U.S. to Revolutionary Guards: You’re all terrorists
posted at 11:33 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
For a lot of reasons, it comes as no surprise. Robin Wright, who’s responsible for tonight’s scoop, reported five days ago that hawks had regained the momentum within the administration on all things Iran so a new escalation wasn’t unexpected. And in fact, this is just a logical next step from what’s been happening for six months. The two rounds of UN sanctions on Iran for noncompliance on its enrichment program specifically targeted the assets of the Guard’s top commanders; a parallel track of unilateral U.S. sanctions since January (around the same time Bush informally declared war on the regime) has been aimed at squeezing foreign financial institutions who deal with Iran. Formally designating the entire Guard a terrorist group will, I’m guessing, let the feds reach far beyond the commanders and squeeze even harder. Revisit this WaPo piece from April, also written by Wright, and marvel at the massive power they now enjoy within Iran under Ahmadinejad, himself a veteran of the group. Given their influence, declaring them a “specially designated global terrorist” is tantamount to applying that label to the Iranian government as a whole:
[A]lmost three decades after the 1979 revolution, the Revolutionary Guard has also become a leading political and economic force in Iran. One of its veterans, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, became Iran’s president in 2005. The force and a network of current and former commanders have also moved into Iran’s oil and gas business, won bids on major government construction contracts, and even gained lucrative franchises such as Mercedes-Benz dealerships, the sources say.
“The Revolutionary Guards are quickly emerging as the most prominent actor in Iran,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “They’re playing an increasingly active role on the domestic political scene, have enormous economic assets and interests, are a key player in the nuclear program, and are essentially running Iranian activities in Iraq and Lebanon.”
They also control WMD production. Wright adds this in tonight’s piece:
“They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines, even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling,” said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They’re developing along the lines of the Chinese military which is involved in many business enterprises. It’s a huge business conglomeration.”
Hence the designation of the entire group, to reach all branches of that conglomerate. Both WaPo and the Times in its own article on this tonight emphasize the unusual step of labeling part of a sovereign nation’s military a terrorist group, but Wright’s story in April had a bit more nuance on that point: “The Guard is separate from Iran’s conventional military — and less than one-third the size, according to [Anthony] Cordesman. Iran’s regular army, navy and air force total more than 400,000 troops. The Guard numbers about 125,000.” The Quds Force, which is part of the Guard, reports directly to Khamenei to boot. The obvious, and obviously imperfect, analogy is to the SS vis-a-vis the Wehrmacht. Which is to say, yeah, they’re military, but they’re a lot more than that, too.
The upshot of all this, unless it’s just a bargaining chip to be rescinded if and when Iran plays ball on Iraq and its nuke program, is that we’re now officially past the point of any “negotiated settlements” to the crisis with the mullahs. (As if we weren’t already.) How odd that Bush would make that move before Petraeus’s progress report, though. One of the selling points of the new strategy for the left is that we’ve begun meeting, however tenuously and painfully, with Iran to discuss Iraqi security. This is going to make the negotiations more difficult than they already were, which only makes it easier for the left to say that we haven’t made any real progress on the diplomatic front either so we might as well pack it in. Very strange.
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
About time! When is Bush going to dig in his heals again and actually do something about these guys? We have soldiers dying in the battlefield, yet we do nothing to teach Tehran a lesson.
msipes on August 14, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s secret MySpace entry:
Hi there fellow Islamic bloggers. My name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I am the great and fearless President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I was was born one of seven children to a humble blacksmith and when I was a child growing up I worked on a farm to earn extra money for my poor father and I got to know a lot of the farm animals very well. I was a real nature boy back then. I was a real animal lover. My favorites were the goats of course. I still have such fond memories of my boyhood.
Later I excelled as a student, earning my master’s degree and a Ph.D in civil engineering. I have only three wifes, but as the leader of such a great Islamic country I feel that it is time for me to take my fourth wife. If any nice Islamic ladies are reading this you should email me some time soon. You must be between the ages of 12 and 28 years old. If you are under 12 that would be alright too but you must have a note from a male relative of course.
In addition to my important duties as the Great President of the Islamic Republic of Iran I am now working on my post graduate science project, which when completed in a very few years, I will test on Evil Israel and the Great Satin America.
Who I would like to meet … …
In addition to my fourth wife, and remember if you are under 12 years old, you must have a note from a male relative, I would like to meet other dedicated members of the Great Religion of Peace, Islam of course. We can all get together after work and spend time reading inspiring passages from the Koran and comparing notes on our mutual love of farm animals. We can also go over a list of priority test sites for my developing science project. It will be a real blast!
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Why is this being announced through the media like this?
bnelson44 on August 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Uh-Oh.
“Drudge” has this story in RED CAPS as his lead story! That along with babies bibs from China containing lead paint.
OMG….We’re doomed I tell you! DOOMED!!
Lets go kick some a$$ for once, K’?
SouthernPride on August 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Kick ass how? Sometimes I think you guys live in fantasyland. There aren’t troops enough for Iraq and it’s doubtful that we could take out their reactors even with air power, and you want to go “kick ass” in Iran.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 11:49 PM
The label ‘terrorist’ doesn’t even mean anything anymore. Terrorism is only a tactic in the global Jihad against the West. Until we identify and declare war on the real enemy, these semantic games are like playing pin the tail on the donkey.
infidel4life on August 14, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Maybe time is running out for a regeim change?
bnelson44 on August 14, 2007 at 11:53 PM
When i linked to Drudge,my jaw dropped.This is a positive
step on the WOT.Kudo’s to the Bush Administration.
This should of been done after they blew up the barracks
in Beirut.
Now will see,as if we need to,how the Democrats will spin this.
canopfor on August 14, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I have always believed that the US would have been best served by an Marine invasion of Iran in 1979. (Spare me the Carter crap).
The Iranian people were still with us (as IMHO they are still today), and the “revolution” was weak, relying on the MSM to bolster their legitimacy(sp) with the rest of the world.
The Marines and the AF may well be our shirtsleve aces. If we only had the Malkins to cut them loose against those that would arm Iranian-trained “insurgents” with IEDs against US troops.
God bless um.
Nothing new here, I realize. Can we really expect regime change in Iran in Bush’s last 1 1/5 years in office? Then again, what does GW and Cheney and USA have to loose?
I’m for it. Let’s finish the job.
AZCON on August 14, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 11:49 PM
If push comes to shove, I would rather try a naval blockade first. Let the Navy do some heavy lifting for a change.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I can’t wait to see the democrats wail against this!
SouthernGent on August 14, 2007 at 11:56 PM
canopfor,
Allah pretty much just posted the Democrat’s spin. We don’t have the forces to fight Iran, and the Air Force won’t do the job (or can’t). All Bush is doing is provoking Iran. We should sit down with them and negotiate. … that or something like that will be the Democratic response.
bnelson44 on August 14, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Oh Allah, don’t believe the leftist tripe that the military is too depleted to take on anything else. We could most definitely “kick ass” in Iran if necessary. (not saying we should though)….(not yet anyway).
Ballistic on August 14, 2007 at 11:58 PM
MB4,
It might only be a bluff, but Iran said they would consider a blockade an act of war and start launching missiles at our bases in Iraq.
That would unlease our Navy and Air Forse, and I don’t think they really want that, so I don’t know if that is only a bluff.
By the way, we could always attack their oil refineries. That would put everyone in Iran in a world of hurt. Not sure that would be a good thing or a bad thing at this point.
Bush doesn’t have a lot of options if he wants to fix this mess before the next president takes office.
bnelson44 on August 14, 2007 at 11:59 PM
This, as you have written, will happen. However, as the history of Iraq proved, there will simply never be a long enough period of diplomacy. There will never be enough sanctions. There will never be enough talk. The line you correctly predict to be used, would be used if we were ten years hence. For those who are better at foreign relation concepts please explain to me how the State Dept. can classify a country as a state sponsor of terrorism, while yet excluding it’s military? I’m not trying to be flip. In other words: what actions have been committed by Iran and the rev. guard recently to have resulted in this new designation, that they haven’t been doing, in some form or another, for decades?
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Israel, who Iran has directly threatened, will take out Iran’s nuclear facilities in the very near future.
With the designation of the IRG and Quds as a terrorist entity, the US will step up efforts to choke off its funding activities which should slowly weaken the organization, to what extent and to what end no one yet knows.
A long war indeed.
CliffHanger on August 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM
yikes, should have checked the spelling before I posted that!
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Israel, who Iran has directly threatened, will take out Iran’s nuclear facilities in the very near future.
By flying over whose air space?
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Kick ass how.
Allahpundit on August14 2007 at 11:49
Allah(just kidding)have you heard of the
multiple bomb burst theory.Might be a tad overkill.
canopfor on August 15, 2007 at 12:02 AM
That has to be the quote of the year. Does the term daisycutter mean anything to you?
Sometimes I think you live in fantasyland…
rightside on August 15, 2007 at 12:03 AM
One war at a time. An invasion of Iran is counter-productive. It would burn our political capital with the Iranian people. Iran can be brought to its knees better by economic means, by the Treasury Department cutting off its supply of investment capital and, if need be, by stopping its export of oil. It’s pretty much a one-product economy. It’s a very vulnerable country.
Tantor on August 15, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Also the WaPo seems only to report on the financial restrictions that can now be used against those who help the Rev. Guard. At the practical level it seems as though this is just the next step to hopefully get Iran to blink first, rather than clearing the way for war, though it could very well lead to that. on another level, it shows that state sponsors of terrorism are no longer going to be able to fight proxy wars, at least not as easily. On the other hand, where does this place congress in terms of declaring war. If a Pres. wants war but congress doesn’t, can the pres then name that country’s army terrorists? This is very interesting, and I am sure constitutional scholars will have a few words to say on the matter.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 12:07 AM
So, dearest AP… Wanna open a can of Whoop Ass on yourself, Huh?
WHAT? Do we just sit back and allow them (Iranians) to process their radioactive materials and make themselves a little ol’ big ol’ bomb targeted straight at your lovely State of NY?
(BTW…I’m not a “guy”.)
What then? Live in fear of Iranian Islamic Terrorists with Nukes? No thank you.
By saying “Kick ass” I mean unleash our Military intelligence (YES, they still have it!) and, most importantly, the guys who really KNOW whats going on…our Troops. Declare war and keep the politicians OUT for once.
We send Space Shuttles up in space on a regular basis. How the hell can we NOT know where to bomb in Iran?
To Hell with the reprocussions of the LEFTIES, the Rosie’s & Penn’s and their Ilk and start concentrating on this Country’s future for once. If we don’t do anything, THEN we are in serious trouble. These terrorists won’t rest until we are all dead. The only solution dear AP, is to kick their asses to Kingdom Come. God willing.
There ya’ go. You got us started. Happy?
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 12:07 AM
This may interest you:
Air Force Big: Bomb Iran’s Oil?
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Daisy cutters are fuel air explosives. They are not very effective against deeply buried fortifications. They worked with caves and shallow buried fortifications. But the Iranian nuke factories are supposedly deeply buried underground under reinforced concrete.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Yeah, but giving Ahmadinejad a MOAB suppository does give us the warm fuzzies.
.
GT on August 15, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Thanks TheBigOldDog
Yea, Allah, don’t you believe Major General Charles Dunlap? He might be right.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Oh yes…
Within my “female rant” I forgot to mention 2 little words.
George Patton.
Don’t think he would have agreed with ya’! And guess who’s side I’d be on? Hmmmm….
(Enjoy the banter, AP, even if you don’t respond back!)
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM
SouthernPride,
Think less George Patton and more Admiral Nimitz
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Navy guy, are you? So was my Daddy.
However, as far as bluntness and to the point speaking, in this day and age, I’ll take Patton.
Nimitz was a fellow Texan, great man. But, I’d want Patton by my side if I had my druthers.
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 12:26 AM
And why did we go into Iraq, and not into the real terrorist state Iran? And don’t give me this crap about surrounding Iran on both sides in Afghanistan and Iraq. AP is right. We don’t have enough troops, and even we pull forces from other bases and stateside, we still won’t have enough if we do a ground invasion.
mram on August 15, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Not sure if Patton knew that much about naval blockades or bombing runs. He could run a good armor campaign, but our armor is busy right now. We have a lot of excess capacity in the Navy and Air Force.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:29 AM
mram,
We went into Iraq to tick you off. OK? Now can we get back to what we should be doing about Iran?
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:30 AM
AP-
There are so many untapped resources in the U.S. arsenal (from pysops subterfuges to EMP weapons) which would kill few, but paralyze all of Iran, that your pessimism is premature.
Almost democratically so.
profitsbeard on August 15, 2007 at 12:32 AM
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:35 AM
TheBigOldDog,
I could be wroing, but I really, really, really doubt that Iraq will give permission to Israel to use its air space to attack Iran. Even if we pressured them.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:39 AM
The time is near! Time to play clean up!
Static on August 15, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Maybe Patton didn’t have Naval smarts. And I definitely agree our Navy and Air Force are VERY underutilized in this War.
What I am getting at, more than anything, is putting the Fear of God back into these murdering thugs. As it stands right now, all they hear is the Left wing tripe being blasted thru out our MSM They are just sitting back and laughing whilest planning their next sneak IED attack.
Someone like Gen. Patton and his type ground assaults (along with his sweet speaking style), just might do wonders. These terrorists are chicken chits compared to our past enemies. Yes, they are effective, but it doesn’t take alot to scare them either. A Patton type warrior would do no harm.
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I can’t see how they could stop them really.
