Guardian: Bush leaning towards military action on Iran
posted at 9:52 pm on July 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You didn’t think those sweet-ass robot bombers were really meant for Baghdad, did you?
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
“Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
“The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,” Mr Cronin said. “The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.”
This one’s about as credible as that super-keen lefty blog “expose” a few months ago about Darth Cheney conspiring with Israel to launch Armageddon, although the boldface part rings worryingly true. My feelings about another Bush-managed war are the same as Dennis Miller’s were in an old bit he used to do about Germany’s reunification: much like a Martin and Lewis reunion, he said, he wasn’t impressed with their previous work and wasn’t really looking forward to seeing any of the new sh*t. Hey, George: Let Fred handle it. Or, god forbid, a Democrat if it comes to that.
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: 1 2 Next »
Peachy.
amerpundit on July 15, 2007 at 9:59 PM
The lefty trolls have been quick to claim that Bush is going to attack Iran and they claim it is further proof of America’s ‘war mongering’ and ‘imperialist ideaology’ when and if he does.
I say, do nothing. Israel is more than capable of mucking up an attack on Iran all by itself. They have the means, equipment, technology, and information necessary to fight their own battles. The U.S. should leave Iran’s nuke facilities alone and let the chips fall where they may. The completely useless U.N. can take the hits for not acting and preventing Iran from nuking someone when and if they do.
We need to just disavow the entire Middle East and let them just kill, maim, and torture eachother to their hearts content and not sacrifice or risk one more American life for those barbaric savages.
SilverStar830 on July 15, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Why don’t we just go after Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia right now and get all this over with. I’ll sign up for that; it’ll be fun.
frankj on July 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM
The Democrats will fold before Europe before doing anything to protect America. They will heed their masters call.
Bush should take them out, post haste.
Stormy70 on July 15, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Deploy the Sky Net bombers!
Stormy70 on July 15, 2007 at 10:08 PM
seriously?
as far as I’m concerned we have been at war with Iran and Syria ever since they started sending jihadist into IRaq and blowing our guys up and destabilizing the country.
jp on July 15, 2007 at 10:08 PM
17 months until he’s out of office isn’t a good time to start a war.
amerpundit on July 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
“What would Ron Paul do?”
jp on July 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Fred yes, but I wouldn’t count on the dim-ocrats to do anything but apologize to our enemy even after the mushroom cloud courtesy of Iran if we continue to wait before acting.
When Iran’s president and leaders constantly call for Israel to be wiped from the map and they end Friday prayers by chanting “death to America” and parade their missles down main street Tehran with banners that read “America we will crush you under our feet” I say we can’t afford to wait much longer.
While me must keep the pressure on Iran we must also appeal to Iran’s disaffected moderate/liberal population to rise up and take their country back before the US is left with no choice but to attack and they (the disaffected moderate/liberal Iranians) are stuck in the crossfire and suffer losses at the hands of their fanatical government!
The clock is ticking Iran…wake up and stop your fanatical government while you still have a chance!
Liberty or Death on July 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Faster please…
canvas on July 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Should have been done years ago, by ‘04 at the latest.
Christoph on July 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM
27 years late!
SouthernGent on July 15, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Exactly. As much as I don’t like ABC, I watched a special they had on Iran a little while back. The people themselves didn’t chant “death to America” willingly. Only when the cameras were around and the government officials told them to. They were in recording studious recording music, riding bicycles, surfing the internet, etc. We need them to take our side – not be pissed off at us.
amerpundit on July 15, 2007 at 10:13 PM
And if they don’t?
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Southern gent-
Amen.
The tools of nuclear terror cannot be allowed to slip into the immature hands of these delusional hotheads.
Hit the Iranian infrastructure and the planners of this folly.
Or watch Israel become a glassy graveyard.
Or D.C., home of the Great Satan.
profitsbeard on July 15, 2007 at 10:24 PM
It’s always the Joooooos.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM
The drones can only carry a 1/2 ton bomb. Not strong enough to do the job. However the B1s have been flying all over Iraq for quite some time now.
bnelson44 on July 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM
‘bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’
BobH on July 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
The time is now. Do it. Just do it.
Zorro on July 15, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Didn’t Iran declare war on the US way back in 1979? Isn’t that one of their national holidays “Death to America” day or something?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on July 15, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Actually, I think the isalmofascist terrorists started their attacks in 1972 (5 years after losing the 1967 6 day war) 35 Years ago in Munich, at the Olympics. They first attacked the entire world there and killed many innocent Jewish athletes. Hundreds more athletes were terrorized -along with Mark Spitz- only to have more islamic terrorists hijack a plane a month or so later to get the killers released.
