mess, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Hopefully some of you will do some research before you comment in the future.
Goodnight.
NPP on November 13, 2006 at 2:23 AM
Oh yeah? Well, that’s just your opinion, man. (The Dude, The Big Lebowski)
Just kidding, NPP. ;-)
Nicely done.
bamapachyderm on November 13, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Great movie!
NPP on November 13, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Well, either I’ve silenced my critics or no one checks this thread anymore. It’s probably the latter. I guess that’s what I get if I don’t get my comments out in a more timely manner.
NPP on November 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM
NPP, I’ve read your posts in this thread several times and it seems to me that you believe there is a military option that would work. Care to share?
America already has plenty of resources in the region. Would it really be all that hard to add to those, and wouldn’t that then act as a real deterrent to the course that Iran is currently following? I would think that would give America the ability to negotiate through strength.
I’m no expert, which is why I never try to add on in these discussions, but it seems to me that the Muslim culture only respects the ability to kill. Maybe I’m wrong.
DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Danno,
Muslim, Arab and Persian culture all respect strength, which is not necessarily the same as the ability to kill. What they don’t respond well to is threats, because giving in to threats shows, in their mind, weakness. In that regard, threats without a face-saving compromise are hopelessly counterproductive. I’m continually amazed the Bush administration seems ignorant of this very basic tenet of regional culture.
I actually don’t believe there is a military option that could work. The only real option I see is to play Iran’s game and actively support proxy forces hostile to them – in other words, get us our own Hezbollah. Unfortunately, there aren’t many to choose from, the primary ones being Kurd groups we have already labelled terrorist groups.
You’re right that we need the ability to negotiate through strength. Unfortunately, our position in Iraq and dependence on the free flow of oil through the stait of Hormuz means that we are strategically vulnerable in those areas. We do hold the edge in military strength, but it’s largely meaningless because of those vulnerabilities and the Iranian’s know it. They realize the cost of attacking them will carry a very high price for us and they really don’t believe we would do it.
So coercing the Iranians will take much more than military strength, but strength on all fronts, particularly political and economic. Unfortunately, we have few political and economic tools left unless we can get more support from other nations, particularly those with friendly relations to Iran. Our coercive strategy must also leave them a face-saving way to acquiesce to our desires.
Our first goal, though, should be to drive a wedge and break-up the Iranian-Syrian alliance. They are unnatural allies for a number of reasons and we should make more effort to split them apart. This will have the added benefit of weakening Hezbollah.
NPP on November 13, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Comment pages: