I’m wide open to correction, but I think the difficulties caused by such a severe shortage of fuel as rokemronnie describes would include loss of transportation for food. If the fuel used to make electricity has to be refined appreciably, then the losses would include electricity for refrigeration and cooking. It doesn’t seem the water supply and sewerage systems in the cities would continue in operation. It appears protection from fires would be lost, as vehicles and water pressure were lost. Unless divine intervention were swift and spectacular, I think even muslim credulity would be strained.

Kralizec on February 25, 2007 at 5:31 PM

The big problem with a severe shortage would be the resulting increase in the cost of fuel which would drive inflation and be a big blow to most of the world’s economies. As is usually the case, the people most severely affected by an economic downturn are those on the bottom rung–be it nations or parts of nations.

Another issue would be how a serious reduction to supply would affect the relations between us and China. Also this could tend to put Russia in the cat bird seat as they have great control over the oil supply and intrastructure in Europe–I am not well versed on this, have read some on it so could be exaggerating.

Nothing’s simple.

Short of U.S. troops killing the Ayatollah Sistani, it’s hard to think of something that would piss off Iraqi Shiites more than allowing Israel to use Iraqi airspace to bomb the Shiite mothership. But if they don’t go through Iraq, how do they get there from here?

By using the modern equalivent of the Battleship: Submarines. The most powerful weapons platform for strategic assault is within Israel’s grasp. Undetectable, accurate, unstopable, and able to launch missiles with conventional or nuclear payload at the touch of a button.

It gives me great pleasure to anticipate Iranian, Russian, Chinese, Arab, French and Liberal Left frustration and anger at being blocked at every turn from political condemnation of Israel by the United States. No need to send them condoms as a gift – they won’t need them.

How did they do it the first time they hit Iran?

CharlestonCritic on February 25, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Are you thinking of when they took out the Osirak reactor in 1981? If so, it was in Iraq.

, the problem seems not so much an unwillingness to fight as an unwillingness to fight dirty Response: “fighting dirty” implies that there are restrictions on military response to confrontational actions by the likes of Iran. I do not see any such restrictions but with the exceptions of biological weapons and conventional rules of war as defined by the Geneva convention. If the decision is made to engage Iran in a military fashion all assets should be brought to bear, immediately, for an indefinite period, without pause, and to the utter and complete anahiliation of the enemy or their complete, unconditional surrender.

followed by a quite understandable unwillingness to go on fighting without obvious benefit to one’s side Response: Military engagement, obviously, at least for rational states (which leaves Iran out), is an extension of the political process. Military action is an option to achieve political, economic, and/or military concession from the enemy. In Iran’s case it is to limit their ability to produce, posses, and use weapons of mass destruction. There is definite benefit to such military action: remove the ability of an avowed enemy, who uses deceit and deception as a matter of routine, to attack other nations with devasting consequences.

The war aims of the Americans and their allies could reasonably be to deprive the Arabs and Persians of their wealth, their leaders, their religion, and their numbers. Response: The objective is not to harm others, including Arabs and Persians. The objective is remove credible threats of mass destruction from enemies that would harm the United States, our allies, and our intersts without hesitation if they had the means. Depriving those of their economic and military assets may be a means to an end but not the objective.

Such statements as these impress me that you, Kralizec, either do not understand the issues or are deliberately providing propaganda for Islamic entities such as Iran.

A very limited and targeted military approach like this would result in minimal harm to civilians, other than the obvious difficulties faced by no fuel. …

rokemronnie on February 25, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I’m wide open to correction, but I think the difficulties caused by such a severe shortage of fuel as rokemronnie describes would include loss of transportation for food. If the fuel used to make electricity has to be refined appreciably, then the losses would include electricity for refrigeration and cooking. It doesn’t seem the water supply and sewerage systems in the cities would continue in operation. It appears protection from fires would be lost, as vehicles and water pressure were lost. Unless divine intervention were swift and spectacular, I think even muslim credulity would be strained.

BY-BY don’t let the door hitcha in the a$$ on the way out!!

! And we just can’t WAIT to try out our shiney new F-22’s!
Tony737 on February 25, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Now THAT’S worth the price of a ticket.