They attacked the US directly later that decade and have never really stopped.
Thats all the islamists have done the last 40 years, attack others with impunity.
If the people of Iran can’t turn it around soon, it will happen…the US must do something.
shooter on July 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Iran only has 1 oil refinery, from what i understand. Wouldn’t take very much to absolutely cripple their economy.
lorien1973 on July 15, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I’m with ya there… may as well just stir this pot because once we pull out of Iraq we’re f**ked anyway… and even when we’re forced to deal with it, we’ll treat the others as separate problems. They are all the same problem. To bad we can’t get any off shore drilling going to handle the inevitable oil price hike if we did push the buttons of those other “religion of peace” countries. But if anyone thinks that war with them won’t have to happen eventually, they’re fooling themselves… What is the answer libs, I’m begging you?
RightWinged on July 15, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Allahpundit – “My feelings about another Bush-managed war are the same as Dennis Miller’s were in an old bit he used to do about Germany’s reunification: much like a Martin and Lewis reunion, he said, he wasn’t impressed with their previous work and wasn’t really looking forward to seeing any of the new sh*t. Hey, George: Let Fred handle it. Or, god forbid, a Democrat if it comes to that.”
Reminds me of that old line, “I’m working on my second million, I gave on the first.”
Oh course, maybe Bush figures that if he F’s up dealing with Iran badly enough, it will make his Iraqi F-up look good by comparision.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I must be demented becuase I hardly see Iraq as an F’up at all.
First, it eliminated a threat.
Second, it gave the Arabs a shot at changing the game – a shot at freedom.
Third, it created a killing ground for terrorists (How many have we killed there? How many of the best died there? What would these people, like Zarqawi, have done if they weren’t killed in Iraq?)
Fourth, it stoked the internal divisions within Islam (divide and conquer).
Fifth, It battle hardened our troops, improved our methods and tactics, proved our weapons.
A complete F’up? Not in my mind.
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The time is now. Do it. Just do it.
Zorro on July 15, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Charlotte Taylor Wilson: You don’t really believe the people are happy!
Don Diego (Zorro’s secret identity): All I know is the soldiers are quite happy shooting the people who say the people are not happy.
[Diego (Zorro) is about to be shot]
Charlotte Taylor Wilson: You’re the bravest man I’ve ever met.
Don Diego (Zorro’s secret identity): I’m very impressed with myself, too.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
TheBigOldDog – “Second, it gave the Arabs a shot at changing the game – a shot at freedom.”
They could not hit the broad side of a freedom barn with massed Artillery.
Fifth, It battle hardened our troops, improved our methods and tactics, proved our weapons.
It is on the verge of “breaking” the U.S. Army.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Yep, something tells me the world is going to become a very dangerous place in a couple of years. They were embolded after we ran from Somalia, I can’t imagine what would happen if we run from Iraq.
Well, other than thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis and an expansion of the Perisan empire, followed by thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis…
reaganaut on July 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Heres a clip from a lefty paranoia mill. Well they really thought they had a scoop here, especially having to use all their ’sources’. I guess DORKS don’t read USA Today. Taking out Irans military and nuclear capability would gleen a two fold benefit. With Iran no longer an option Al Sadr would be weakened enough for the Sunni’s to have a semi level political playing feild. Hey all those people are crazy and hate us according to the MSM.
sonnyspats1 on July 15, 2007 at 11:11 PM
If we wait until the next president gets elected takes over and gets situated it will be to late. Once Iran goes nuclear its game over NO OPTION but APPEASEMENT see N KOREA but worse a rogue that has no master we can buy off with self destructive trade policy.
A War with Iran will not be 03′ Iraq part two it will look more like 91′ Iraq war. We are good at breaking stuff especially that infrastructure and conventional weapons. For awhile it will be real ugly with Iran pulling their terrorist card across the world but it wont stop or even slow our operations, actually on the PR front help them. Such a air campain could be done in some months with no fly zones and a UN inspection arrangement with undirect revolution support or maybe end with devestate their infastructure and direct revolution support. Either way a major ground invasion occupation would not be required.
Benefits would be immediate across the board as Iranian gov would have to redirect that money currently flowing to their proxies from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect….to rebuilding that infrastructure or quelling that rebellion/chaos. Our enemies resources are limited as well and considering we are fighting a war that is using .05% of the gen pop, around 4.5% GNP compared to the 80’s peacetime of 6%, and did I mention still a all voluntary Military.
Bottom line if we don’t do Iran all our efforts up to this point will be null and void the day Iran goes nuclear. Any war after that point that I can guarantee will come whether we like it or not will dwarf even the worst worst case senerio of doing what must be done.