I’m pretty sure there’s a report floating around that says the Saudis already gave them permission to fly over their air space. If I find it, I’ll link it.
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:42 AM
And why did we go into Iraq, and not into the real terrorist state Iran? And don’t give me this crap about surrounding Iran on both sides in Afghanistan and Iraq. AP is right. We don’t have enough troops, and even we pull forces from other bases and stateside, we still won’t have enough if we do a ground invasion.
mram on August 15, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Even I don’t think that Bush is stupid enough to do a ground invasion of Iran, of course I could be wrong. Actually I think that he is just bluffing most likely.
He has already opened up a “Pandora’s Box” of unexpected consequences in Iraq, doubt that even he wants to open up a potentially bigger one in Iran to boot.
MB4 on August 15, 2007 at 12:46 AM
A war against Iran would likely be very different, with different goals and objectives. A war against Iran would be more like GW1: destroy their war making capability and walk away.
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Wrong. You are thinking of MOABs; The BLU-82 is a conventional explosive bomb.
I’ll agree though that they aren’t a penetrator though.
What
was probably thinking of was the BLU-113 or BLU-122 or the new massive penetrator that I don’t know the designation or secs of, but has been developed just for this mission.
AP, I’m surprised at you. What do you want to do, negotiate? Kick the can down the road instead of kicking butt, and let ‘HilBama’ (or whoever) deal with it? Hope that the anti-mullah students will overthrow the government?
I agree that it is unfair to ask our conventional troops to invade and pacify. (They could use a couple years of rest.)
But our high tech warriors haven’t gotten a lot of exercise lately, and our SpecOps guys love a challenge, and that is pretty much all we need to keep Ahmadinejad, the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard from building and deploying nuclear weapons.
LegendHasIt on August 15, 2007 at 12:55 AM
This was mentioned in the original article:
Iran Counter-Proliferation Act
A bill to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM
It would still be something of a “Pandora’s Box”, but a much smaller one anyway. Just might be worth it depending on how far they are from a deliverable nuc. They seem to be a few years away so I would try other things first.
MB4 on August 15, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Maybe we could just pay the Russians about ten billion dollars, with another one billion dollars on the side for Putin, to sabotage the Iranian nuc program.
MB4 on August 15, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Penetration is not needed. Drop one on the complex, and you’ll destroy enough support buildings to set them back for quite some time. Believe it or not, reactors need air, water and electricity to run. Level those buildings, and they won’t be producing squat.
rightside on August 15, 2007 at 1:07 AM
LegendHasIt,
thanks
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM
rightside,
Do they have a functioning reactor yet? Right now they are refining uranium with centrifuges.
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Do I understand you correctly? Do you honestly believe another “scary” Bill from our merry band of U.S. politicians will bring Ahmadinejad and his cronies to their knees?
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 1:10 AM
RE: My 12:55: Sorry for the bad grammar and leaving the ‘p’ out of sPecs (specifications).
LegendHasIt on August 15, 2007 at 1:13 AM
This I believes solves the argument between Petreaus(DOD) vs Condi(State) over the top ranking Quds boys that were yoked up.
Very very good development and a good next step towards either getting compliance or if so required further action (which we all now is the answer, but warm fuzzes require doing the dance first).
I hope we put the cherry on top and not just cut funds but go full alt and round up RG boys around the world. Eyeballs swivel to Lebanon, Europe.
Off subject but I will repeat something I have stated long ago, “we cannot pull our forces out of Iraq until we at least spot check Iran”. That check in my view will be heavy see GW1 bombardment of WMD, governmental control, military, infrastructure, then followed by no fly zones and either A) rebellion forms we support SOF or B) we sign cease fire establishing inspections with teeth and no fly zones.
C-Low on August 15, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Designating the Pasdaran a terrorist org is a stroke of genius.
We will never “invade Iran”. We will simply help the Freedom loving Iranians remove the hated Pasdaran.
Simply genius.
faraway on August 15, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Surely “negotiations” with Iran are nothing but a flimsy charade, on both sides? Something else has been going on under the table that the public isn’t privy to.
Halley on August 15, 2007 at 1:29 AM
And why the hell wasn’t this done 6 years ago? Was Iran’s Revolutionary Guard kinder and gentler then?
’tis much that is unfathomable….
Halley on August 15, 2007 at 1:34 AM
SouthernPride for president!
Kaptain Amerika on August 15, 2007 at 1:49 AM
I agree, an air campaign could easily cripple their entire country with in days… along with their nuclear production, oil production, fuel production… they would implode from within… we never invade but only support their moderate parties…
and as far as not enough troops to fight…
I volunteer!