Five generals down? Good riddance if that’s the way they think…CNN is probably hiring anyway.

So if we let Israel fly over we’d be violating Iraq’s sovereignty.NPP on February 25, 2007 at 12:59 AM

You’re right of course, I just thought how many times has the L3 accused the US of that anyway? May as well wave em’ in.

Iran is vulnerable, ironically because of gasoline.

Iran imports up to 40% of its gasoline and diesel fuel. It has only nine refineries, hasn’t invested anything in them since the revolution, and they operate way over capacity, degrading daily. Fueled by subsidized prices of 35 cents a gallon at the pump, domestic Iranian demand has soared. Coupled with a lack of investment in oil production as well, this has led some analysts to predict that Iran won’t have any surplus oil for export in a decade.

As the late great Billy Sol Hurok might say, refineries blow up good, blow up real good.

Take out the Iranian refineries and their economy will grind to a halt. Add a blockade of incoming tankers by the US Navy and the mullahs will fall to unrest by the Iranian public.

A very limited and targeted military approach like this would result in minimal harm to civilians, other than the obvious difficulties faced by no fuel. It addresses the concerns of those, like the above anti-war generals and admirals, that we don’t have the resources to fight a war in Iran now. I’m sure right now we have enough cruise missile capable ships, subs and planes in the gulf to take the refineries offline with minimal risk to American service men and women.

The Will to Fight is the crux of the matter. …

omegaram on February 25, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I’m not sure I see deeply enough to know what the crux of the matter is, omegaram, but at any rate, the problem seems not so much an unwillingness to fight as an unwillingness to fight dirty, followed by a quite understandable unwillingness to go on fighting without obvious benefit to one’s side. The war aims of the Americans and their allies could reasonably be to deprive the Arabs and Persians of their wealth, their leaders, their religion, and their numbers. It’s been five years since al-Qaida came close to destroying either the White House or the Capitol, nevermind the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. That’s time enough for the Americans to have destroyed the religious and civil rulers of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria, seized the oil fields, and destroyed the major centers of muslim worship. That is, it’s time enough, were they willing to do those things. However, the Americans have trouble with killing people, taking goods, toppling idols, and leaving people to fend for themselves as they move on to the next country.

Understand, I’m fine with “Reconstruction,” “the Marshall Plan,” and whatnot. But it’s reasonable to undertake such projects after the war is over.

It must be stopped at any cost, including fictional stories about generals resigning, Iran not being a threat at all, tens of thousands of innocents dying, oil prices skyrocketing, etc. Soon we will probably also have the Democrats in Congress passing a resolution that we are not allowed to bomb Iran.

The sooner we bomb them, the better.

The Times of London set the blogosphere abuzz this morning, reporting that six senior commanders at the Pentagon will quit if the US attacks Iran. The Pentagon, claims their source, has no stomach for a war with the Islamic Republic:……

Iran is a pimple on the ass of the Mideast by the standards of the United States. Punitive attack by the United States can destroy most of their infrastructure, military and economic assets, and their population if so desired, in a very short period of time. Military capability is not the issue.

The Will to Fight and Intent are the issues. If the Intent is to replace a hostile Iranian regime with one that is more democratic – not going to happen. To maintain government stability in nations such as Iran, and Iraq, methods of civil control considered brutal and unacceptable by those, especially the Left, are required. There is no substitute for those methods at this time. If the intent is to destroy Iran and continue to pulverize the worthless Islamofacist until it surrenders, if ever, then that is another story. Again, I believe that he Left will actively support Iran against the United States regardless of national interest, without pause or remorse.

The Will to Fight is the crux of the matter. The Left, our biggest single weakness, is the reason the United States will win or loose any conflict. Their subversion and treason are unchecked, without remorse, and oblivious to the harsh realities of the world we live in today.

We will remain in this position until disaster strikes us. Only when disaster has verified the threat to our population will the Left loose power, and unfortunately, for a short period. I do not see a way out of this state of affairs without at least two, and perhaps a series, of disasters diminishing the influence of the Left to a point where aggressive, rational, and concrete action can take place to protect the interests of the United States.