I don’t think Iran would use WMD or even give such to a terrorist org (unless of course the Mullahs power is under threat) that would ensure their annihilation. The threat from Iran is that they will use that nuclear umbrella as cover to give conventional support to terrorist everywhere putting US into a impossible defensible position. Radicals believe the west to weak to do nuclear war over terrorism attacks, however I believe it just a matter of how much blood before our hand is forced and nuclear war is the result.
C-Low on July 15, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Breaking the Army? If Iraq can break the US Army you better learn to speak Arabic if you don’t already.
Break the Army. That’s a good one. What number talking point is that on the Democratic talking point memo about the war? Is it #3? I forget now. Help me out.
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:13 PM
TheBigOldDog – “Fourth, it stoked the internal divisions within Islam (divide and
conquerget the Hell out of the way!).”There now we are in agreement!
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I’ll believe it when I see it. I ain’t holding my breath.
Thomas the Wraith on July 15, 2007 at 11:14 PM
We have a winner!
FireFly on July 15, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Iran pulls Syria’s strings and the Saudis are strategic allies. Iran is the problem – fix it and the rest starts to fall into place. Israel should not be expected to do it because it will cause many more problems than it will solve.
I don’t see us running from Iraq. Pulling back from Bagdhad and letting the Iraqis do what bloodletting needs to be done to get on track may be the only real option. Since ww2 there have been ten civil wars around the world. In each of these peacekeeping efforts of third parties resulted in them becoming targets of convenience. ForeignAffairs.org has some well researched studies on this.
Bradky on July 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
TheBigOldDog – Break the Army. That’s a good one. What number talking point is that on the Democratic talking point memo about the war? Is it #3? I forget now. Help me out.
It is #1.
It will come out whose “talking point it is”.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Great, this just make me feel even more like we are on the verge of a huge very bloody war that will be fought in many places, including right here in the US. Our leaders just don’t have the resolve to see thing through anymore. With that I don’t see Bush doing anything about Iran, at least not anything big. The people in this country would just scream like never before. Maily because the listen to the media too much and just don’t get it.
boomer on July 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM
What do you base this belief they won’t use them on? Their pronouncements that they are going to wipe Israel off the map? Ahmadinejad’s belief it is his divine mission to bring about Armageddon so their Messiah can climb out the well? What is it exactly that would give you any confidence they just want it for deterrence?
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Yep. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where we aren’t openly at war with Iran and Syria. Sooner rather than later. We can strike now and expect suicide bombers in our malls and shopping centers. We can wait and watch the mushroom clouds on our TV’s along with suicide bombers in our malls and shopping centers. I think action or inaction is probably all leading to the same place. Wars and rumors of wars. If a strike now delays a nuclear war, then that seems like the way to go.
Ordinary1 on July 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
OH man sorry bout all the typos. Guess I should keep away when I’m so tired.
boomer on July 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
There is the plan being devised by General Petraeus’ staff in Iraq, which envisions a slow draw-down, paced by the Army’s troop-rotation schedule; force levels would begin to ebb in March 2008 and reach pre-surge levels six months later. And there is more radical planning in the Pentagon, which would halve the current troop levels in a year. The growing friction between Petraeus and the Pentagon brass, with the generals desperate to save their Army before it breaks, will be a story to watch in the next few months.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
boomer-
Better to have the people scream about something that saves their asses than merely screaming as their asses vaporize.
profitsbeard on July 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Whatever action is considered against Iran, I don’t think the “boots on the ground” is really a major part of it. Selective strikes to damage nuclear facilities with a focus on avoiding high numbers of casualties would be the likely approach.
Bradky on July 15, 2007 at 11:27 PM
That’s the bets you got? You’re kidding right?
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM
only to have more islamic terrorists hijack a plane a month or so later to get the killers released.
shooter on July 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM……………………I remember the specific hijacking incedent you are refering to. The Israeli special ops stormed the plane and killed those guys without hurting any or many passengers. I will search for the incident and post it here.
sonnyspats1 on July 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Raid on Antebi? great movie. Charles Bronson.
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
That just doesn’t make sense. An attack on Iran, the US and Israel are both going to get abused from the Arab world and from the UN. If the US decides that it will have to make a significant military strike on Iran and the knee jerk reaction both rhetorically and militarily will be to attack Israel, we would be stupid not to use their resources. If given the choice, the Israelis will not stay out of the situation. This is not the invasion of Iraq that is being talked about, it is a significant strike on the leading military power in the middle east after Israel, whos stated position is that Israel must be wiped out.