Kaptain Amerika on August 15, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Uhh..that isn’t crap. It isn’t hard to look at a map and actually see why it’s strategic to own a base or two or three in Iraq in the ME.
Highrise on August 15, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan; it’s all the same war, a world war. Only modern people who have been thoroughly brainwashed into the oblivion of nuance could believe otherwise. The enemy doesn’t reside within the boundaries of any single nation; it’s a multination force of Islamic Jihadis who are unofficially supported by several nations with additional contributions from sympathetic Muslims all around the world.
The single biggest reason why our ground strength in Iraq has been insufficient is because of the unprecedented mission that we’ve defined for ourselves. We are trying to avoid fighting a world war by instead invading and rebuilding two proxy nations before the real, overarching war has even been won. Of course it’s going to take a lot of troops, in spite of the massive power that our armed forces now posses.
What we are trying to accomplish in Iraq is like trying to chill one portion of a cauldron of boiling water.
We can’t allow Islamists to get nukes regardless of the cost. I’ll leave it up to the experts to decide the best way to accomplish this with the least risk to ourselves while preserving our standing in the international community to the greatest extent possible, but it has to be done no matter what.
We also have to prevent Pakistan from developing or otherwise obtaining ICBM’s that can reach our homeland, at least until we’ve resolved the Pakistan part of the equation. At some point it may be necessary to secure Pakistan’s nukes, again, no matter the cost. (Let’s hope not.)
Some of the comments here have already brought up some good options, such as eliminating Iran’s refineries. Our next negotiation with Iran should start by laying that option on the table. When the negotiations fail, which they will, we destroy one of their refineries. Next time we start the negotiations by pointing out that the rest of their refineries are now on the table, (I don’t know how many they have), plus, we’ll up the ante with one naval blockade. A few iterations of this and negotiations are over one way or the other.
Destroying Iran’s refineries may be enough to elicit regime change in Iran, but if not, and we have enough confidence where all of Iran’s essential nuclear facilities are buried, our air force may be able to complete the job alone. First we bomb any surface facilities out of the way. Then we use conventional bunker busters to dig a hole as deep as possible. Then we drop a nuclear bunker buster in the pit.
Short of nuclear bunker busters, once we use our air force to destroy surface facilities and diminish Iran’s military assets in their vicinity, we could conceivably send in our special ops and initiate a limited occupation of Iran’s nuke sites. Iran’s mountains can work to our advantage as well.
The only reason we would require anything resembling a full-scale ground invasion of Iran would be if our intelligence indicated that they have critical nuke facilities that we’ve been unable to locate.
Whatever we do, next time lets wait until after we’ve won the war before we start the rebuilding. At least we should wait until the enemy is sufficiently weakened that their capability to interfere with our rebuilding efforts are nil.
FloatingRock on August 15, 2007 at 1:57 AM
If anyone hasn’t been paying attention lately, Iran has been under economic warfare from the US for years. Iran has oil, but no gas. Does anyone think that’s any coincidence? I believe the US is not the only country manipulating Iran’s economy, I believe the Saudis are working that angle also. With us or not, I’m not sure.
Either way, the Guard is no threat to us, except what incursions into Iraq have been done. Our best attack plan in Iran is fueling a culture war against the ruling mullahs from within.
It’s my humble opinion, am I naive? evian?
Kini on August 15, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Good point - Going to Iraq was the right idea - the execution of the peace wasn’t thought out well. Kind of like you break it you buy it. Ditto Iran. There are economic means to hurt them more. I don’t think even the Iranians believe that if they fired on Iraq due to a blockade Bush would spend a whole lot of time dithering at the UN.
But that’s just one opinion. You are spot on about the troops - just not enough to occupy both countries. Even if the moon turned to cheese and a draft were implemented it takes a good year to move a draftee from barber shop to tip of the spear in the fight.
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 2:13 AM
By declaring them to be terrorists, Bush has opened the door to direct military attacks of their camps, barracks, training facilities, storage depots, air and naval, and headquarters facilities in Iran, not just squeezing their cash flow.
I don’t think that this is a bluff on Bush’s part. Bush may have actionable intelligence that the guards are up to something and he intends to preempt or counterstrike.
Or it may be bombast and empth rhetoric.
Only time will tell.
georgej on August 15, 2007 at 2:31 AM
The strongest weapon Iran wields to deter an attack is the likelihood that they will attempt to destroy all of the oil facilities within their grasp, disrupting the world economy. Also, we may be faced with a rash of jihad attacks in the USA and abroad. If we attack Iran we may have to resort to internment camps again, unless our intelligence is good enough that we’ve been able to identify all or most of their agents, which seems unlikely.