This is not the attack 25 years ago on Iraqs reactor. This is heavy duty, world war action and the US telling Israel to sit it out is not realistic.
peacenprosperity on July 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I’m skeptical.
WisCon on July 15, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Are you thinking about Entebbe? Happened in 76 in Uganda. Six hostages, One Israeli soldier and 45 Ugandan soldiers died but 100 hostages were saved.
Bradky on July 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I totally agree but, with the idiots we have running this country I’m afraid that’s how it’s going to start.
boomer on July 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
We can hope, as we did in Iraq, that rational opposition forces would leap into action and take over after an attack on Iran. We can sit around and hope that a revolution is ready to happen in Iran but the truth is the same postmodern affliction that is destroying the West is working in Iran. If they were ready for a revolution, a real revolution, there would be sabotage and violence ongoing. When we attack Iran they will send those thousand speedboats out into the Gulf to attack anything they see. They will send the signal to all the terrorist cells in the West to start implementing the plans.
peacenprosperity on July 15, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Bradky – “Whatever action is considered against Iran, I don’t think the “boots on the ground” is really a major part of it. Selective strikes to damage nuclear facilities with a focus on avoiding high numbers of casualties would be the likely approach.”
Agreed.
A naval blockade might be better though if it comes to it.
HELLO Iraqi people! Can you hear me?
Change you own F-ing regime and we will end the blockade.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
TheBigOldDog – “MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
That’s the bets you got? You’re kidding right?
No. Not at this moment of action.
Great sources have little sources upon which to inform ‘em,
And little sources have lesser sources, and so ad infinitum.
And the great sources themselves, in turn, have greater sources to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
TheBigOldDog, do you know Petraeus nick name amongst his troops?
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM
I was reading back through the posts and it seems that there are as many flatlander conservatives as there are liberal flatlanders. Flatlanders meaning, that this is just a bump in the road and we’ve seen this before and life and history will just keep on going. This is not Entebbe. This is not a one surgical strike deal. Hamas is ready for an offensive. Hezbollah is ready, Syria is already in Lebanon and digging in. Chavez and Ahmadinijad have been having regular meetings. Doctors are trying to blow up airports and clubs in Britian.
This is going to get very nasty.
peacenprosperity on July 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
peacenprosperity on July 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Behind every little problem there’s a larger problem, waiting for the little problem to get out of the way. – Murphy
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:53 PM
peacenprosperity on July 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
If it looks good,
And it taste good,
And it feels good,
There has got to be something wrong some where,
So be careful. – Murphy
MB4 on July 15, 2007 at 11:55 PM
TheBigOldDog
I base that belief about the Mullahs not playing the WMD card very simply on why would they have to? It would be a fact that if they go nuclear they are guaranteed nuclear retaliation/annihilation end of the Mullahs and possibly all Muslims even being allowed to exist anywhere. If Iran has just one Nuclear bomb any attack would have to start with a guaranteed successful strike on that one nuke aka MAD days of target list requiring tens-hundreds of nuclear strikes to ensure 100% kill ratio so knowing this. Say 5yrs from now we have a 9-11 event again tracking back to X Radical who is “suspected” of being inside Iran and who’s suicide bombers families received checks from Iran for their blessed works. Does anyone here really think ANY US president would attack Iran in retaliation, authorizing the required Nuclear First Strike?
The Mullahs know this full well with just one nuke they will be able to openly support terrorist actions with money and conventional weapons impervious to any retaliation unless they really overstep with say a WMD type attack that would justify a nuclear retaliation/attack from US. Israel for over a decade suffered near daily suicide bombings across Israel proper and never went genocide on the Paleo’s. You think a US bueracrat would be different? We could have a 9-11 every month for years and thier is no US president that would have the ball sack to make the massive nuclear first strike required to fight a nuclear armed Iran. Imagine something as simple as rockets for terrorist to allow daily barrages of Israeli Cities/Towns, Israel cannot physically occupy all of the ME and the more they expand simply the longer range rocket/missiles Iran provides. Same thing for our bases in the region and then N Africa, Spain, Balkans, ect…
They know this. Once Iran goes nuclear they will sit back and via attrition slowly just as the Paleo’s have done/are doing to Israel just demand appeasment after appeasement after appeasemnt until they walk the West right into oblivian.
Our ONLY options are very simply war today with survivable sacrifices or war tomorrow with sacrifices that are like nothing seen since at least the Roman times.
These guys think longterm slow and that is our weakness. My dad often used to tell me about something his grandfather used to say “A Americans will let you pull all his hair out one hair at a time BUT try to pull a handful at once and he will crush you”.