IMO, it has to be risked before Iran gets nukes, but if our intel can confidently demonstrate that Iran won’t have nukes for a few more years, we should increase our efforts toward a missile shield for the oil fields in the region and other facilities to whatever extent necessary to eliminate or at least greatly diminish that aspect of the threat before an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. It should be done on Bush’s watch because it’s too dangerous to leave something so critical up to a possible Democrat successor.
Also, if we can downplay our capabilities and boost Iran’s confidence before an attack, they may hold off using such tactics thinking, like Saddam, that they may be victorious.
FloatingRock on August 15, 2007 at 2:31 AM
I meant within their reach.
FloatingRock on August 15, 2007 at 2:35 AM
I wouldn’t call it kick the can, but I’d prefer that Iraq be arranged such that it isn’t a powder keg going off behind or in the midst our guys and gals if we did need to have a show down with Iran.
To me that means a pretty good clean out of the interior along with some assurance stability would hold up so that enough IA and INP were free to establish blocking of the Syrian border and close in monitoring of the Iranian one as a second tier/reserve.
I’d have to say that would be late Winter to early Spring as the soonest we could act. That timeline would have the benefit of, among other things, 6 months of additional Iraqi security enlistment, training, and positioning as well as some more steps up in experience, self-sufficiency and independence of operation.
My guess, for lack of any other offhand motive for this announcement, is because we are moving into territory where Qods are more likely operating — along the border. The announcement, then, is advance explanation why we will be killing them as we progress into the next stages of Phantom Thunder, etc. It may also be that we have a ton of intel on these guys and are close to moving on the Qods part of the Qods/JAM network, a part which has been somewhat out of our reach up to now.
Another reason that occurs to me, and correct me if I’m off here, is that Qods are better established in the South, where the Brit government has eff’d up Royally, are now pulling their troops out of, and it looks like we will have to fill that vacuum. If so, then this is again a warning of what Qods should expect there, too.
BTW, wasn’t it Qods that announced about a year ago that they were creating corps of suicide bombers to teach the Great Satan a lesson if they were attacked, something like a million strong? Even if most of that was bluster, I’d still expect our folks would take it seriously and need to account for it in any plans. I expect part of that accounting is having established some control of the Iranian border before we hit anything in Iran.
Dusty on August 15, 2007 at 2:45 AM
That’s a great question, which begs the question, why are they in such a hurry to refine it, with a non working reactor?
Even precision Tomahawk strikes would be enough to cripple their program for a while.
rightside on August 15, 2007 at 2:48 AM
I have no doubt that military could do the job. Look at the historic speed and efficiency in which they prosecuted their mission in the opening days of Iraq. If I remember correctly, it was the fastest and most decisive execution by an armed force against another in history. American Military working at its finest and it deserves to be proud of that.
The occupation and rehabilitation of the nation is what’s the bugger and even the most supportive of this phase of the War on Terror (count me in those ranks) must admit that it is what is focusing our manpower and materials. We won the war, it’s the occupation (however temporary) that is killing us.
We could steamroll Iran in record time, I am certain. Unless the Iranian people would be poised to install a newly minted government to handle the transition, unless the people as a whole are ripe for revolution and change, then we would find ourselves weighed down with another country sluggishly and reluctantly learning to stand up for itself.
Taking down Iran would be wonderful, removing a menace and sponsor of terrorism. Absolutely. It is just the management of the country after we got it that is the problem.
Texan on August 15, 2007 at 4:51 AM
Also today, another story that will be totally ignored by the MSM regarding Iran and it’s deranged so-called President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
Nah… they don’t want to take over the world or anything. Heck, the lefty libs are right, we’re just paranoid. There’s no danger here.
SilverStar830 on August 15, 2007 at 4:59 AM
The last numbers I saw for the military was two million and there are less than two-hundred thousand in Iraq. We have Iran sandwiched between two countries being used for US operations. We have an air force with plenty of resources, a Navy not engaged anywhere else on the globe and plenty of boots to put on the ground.
Iran has been asking for it since seventy-nine and we have let them go as far a we can without them control the entire region. They are killing our soldiers, and everyone knows it. They are playing the same game the Russians played in North Korea. The Soviets had the A-bomb, but Iran doesn’t, yet. The time is now. Taking out Iran’s leadership is also key to success in Iraq.
Hening on August 15, 2007 at 7:36 AM
The revolutionary guard will have to be renamed revelation-ary guard
When they come to the realization that they have been Pwn3d in less than a week.
They are gonna hate ol’ dinerjacket for starting this.