C-Low on July 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
The problem is not that a theocratic regime that has stated once it has acquired it will use them on a Israel, the danger is with those who would stop it.
I think it was Einstein who said, and I paraphrase, it is not evil men who are the real danger, it is those who recognize the evil and do nothing about it.
Buy guns.
peacenprosperity on July 16, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Why can’t we stage an attack on Saudi Arabia and make it look like the Iranians did it?…….
I would make such a great President…or dictator for life, whichever.
TBinSTL on July 16, 2007 at 12:10 AM
You are thinking like a rational person and presuming they think as you do. They are not rational. Did you bother to read the link I gave you? These people think it is their divine mission – divine mission – to bring about the end of the world and wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth in the process. They are telling us what they will do. All we have to do in return is listen.
TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2007 at 12:12 AM
The Reaper is the MQ-9. AWESOME!
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:15 AM
MB4
Say a nuclear armed Iran is openly supporting terrorist attacks on the West and US (like they are doing now just not openly or full alt). How much innocent US blood would it take before you would authorize a US nuclear first strike(on suspected Iranian WMD sites/stores) followed by a conventional war to end the future terrorist support?
peacenprosperity
It is true Hamas, Hezbollah, Mehdi Army, and lets not forget Iranian hezbollah units in both US & EU especially will go hot. Very possible Muslim Brotherhood action in Egypt and beyond or at least their deniable support. We should also expect massive Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qutar, UAE, Kuwait. A given is the Iranian’s playing the oil card with some temporary shut down of the Persian Gulf and likely missile strikes on Saudi, Kuwaiti sites. Venezuela likely will try to shut off oil for a time to help the Iranian efforts of targeting the oil weapon (maybe maybe not dictators like Chavez are not well known for keeping their word at their own peril).
All this is true and I imagine some curve balls should be expected as well. However all of this plus more is still nothing compared to what sacrifices a nuclear armed Iran will require. The threat then will be beyond the pale.
Either way I repeat our confrontation is unavoidable its just war today or war tomorrow. Once Iran goes nuclear the tomorrow part will just depend on how much innocent civilian US blood it will take until we are pushed to that point.
C-Low on July 16, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Revolutions often end with a long period of anarchy. Even if there was a successful revolution in Iran we wouldn’t be able to predict with any degree of accuracy who might wind up on top when they finally get the bomb, or who might take control after that. For all we know Iran will continue to be a hotbed of jihad long after a successful revolution, and it’s likely to get worse long before it gets better. While I would prefer that Iranians solved their own problems they have so far shown themselves incapable of doing so.
Besides, if Iranians really are as modern and reasonable as some people say they are then after we’ve eliminated their nuke program and done them the favor of toppling their oppressive government, we should be able to befriend them like we have all the other countries we have defeated in the past. Perhaps Iran and all the other nations in the region are exceptions, but better to find out now before they get their nukes.
As for allowing the next president to deal with Iran, I can understand the sentiment. At no point during the WOT has Bush shown himself to be willing to pull out all the stops and fight a war the traditional way, where victory is the objective. However, in the case of Iran, if the people are civilized as we’re constantly told, then they should be able to pick up the pieces reasonably well themselves without an occupation. We could certainly do our best to try and identify in advance those leaders who would be suited to bringing some stability back to the country after we’ve toppled their government and try to assists them wherever possible.
However, if any of the Democrats wind up being our next president I think we all know exactly what would happen: The Democrat President would dicker around with negotiations until Iran announced their first successful nuke test, (perhaps on Israel), then the Democrat president would loudly proclaim SUCCESS!—That they’ve reached common ground with the new nuclear Iran and that we are now normalizing relations with them. All’s well.
All hell would break loose soon after that.
I say, topple Iran’s mullahcracy now and either obliterate their nuke program or at least set it back several years. With the time that we’ve bought we can watch what kind of government Iranians are able to create and determine whether or not they still pose a Jihad risk.
Certainly we should end or drastically curtail Iran’s influence in Iraq before any significant withdrawal thus precluding any valid claim, (by Muslim standards), by Iran that they drove us out of Iraq.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 12:31 AM
TheBigOldDog
I am not disagreeing with you I don’t believe the Radicals rational in the least bit they by their own admission and actions are on a mission for Allah it is All or nothing in the extreme. I just don’t see how they could survive a nuclear exchange with just Israel more less US. I don’t see any senerio were they could even destroy Israel or US with a nuclear exchange with a first strike at least for decades to come.