TheSitRep on August 15, 2007 at 7:43 AM
The last numbers I saw for the military was two million and there are less than two-hundred thousand in Iraq. We have Iran sandwiched between two countries being used for US operations. We have an air force with plenty of resources, a Navy not engaged anywhere else on the globe and plenty of boots to put on the ground.
Hening on August 15, 2007 at 7:36 AM
I quite agree with Hening!
And yes, they not only have been asking for it since 1979, but we’ve been in a state of “unofficial war” with them ever since (it was an act of war for them to take our embassy staff hostage, you know) and we definitelyt stepped up the rhetoric when President Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil back in 2001!
Jen the Neocon on August 15, 2007 at 7:48 AM
After the “Peace Dividend” drawdown in the nineties the number of uniformed personnel is a little over a million. The drawdown and subsequent cuts have taken it FROM 2M in the late 80’s. Global Reach Global Power requires wide dispersement of all the services.
Just not as rosy as you are interpreting from the numbers. Iran is a big deal and we only need to look as far as Iraq (the second time) to realize what we would need for a sustained fight.
There was debate before the drawdowns as to whether we were capable of fighting a two front war (Korea and Europe) simultaneously. The military doctrine was written on that premise. Once the Cold War was over the DoD began revising what it’s missions are. Reducing numbers of troops seemed like the smart thing (to some) to do at the time under. Clinton.
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 7:55 AM
This was done to strangle them economically.
Watch, it will be fun to see the Mullahs dither while Iran’s economy collapses further.
Iran is already rationing gasoline, since they can’t refine their own.
See Ace’s thread for an awesome discussion of this move by Bush.
Stormy70 on August 15, 2007 at 8:28 AM
We are so past “diplomacy.” Iran is killing Americans in Iraq. Iran is waging war on Israel through Hezbollah. (At least they were last Summer, and likely will be again before this Summer is over.) President Bush told the Iranians that there would be consequences for providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Like you say AP, this action against the Revolutionary Guard is the next logical step. Iran is pushing it. If we do nothing, they are emboldend. If we bomb their refineries, oil will quickly be north of $100 a barrel. This seems like a good interim step. However, Ahmedideminejhad is looking for a fight. I imagine he’s going to get it eventually. Hopefully, we’ll be ready to win. Iran really wants to throw the world into turmoil. They believe it will hasten the return of the “12th Imam” They may yet get their wish. (the turmoil part) We’ve been playing defense a long time. Iran may force us to go to offense. It’s likely to get ugly, no matter who is President or what path we choose.
Ordinary1 on August 15, 2007 at 8:31 AM
The “you break it you buy” idea applied to warfare is idiotic at best. We have no obligation to fix Iran if by their government actions they force war with US. In fact if anyone looked at history as a guide rather than just use “progressive” idiocy it is the opposite via the loser is forced to payback the victor for having to defeat the loser either by direct compensation, ongoing payments, or colonialization and taking of resources.
It is true that we don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy Iran as a whole without firing up a draft to build up the military for the occupation. We do have enough soldiers to make small grabs (think Gulf islands and maybe the SE oil fields) and maybe “thunder run” type moves deep into Iran. The Navy and Air force is still untapped and long fully stocked back up since the opening days of Iraq phase.
Iran is just like Iraq and the rest of the ME the entire place is a house of cards that is held together via their military and police state system. A major air campaign think GW1 targeting Iran could achieve many goals…
1) WMD programs set back years maybe decades
2) re-establish US perception of dominance in ME
3) Bring Iranian conventional forces down to more easily containable problem, read via neighboring allies and a US basing stores not soldiers like in Kuwait.
4) The destruction of the infrastructure would force Iran to spend billions upon billions at home to get back to basic requirements and rebuild their conventional force and police state forces. Those are resources Iran doesn’t have, so cuts especially in their foreign proxy networks would be required or they would face even more amplified internal strife. Blaming the Big Satan wont work when Hezbollah is still getting half a billion a year checks and citizen Fadilla in Iran has to drive a hour extra everyday because the bridge has not been rebuilt.
5) The Quds and Revolutionary Guard boys currently on offense all over the ME and beyond will have to come back home to re-secure the homefront. Balouch in the SE, shiaARAB in the SW, Kurd in the NW, Azeri in N, Westernized persian Youth movement across the middle, all are held down by the Iranian police state. After a air campaign communications, transportation, and government military/police are heavily degraded those groups will be both pissed and free to move. Irans Iraq would be in Iran.
Negatives:
1) Their will be a major flash of terrorism across the ME and possibly into EU and US. Their will be civilian losses however Iran will have to weigh its terrorist moves carefully major attacks may just result in more western solidification against Iran allowing even more military rope.
2) Hezbollah, Mehdi will rise up possibly Syria, and some of the other Shia pops across the ME. None of these will succeed and all will be beaten back either by the government police states of their nations or via outside powers military forces see Hezbollah/Mehdi forces.
3) OIL will temporarily go through the freekin roof. Venezuela will very possibly go for a temporary embargo. Iran will likely sink some tankers Insurance will become un-attainable on the tankers in the Gulf we will have to back it instead. The oil will flow out but you can easily expect a temporary increase think 1-3months 1st month highest jump with a slow decrease from there after speculative markets realize a handful of sunk tankers really is meaningless in the big picture. Venezuela if they even do honor their threat and embargo wont be able to sustain it. The effects of the US/EU/World economies will be hard felt and very likely recession or even depression (of course the recession part seems to be coming anyway so maybe Iran becoming the scape goat wouldn’t be so bad anyway).
Even with those negatives which are going to be painful and cause mild panic in some circles for a time are absolutely nothing compared to the Negatives the day after Iran gets their nuclear umbrella to safely openly aggressively support their terrorist proxies across the globe. That day expect all those negatives above times 100 and not lasting months but years. You cannot play Russian roulette with someone who is suicidal.
Knowing all of this I would be surprised if we initiated action I think Iran will overstep before we are forced to take action. War with Iran will not be without cost like the war in Iraq has been by any military historical measure a cake walk. I think we can expect the pressure to be slowly turned up on Iran and their proxies until they overstep. One day we will wake up to news of some overstep action here or their that will be followed in short order of domino news up to our defensive retaliation being drug into war.
C-Low on August 15, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Boy, Hot Air’s readership is really pissing Allah off lately. When are you retards gonna get hip to AP’s knowledge and open your minds a bit to what your intellectual superiors on the Left are telling you? Huh?!
Military options are off the table with regard to Iran and we just need to accomodate ourselves to the reality of a nuclear Iran. The sooner the better, so we can all get on with the more important work of limiting greenhouse gas emmissions.
Fred on August 15, 2007 at 9:50 AM
It’s about time.
No disrespect, AP, and not that it’s a walk in the park, but I think we have all kinds of air and naval power capable of inflicting effective damage in Iran.
CP on August 15, 2007 at 10:16 AM
“Kick ass how? Sometimes I think you guys live in fantasyland. There aren’t troops enough for Iraq and it’s doubtful that we could take out their reactors even with air power, and you want to go “kick ass” in Iran.
Allahpundit on August 14, 2007 at 11:49 PM”
Allah “DOUBTFUL” I beg to differ see below…
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mopping-up-the-usas-30000-pound-bomb-03172/#more
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Northrop_Grumman_Begins_Work_To_Equip_B_2_Bomber_With_Massive_Penetrator_Weapon_999.html
And also don’t forget something. We have both special forces (which may or may not be capable of such a large scale operation) and we also have a type of forces that were made just for such operations. Rangers, Green Barets, ect… were originally developed to be used as units that could be inserted deep behind enemy lines destroy facilities then be extracted. Just because the military has not done or had the opportunity to make such a move since Korea doesn’t mean our forces quit training the capability. Worst case scenario Allah accepting your assumption that we cannot bomb those tunnels effectively which I disagree we would go with the ranger airborne type operation.
People don’t really understand or comprehend just how overwhelmingly powerful and capable the US armed forces are. The problem is not capability the problem is political leadership with a sack big enough to leverage that capability and stomach some acceptable risk.
C-Low on August 15, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Iran Revolutionary Guards chief vows to defeat U.S. in Iraq (repost from 2005)
bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 10:59 AM
The 12th Imam can kiss my ass. Any action against Iran calls for a drink.
aengus on August 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Southern is my wife, all I can say is GOD HELP US!
conservnut on August 15, 2007 at 9:07 PM
No Dear….Its ALLAH help us! Haven’t you kept up with the H.A. posts today?
Would you rather have me or Hildog in your bed?
Hmmmmm…..
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 9:19 PM
God Bless America!
CHEERS!
SouthernPride on August 15, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Floating Rock-
Nice turn of a phrase.
And I think, scientifically, it can be done.
If nanotubes can passively regulate cell metabolism, turning on an off as needed, why not?
And what if two competing mahdis suddenly showed up?
The disappeared again?
Why shouldn’t we play their eschatological games against them?
Is it Madhi Gras time?
profitsbeard on August 16, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Thanks
That would be quite hilarious to say the least.
FloatingRock on August 16, 2007 at 2:04 AM