However I can fully see Iran using terrorist proxies to harass Israeli citizens into fleeing Israel in droves and harass the West/US into turning our backs on both the ME and our allies then beyond. Islamist are historian’s they think in decades not years they understand time is on their side and our strength is hot fast brutal war and our weakness is slow grinding harassment warfare like never ending terrorism. This is the exact harassment strategy they have been following up until this point with great success, but was temporarily thrown off track because 9-11 and our offensive conventional war, a nuclear armed Iran will end our conventional option.
C-Low on July 16, 2007 at 12:36 AM
One big variable in the equation is the Iranian army. If we attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, even though it would be a strictly by air, we can expect the Iranians to come pouring over the border with Iraq en mass. There won’t be any need for them to pretend that they are just bystanders in Iraq. Unfortunately the US Army is set up in Iraq right now to fight insurgents, not fight a full-frontal war, and Bush I suspect wants to avoid that possibility. The liberals and their media stooges would have a field day with the increased US casualty figures and general increase in violence.
The irony is that by invading Iraq we have made our own Army almost hostages to the Iranians.
For those who think that Bush is going to hit Iran, I would point out that he not only has not been pressuring them publicly over it that much, he also has been downplaying the evidence and reports of direct Iranian involvement in the Iraq insurgency. That is not the actions of a President who is preparing to go to war against them. Remember he spent over a year making the case against Iraq before “rushing” to invade. His silence on Iran is even more troubling than the lack of news of any preparations to defend the border with Iran.
But I do agree with C-Low, war is inevitable, it is merely the “when” and the “how bad” that have to be determined.
Lancer on July 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM
You guys must be right. I remember being relieved and happy that the Israeli Special Forces were merciless and very effective.…..TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Bradky on July 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM Looking back at the history of this conflict tells me its time we stopped didlin around with these psychos.
sonnyspats1 on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 AM
It’s about time,the truth been known there is
no other option but the Military option.
Iran,Hamas,Fatah,and the rest of the terrorists
have been at war since they bombed the Americans
in Beurit and killed those soldiers.
What the LIB’s don’t get is that the United States
have been hit over and over a again,from the
USS STARK,USS COLE,African embessy,BLACK HAWK down,
the list goes on.
Enough already.
canopfor on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I’ve always thought that Bush would not leave office with the Iranian threat intact. But whatever is done won’t be done on the massive scale some might like to see. Take out the nuclear facilities and if the Iranians start acting froggy close the Gulf and they run out of gasoline, which would leave any troops coming to Iraq with no gas to move and be sitting ducks.
Those who wish to see all out assaults and war should also keep in mind the effect on the world economy. A global depression is not out of the realm of possibility if the entire region is aflame. The Mullahs are on thin ground and the population of Iran consists of about 60% who are under thirty and have a penchant for more western toys and in some cases decadence.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Israel deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon once the US did it’s thing.
Bradky on July 16, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Send some of the new “Reapers” over. Yah baby.
Mojave Mark on July 16, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Bradky sometimes I don’t know if I should buy you a beer or put you on a SPAM list. Sorta like cs…but that is another topic….
I just do not believe that the American public would be able to swallow a first strike (of any type) on Iran. Too many are suspicious of GW. The waters have been poisoned and that isn’t going to change. If they get froggy then that is an entirely different matter. Do I want the nuke facilties struck…yep….but will GW…I don’t think he will. Whoever gets the nod in 08 gets that problem landed square in their lap.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Lancer
I don’t think a air strike will be limited to the WMD think 91′ Gulf War. The WMD and Iranian conventional forces will be targeted but you can bet that will be followed by destruction of the Iranian infrastructure & govern control asperatus. Iran is only around 40% Persian the rest is suppressed minority groups many who many already have active insurgencies. When we hammer the Iranian conventional forces, infrastructure, and government control aperatus the Iranians will be stretched thin to just keep control of their territory more less try a major move into Iraq. Not to mention I imagine any conventional military convoy attempting to run the border would have JSTARS/B-1 tag team action see Medina division in the recent war (and that was in a freekin sand storm to boot and on the fly).
I don’t know if a revolution would succeed in Iran or even if so that revolution would favor US. Either way worst case Mullahs survive and we buy ourselves a decade or so while Iran regains control and rebuilds its infrastructure, best case that revolution pops and our guys take over.
C-Low on July 16, 2007 at 1:08 AM
I just do not believe that the American public would be able to swallow a first strike (of any type) on Iran. Too many are suspicious of GW.
Limerick, I didn’t read every comment in this thread, but I read yours because I know you to be a smart guy.
So you may be right and I could be wrong. In this case, however, I think there’s something you should consider.
I don’t believe the public distrusts GW… I think there is fatigue at the war and the press’s relentless coverage of it.
Plus how badly the war has been fought in the initial years under GW and Rummy. However, I agree with Bill Kristol that it is going better now (on the ground, not in congress or the senate) under Gates and Petraeus.
I think the American people remember GW as the person who kept them safe following 9/11. They want better results though and tire of war.
I do believe they would trust him on one last campaign if he explained his reasons for it. I think he is one of the only politicians in the U.S. who would have the credibility to do this.
He’s a decisive, disciplined man. And he has nothing to lose politically. He may do it simply because he judges it’s the right thing to do.
You can’t consider everything in a vacuum. One thing that helps now is that Bush has given war leadership over to a skilled warrior. And Gates is dynamite.
Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:26 AM
If Bush strikes Iran: in the short term a certain percentage of people in the USA will yell and scream and call Bush “Hitler”.
They are the same people who already call Bush “Hitler”.
If Bush does nothing and Fred is elected and strikes Iran, those same people will call both Bush and Fred “Hitler”.
If Clinton is elected, we’re all dead anyway, so who cares if those same people call Bush “Hitler”?
But if Bush does strike Iran and set’s their nuke capability back, history will judge him differently.
If by striking Iran and then utilizes that momentum to shut Syria down with a simple ultimatum, (or if Israel uses the opportunity to shut them down), and if he ensures that Saudi Arabia has gotten the message, then he will be able to pull off an honest victory in Iraq. That’s not to say that Iraq will find immediate stability, but they will finally have their chance. If this happens: cutting off Iranian, Syrian and Saudi ambitions and declaring a victory in Iraq, Bush’s legacy could turn out to be far more spectacular than any might now imagine.
Shamnesty and the inexcusable state of our immigration and border security will always be a big black mark, but a comprehensive old-school victory in the middle east would easily offset it.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 1:38 AM
C-Low – “MB4
Say a nuclear armed Iran is openly supporting terrorist attacks on the West and US (like they are doing now just not openly or full alt). How much innocent US blood would it take before you would authorize a US nuclear first strike(on suspected Iranian WMD sites/stores)(Assuming that, how fast can you get me to “The button”?) followed by a conventional war to end the future terrorist support?(That is a “horse of a different color”)
The Air Force and Navy have been out of the heat for a long time. Let them fight some of our wars for a change.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 1:40 AM
What he said.
Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Lancer – “Unfortunately the US Army is set up in Iraq right now to fight insurgents, not fight a full-frontal war”
Most armor was taken out of country some time ago. Our troops, in there present “embedded stance”, may be in some ways more vulnerable to the Iranians that visa versa. I know that some will think that absurd, but it is not.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 1:46 AM
TBinSTL – “Why can’t we stage an attack on Saudi Arabia and make it look like the Iranians did it?…….”
Astronomers report that a large meteor is headed toward Earth. They are currently computing the likely coordinates of impact on Earth.
Coordinates of large meteor impact announced as 21°25′N 39°49′E / 21.417, 39.817
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I’d just like to say that although I’m a huge fan of JihadWatch, (the most important site on the web, IMO), one of the things I really like about HotAir are discussions like this. Understanding the motivations of our enemies is very important, but actions win wars. Here at HotAir the conversations revolve more around strategy and tactics.
One thing I would like to add that may buy us some time in all of this is the possibility that we may have a missile defense by the time Iran gets their nukes. If it works, that’s awesome, but it’s nothing more than a backup as far as I’m concerned. I sure hope that we’re not planning on relying on it to the exclusion of preventing rogue nations, especially Islamist ones, from obtaining nukes.
It’s interesting that the Democratic Party has always been staunchly apposed to missile defense, yet I bet that if there is a Dem in the WH they will happily utilize it as an excuse not to concern themselves with trivial issues like a nuclear Iran.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Perhaps when W found out bin Laden was dead (hey – we all know it’s true) he decided the war was over and it was time to go back to Sept. 10 tactics, because that’s clearly where we are now. I realize now what this strange, empty feeling is – I miss the war.
Halley on July 16, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Well Cap’n…..BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…….as someone connected quite closely with the ‘Armor’ in Iraq all I can say is stick to atrillery ‘Captain’, Tommy Franks misses you.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM
So you are saying that all the Armor is still in Iraq? Not what I heard. There wouldn’t even be any point to keeping it all there.
BTW, I am NOT a Captain. I was a long time ago, then I got promoted to civilian.
Tommy knows what MB4 is. Tommy knows his $hit.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Over hill, over dale
As we hit the dusty trail,
And the Caissons go rolling along.
In and out, hear them shout,
Counter march and right about,
And the Caissons go rolling along.
Then it’s hi! hi! hee!
In the field artillery,
Shout out your numbers loud and strong,
For where’er you go,
You will always know
That the Caissons go rolling along.
In the storm, in the night,
Action left or action right
See those Caissons go rolling along
Limber front, limber rear,
Prepare to mount your cannoneer
And those Caissons go rolling along.
Then it’s hi! hi! hee!
In the field artillery,
Shout out your numbers loud and strong,
For where’er you go,
You will always know
That the Caissons go rolling along.
Was it high, was it low,
Where the frack did that one go?
As those Caissons go rolling along
Was it left, was it right,
Now we won’t get our beer tonight
And those Caissons go rolling along.
Then it’s hi! hi! hee!
In the field artillery,
Shout out your numbers loud and strong,
For where’er you go,
You will always know
That the Caissons go rolling along.
That the Caissons go rolling along.
That the Caissons go rolling along
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 2:31 AM
LOL……then you haven’t heard Jack ‘Captain’. Like I said….not only IS it there, it HAS been there……and it works realllllllllllllll good.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Er………..MB4….I mean ‘Captain’ the Army changed the words to that song some time ago………but you’re a ‘Captain’. You know that already.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Bradky on July 16, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Yes well I hope we learned a valuable lesson in Iraq. We need to leave the infrastructure intact and some components of government.
sonnyspats1 on July 16, 2007 at 2:38 AM
Why would all the Armor, much of which was “borrowed”, still be In Iraq? What would have been the point? You don’t need nearly as much armor for a police action/nation building/whatever as you do for an invasion.
Those words can never be changed. It is the Artillery’s song.
Limerick you seem to be in a particularly foul mood tonight.
Was it something I said or did you have a bad dinner?
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 2:41 AM
Borrowed? LOL……..’Bane’ is alive and well. ‘Bane’ has seen the sights and made the holes. ‘Bane’ has been from Kuwait City to Tal Afar and back again, and back again. ‘Bane’ is well. ‘Bane’ is hungry. ‘Bane’ is loyal.
Now as a ‘Captain’ I am giving you the word, so you’ll hear it…. ‘Bane’ is. Let Tommy know. ‘Bane’ would like that.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 2:50 AM
Hmmmmmm… Maybe it’s in code. Perhaps 80 proof. :)
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 3:02 AM
Just giving MB4 what he gives out. As our 3yr e-1, e-2, e-5, then ‘Captain’ should be able to figure out is not only what ‘Bane’ is but how ‘Bane’ got his name.
He is trying to google it now.
Again….I am feeding the troll. He is a tic and 80 proof is too good to waste on him.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 3:05 AM
Just giving MB4 what he gives out. As our 3yr e-1, e-2, e-5, then ‘Captain’ should be able to figure out is not only what ‘Bane’ is but how ‘Bane’ got his name.
He is trying to google it now.
Again….I am feeding the troll. He is a tic and 80 proof is too good to waste on him.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 3:05 AM
don’t know how I double posted….sorry
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Ahh, I see. He did have some similarly (the word escapes me at this late hour) comments in this thread. : )
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 3:11 AM
Limerick, you need to get a grip.
Think about your blood pressure.
You are becoming obsessed with me.
That is not healthy for you and it is getting irritating for me.
As our 3yr e-1, e-2, e-5, then ‘Captain’
Got something against Lieutenants? Why is that?
E1 for 2 months, E-2 for 2 months, E-5 for 6 months, O1 for 12 months, O2 for 12 months, O3 for 7 months.
Happy now?
What’s next? Do you want to know my blood type?
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Limerick – “He is a
ticflea and 80 proof is too good to waste on him.”Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 3:17 AM
E-2 to E-5 Instantly….got a commission in 10 months!!!!!!!
Well ‘Captain’ all I can say is that that ‘rack’ of yours must look pretty good on your living room wall.
Good night MB4. You might fool some. You’ll never fool this tanker.
Limerick on July 16, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Ah, is it that time of the month already? The “Bush is going to invade/attack/bother Iran” canard just keeps coming back for more. I remember the good old days when Scott Ritter said the attack would come during June. 2005.
Seixon on July 16, 2007 at 3:54 AM
Limerick – E-2 to E-5 Instantly….got a commission in 10 months!!!!!!!
Well ‘Captain’ all I can say is that that ‘rack’ of yours must look pretty good on your living room wall.
Good night MB4. You might fool some. You’ll never fool this tanker.
You are a very silly person, although entertaining in a weird sort of way, but your extreme obsession with me has reached the level where you may want to seek some form of professional counseling.
E5 was the pay grade that one had while going through OCS.
Thousands, maybe tens of thousands, did it that way. It was not anything unusual.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 4:35 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »