Video: Bolton “absolutely” hopes U.S. is planning to hit Iran within next six months; Update: They’re not going to stop, says new NIE on Iran

posted at 9:38 am on August 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

From yesterday’s “America’s Newsroom.” Why now, instead of waiting to give an exhausted military time to catch its breath and rebuild, a war-weary public distrustful of the president a chance to elect someone it has more confidence in, a disgruntled Iranian population the opportunity to push the regime towards acquiescence, and the scientific community some space to develop weapons that might actually do the job? Only Bolton knows.

Update: Then again…

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I interviewed a Colonel who is in the Green Zone in Baghdad on Tuesday. He told me what has been reported here and elsewhere. Iran’s Quds Force (part of the Revolutionary Guard) are training insurgents in Iran and sending them back into Iraq. There are Iranian weapons that are being used against our soldiers. EFPs (roadside bombs that penetrate our armor) are killing and maiming our troops on the ground. Seems to me we are already at war with Iran, and they started it. I’m with Ambassador Bolton. I hope it’s true too, and frankly, a military response to Iran is overdue. I don’t think it’s long before we rain some bombs on select targets in Iran.

Ordinary1 on August 23, 2007 at 9:50 AM

With the guard already engaged and increasing our troubles in Iraq, how long do we ignore it?

sunny on August 23, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Gawd

He’s such an unapologetically mean old bastard isn’t he?

Still, I disagree with him on Iran. Pain in the ass that they are, the Persians are still containable.

Folks who want to attack Iran now don’t seem to have a plan in mind. You can’t just air war these dudes and expect their efforts in Iraq to go away. And we don’t have the boots to invade right now (although we’re certainly strategically positioned to do so).

Best way to do this is to hook up CIA paramilitaries and A-Teams with their underground, and work them from the inside.

John from OPFOR on August 23, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Ya lets just go to war with everyone. They better get that draft going first. I don’t think our states latest flip flopper for presidents kids are standing in line to join up.

I love how every politician thinks they can follow the John Kennedy Massachusetts to DC path. You think Mitt would have learned by Dukakis, and Kerrys attempts that this country will never vote in another Masshole. Not that Mitt is really from Mass, he’s wasn’t a governer in real life, he just played one for the TV.

Back to the subject, I love Bolton. But opening up another front in the war reminds me of Hitlers same mistake with the eastern front.

Masscon on August 23, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Why now…?

Yeah AP, lets wait til Hillary or even better, Hussein gets in. Good grief…

JWS on August 23, 2007 at 10:02 AM

It’s like having children, there is no good time. If you wait until conditions are perfect, you find yourself 50 and childless in the blink of an eye.

TheBigOldDog on August 23, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Let us all thank the tireless work of the Left for so skewing “world opinion” against any use of American force to fight Islamofascism, that the greatest military in history, with the most powerful weapons ever built, finds itself backed into a corner with only bad-to-worse options.

Halley on August 23, 2007 at 10:12 AM

But opening up another front in the war…

Isn’t it reasonable to say that this other front has already been opened? By Iran. For years now.

I contend that one of the Bush Administration’s mistakes was to fail to recognize the regional nature of this conflict (i.e. Syria and Iran) and attend to those regime’s machinations earlier.

With respect to military options against Iran, I think its clear (or ought to be) that they will not be Powell-esque “your break it, you bought it”, as we’ve seen in Iraq. It will “we break it, they fix it”. Shock and awe without the boots on the ground and extensive “nation building” effort.

Or have all the “neocons” and former hawks now simply accepted the reality of a nuclear Iran as inevitable?

Fred on August 23, 2007 at 10:13 AM

If this is an attempt at sabre-rattling to pressure Iran to stop meddling in Iraq, it is destined to fail. The mullahs operate under a religious “manifest destiny” that will not be curtailed by mere talk.
With that said, I don’t think we can do much about it, militarily.
What a craptastic situation we have here!

common sensineer on August 23, 2007 at 10:13 AM

If they’re not engaging Syria, they won’t engage Iran. I like the idea (John from OPFOR) of working with their underground.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

It’s like having children, there is no good time. If you wait until conditions are perfect, you find yourself 50 and childless in the blink of an eye.

TheBigOldDog on August 23, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Agreed on both counts – and you just opened my eyes. I’m getting busy with Mrs. Blather tonight. Time to quit waiting. Thanks. (Yeah, I’m serious. You put it well!)

As for Iran … bombs away. The only reasons to wait involve domestic politics. If we have any real intention (or the requisite will) to stop a nuclear Iran from happening, time to get ‘er done.

We won’t, though. And in a couple years, you’ll get the hilarious pleasure of hearing liberals blame Bush when Iran tests its first nuke. Poor guy can’t win at this point. No matter what he decides to do.

I gotta go throw out some birth control pills now.

Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Well if…and that is a big if….we get the gumballs to hit em then Israel better be hitting Syria at exactly the same moment.

Nuke plant, leadership, refinery, and the bridges. In a mountainous country like Iran the bridges alone would put their economy in a total deep freeze.

I just pray that someone is thinking about what comes after such a strike this time because it is going to be one heck of a mess.

Limerick on August 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM

I prefer the Powell strategy, paraphrasing,

“We’re going to cut it off, then were going to kill it.”

captivated_dem on August 23, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Isn’t it reasonable to say that this other front has already been opened? By Iran. For years now

Yes, Agreed. The front does exist. But other than by Air, we would truly have to have a draft before we can attack anyone full out. So unless we are just going to piss them off a little, the whole point is moot without the draft.

Seems this whole thing just keeps getting deeper, and deeper.

Masscon on August 23, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Doesn’t Iran only have 1 oil refinery. All you have to really do is ensure an ..uh.. accident there that obliterates it and their economy is crippled. Game over.

lorien1973 on August 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Iran’s IRG Quds are openly aiding Iraqi insurgents and some of you want to continue fomenting civil unrest to the point where the Iranian regime topples from the inside? How long will that take?

ANSWER: Too long, if it ever happens at all.

Iran is in a proxy war with us in Iraq today. It took us 30+ years and too many innocents being killed before we went to war with Islamofascism, and we won’t even call the war by it’s correct name.

How about we send an ‘airmail’ message and drop it on a division of IRG somewhere deep inside Iran today?

CliffHanger on August 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Why won’t Bolton run for President? I’d be very interested in his campaign.

Tim Burton on August 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Funny how you’re all assuming Iran and Syrian forces will fight us directly. Ha!

CliffHanger on August 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM

If our current administration doesn’t strike back against the mullahs and their minions in the revolutionary guards, heaven forbid a dhimincrat gets elected. It will be too late to end their nuke program in 2013. Our military may be stretched a little here, but we still have several thousand troops in Germany that could be redeployed. The Germans don’t want them in their country anyway, right?

But a “shock and awe-shiite” campaign there could solve some of our problems here in Iraq. But this time, let the locals rebuild their country on their own nickel… not the U.S. taxpayer.

Texas Nick 77 on August 23, 2007 at 10:34 AM

I have a new idea for a Fox reality show. Battle of the ‘staches – Geraldo vs. Bolton. The winner gets their own TV show. I would love to see Bolton b*tch slap Geraldo while learnin’ him some immigration law.

jeffNWV on August 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM

I have learned to trust Bolton on foreign relations. I think he’s probably right about Iran. But if we attack Iran, the war at home will intensify exponentially as well. The anti-war movement would erupt into riots in the streets. I don’t see any way there would be any popular support at all for such a move.

aero on August 23, 2007 at 10:39 AM

I tell ya, the situation is just plain getting out of control. Are we really planning to stay in Iraq? Don’t you hawks think we should answer that question BEFORE we attack yet another Middle East country???
Gees Louise, at this rate we’ll be at war with more people than we have friends….It MAY be beneficial to study a little history before you’re allowed to get elected or appointed to a public office, apparently people seem to think this is the first time all this stuff has ever been done or something.

KMC1 on August 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Is it just me, or has Iran been the target all along?

yo on August 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Iranian nuclear facilities… BOOM. Iranian oil fields and refineries… BOOM. Revolutionary Guard bases… BOOM. Then we could stop for awhile and see what Abberdabberjean has to say then. If that didn’t have the intended effect, we can always select some more targets.

We can’t allow them to continue to attack us and it cost them nothing.

Maxx on August 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM

apparently people seem to think this is the first time all this stuff has ever been done or something.

KMC1 on August 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Are you referring to Korea and/or Vietnam, Germany WWII?

sunny on August 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Is it just me, or has Iran been the target all along?

yo on August 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM

It’s not just you. I have long considered Iraq to be a proxy war between us and Iran. If it hasn’t always been a proxy war for us, it certainly has been for Iran. That’s their MO. They’re doing it to Israel in Lebanon (via Hezbollah), and they’re doing it to us in Iraq. Our leadership is beyond stupid if they’re not aware of who the real enemy is in the Middle East.

aero on August 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Allah, when, exactly are we going to “give an exhausted military time to catch its breath and rebuild”? After we withdraw from Iraq? Wouldn’t that make it a little bit more difficult to do anything with Iran?

Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Poor guy can’t win at this point. No matter what he decides to do.

If this is the case, he might as well go down as war monger and keep Iran from getting nukes.

jp on August 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM

U.S. troops out of Iraq! … And into Iran!

Tony737 on August 23, 2007 at 10:58 AM

As for Iran … bombs away.

Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM

My sentiments exactly.

Bolton just might be the smartest guy on the planet regarding this issue.

infidel4life on August 23, 2007 at 11:01 AM

It MAY be beneficial to study a little history before you’re allowed to get elected or appointed to a public office,

It may be beneficial to study a little history before being allowed to vote.

CliffHanger on August 23, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Our leadership is beyond stupid if they’re not aware of who the real enemy is in the Middle East.

I think the Administration is aware of it. Dunno ’bout anyone else; but, the strategy makes sense: there was a natural reason to be in Afghanistan, and then a legal reason to be in Iraq – why not take advantage of it?

“Partner” with Pakistan, hold presence in Afghanistan, divide Syria and Iran, defang Libya, give Lebanon/Hezballah to Israel, and then get diggin’.

The Iranians aren’t stupid, of course, so they send Hezballah out to test tactics/Israeli forces (as well as American commitment), last summer; construct a presence in Iraq to proxy for them and “weaken” US forces (as well as a platform from which they can pounce, should the need arise).

Is Maliki’s foot-dragging part of the mix for Iran (consideration to his relationship with Iran)?

Is the threat to Musharaf a blow for his support for the US, or a protectionist endeavor in Iran’s favor?

It’s not too much a stretch to see how Russia and China wouldn’t be thrilled by a democratic middle east, but what’s Turkey’s role in all of this?

Dunno. But too much coffee, not enough sleep and a healthy dose of paranoia can produce these types of thoughts.

… forgive my rambling.

yo on August 23, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Off Topic question:

Who wins in a fight between Bolton’s mustache and Geraldo’s?

thirteen28 on August 23, 2007 at 11:09 AM

A hard strike against the Revolutionary Guard and the military installations would be a clear demonstration to the Iranian opposition who are perceived enemies are.

The risk is unifying Iran against an aggressor, but it’s clearly time to start killing some of the Iranians who are killing our soldiers and training, supplying and shielding our enemies. This may actually be the real motive behind the surge: more troops in theatre for the strike.

Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 11:09 AM

The social / religious culture of the mideast ONLY respects strength…

When my enemy retreats, I advance… when my enemy is strong… I retreat…

Problem is that we ARE strong and have been retreating. We have sent them the wrong messege… and its time to get back on messege.

The Iranian economy is a mess. If you take out infrastructure (refineries, bridges) and the nuclear plants while degrading the Qud’s force… you won’t have to invade.

Just like North VietNam with Linebacker 2, folks become much more reasonable once you’ve pounded their economies back to the stone age.

Romeo13 on August 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Who wins in a fight between Bolton’s mustache and Geraldo’s?

thirteen28 on August 23, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Bolton’s … by a nose.

Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM

A war weary public, a military that has been stretched for a long time are all true, but when do we finally take on Iran?

Do we wait until they kill our troops? Oh wait they are already doing that in Iraq and before such as by proxy in Beirut as well as other areas.

Do we wait until they use training, weapons and influence to attack Israel with the goal of destroying all those that live there? Oops they are doing that already.

Do we wait for them to tumble Musharraf and use his Nukes to wipe Israel off the map?’

I guess we can let all that go, wait a few more years until they have funded enough terrorists to come over and kill 60,000 of us. Then maybe we can take them if we have any urge to fight anymore.

As for the fight in Iraq, STOPPING IRAN interference is or should be a goal right now, so how does hitting the Republican Guard deter our efforts there?

I don’t want us fighting everyone, but the reality is if we don’t face this now we leave it to our children to deal with this, and by then the costs are more cutting then they are now.

Someone mentioned History above, my interpretation tells us that if we appease and we negotiate with those that are evil the eventual war will far surpass the violence and destruction that a few strikes could have changed. If you are speaking of the Germans opening to many fronts, well recall that they wanted to conquer not stop forces.

Ravenlike on August 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Romeo13 on August 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM

What he said…

CliffHanger on August 23, 2007 at 11:12 AM

I have only one strong opinion on this and here it is: EVERYBODY who now says we can’t take action in Iran needs to have that put in their permanent CIA/FBI/library card file.

And then they must be forbidden from EVER criticizing ANYONE for not taking action NOW, when we could have prevented what is to come.

We should implant all of these people with electrodes programmed so that the first time they flip-flop and criticize ANYBODY for not bombing Iran today … they get a big jolt. And we all get to slap them.

Because what frustrates me most is that the same people who tell us not to do something always end up whining that we didn’t do something.

If Iran gets stupid and attack Israel … or sponsors a terrorist attack on our soil … I’m going to slap the bejesus out of anybody I catch switching sides and claiming that we should have taken action now – when now they’re arguing against it.

That is all. Carry on.

Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Heh.

Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Hey Blather-
Another thing about kids. Gives you an enormous motivation to try and see that the future is bright, even if you’re no longer going to be in it.

At 50, I don’t think I have to worry that much about illegals or Islamists taking over in my lifetime. But for my kids’ sake, I’m very much in the game.

JiangxiDad on August 23, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Fred!/Bolton 2008!

infidel on August 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Why now, instead of waiting to give an exhausted military time to catch its breath and rebuild, a war-weary public distrustful of the president a chance to elect someone it has more confidence in, a disgruntled Iranian population the opportunity to push the regime towards acquiescence, and the scientific community some space to develop weapons that might actually do the job? AP

Maybe one of the milbloggers can weigh in on the timing issue. They’re the ones being killed by Iranian devices/assistance.

JiangxiDad on August 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM

I don’t know what to think. The difference between Hitler and Ahmedinejad was that Hitler was competent and had a bunch of the world’s best scientists working for him. He could run a state and an economy and he surrounded himself with smart people. Not so with Ahmedinejad, and the Mullahs are too busy studying the Qur’an and whether or not you can give a goat you’ve had sex with to you’re new brother in law as a gift. There’s plenty of smart people in Iran, to be sure, but none of them are behind Der Fuhrer. Hitler was loved in Germany. A lot of old people there still revere him.

PRCalDude on August 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM

At 50, I don’t think I have to worry that much about illegals or Islamists taking over in my lifetime. But for my kids’ sake, I’m very much in the game.

JiangxiDad on August 23, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Amen. It’s not really the near future I worry about. It’s 100 years down the road.

Well, assuming global warming doesn’t kill us all first, of course.

Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Allahpundit, so now you’re a journalist right??? Have you read anything or interviewed Michael Ledeen??? If you attempted some research before posting you wouldn’t say ” Only Bolton knows.”

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Like the man said–Maybe he’s thinking “Faster, please”.

Chap on August 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Communique;
1-21-2009 Dulles Intl Airport, Washington DC
Secretary of State Barney Frank, just back from negotiations with King ImaDinnakJacket of Iran, proclaims “We have PEACE in our time” (or is it piece, Barn?).
President Hillary “Evita” Clinton is elated. In return for this historic agreement, the US guarantees it will pay $100/barrel for Iranian crude, set to increase in $50/barrel increments every 6 months, in perpituity (President Clinton passes a law making her President for life, like Hugo, her pal).
The US also accepts Sharia Law.
Peace, at long last!

mountainmanbob on August 23, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Only one difference; Regis wouldn’t say “please” and would still be cleaning chunks from Geraldo’s ‘stache from the car’s front grill…

Chap on August 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Separation-Of-Powers-Ignorance-Warning!

Unless there is some huge direct Iranian action (not just providing IED’s and EFP’s), with the first US action against Iran, I see the House calling an emergency session within 24 hours and voting to block all funds for use against Iran.

With the current situation, there might be enough war-weary (R)’s to overbalance any Blue Dog (D)’s and make it a done deal.

Likely and constitutionally sound?

eeyore on August 23, 2007 at 12:33 PM

eeyore on August 23, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I’m thinking it would be a quick operation, hit ‘em hard to cripple nuke facilities and Revolutionary Guard, then sit back and evaluate the results.

infidel4life on August 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Congress wouldn’t have time to do anything but squawk about it after the fact.

infidel4life on August 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM

At least hitting Iran would give the Dems a new bugaboo to whine about.
Actually, I’m with Bolton. With Olmert in Israel acting all gutless, Israel might not be ready to face the threat of Iran.
I think that the good people of Iran who saw their neighbors rescued from Hussein have been praying for rescue from the Ayatollahs. If we did succeed in toppling the Iranian rulers, suddenly all the middle east becomes more peaceful: Syria and the Gaza troublemakers would quiet down in a hurry without Iran pulling their strings.
Besides, I want to see HClinton and Nan Pelosi cryiong on national television when they realize that we are actually winning.

Doug on August 23, 2007 at 12:53 PM

If the US doesn’t handle Iran, and Israel doesn’t handle Iran, then we are all in for some REALLY BAD times.

Bush is a victim of his own semi-success. After Saddam was taken down, people in the US felt so much safer that they started making up stories that Iraq was never anything to be worried about. But the poll numbers told a different story and the rhetoric from the left also illuminated their true feelings.

The left was scared after 9/11 and didn’t open their mouths to oppose anything … until Saddam was pulled out of that spiderhole. At that point, the left felt safe enough to start in on their seditionist rhetoric, again. In fact, since Saddam was taken down, “terrorism” has ranked very low on the polls of the “Most Dangerous Threat To America Today”.

And people feel so much safer than we did from 9/11 until Saddam was fished out of the ground that many are hesitant about contemplating what MUST BE DONE with Iran, lest it “start a war” – as if Iran has not been actively engaging in war against the US since 1979.

I agree with Bolton 100% and think that how we deal with Iran over the next year will set the stage for how seriously the world takes us over the next decades.

Personally, I don’t trust Bush to do the right thing. He doesn’t know what war is all about, as he keeps impressing on everyone as he tries to claim that we fight for the rights of non-US citizens, instead of the fact that we fight for our own interests. But, then, Bush has exactly the same attitude about the sovereignty of the US … Bush also has a problem that he has come out and denounced every effective tactic of WWII, just like your run-of-the-mill liberal.

I, for one, can’t stand listening to Bush anymore, and he cannot be out of office soon enough for me. But I hope against hope that he will do the right thing with Iran.

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 12:53 PM

We don’t need feet on the ground in Iran. Put fleets on manuvers in the North and South China Sea, give Iran 24 hour notice of intent with targets listed (for the lefties and humanitarians). Target tactical Nukes on the nuclear facilities (poetic justice), 5,000 cruise missles onto military sites, sink all their Navy and destroy all their Air Force. That ought to put a crimp in their style for a few years. Be done with it in 48 hours. Dust off our hands and say “Now where were we?”

Europe would be happy because we removed a potential (Islamic) military threat (and Iran will need to buy plenty of STUFF from them in the near future) The Saudi’s and Syrians will gain a healthy new insite into current world affairs. China will be OK with it as long as we don’t interfere with their oil supply. Israel will be pleased as punch. Cable news (after cleaning their jeans) would light a cigarette and be Blissful for months to come.

What gripes my rear is that Europe will be an unintended beneficiary without doing anything to help.

Ernest on August 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM

What gripes my rear is that Europe will be an unintended beneficiary without doing anything to help.

Ernest on August 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM

That’s okay. I’d rather have Europe not help and benefit, than “help” and muck everything up for everyone. Europe, unfortunately, is a major hindrance in this war against the enemies of progress.

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 1:07 PM

As many many people here have said. We’re already at war with Iran. It’s like trying to get rid of the cockroachs in the livingroom while doing nothing about the cockroachs in the kitchen.

- The Cat

MirCat on August 23, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Unfortunately, this situation is a consequence of our own creation. I don’t blame the US for anything jihad related – that is 100% on the jihadis. But, after WWII the US bore the brunt of the world’s security. By doing all of the heavy lifting since then we have allowed most of Europe to get by without anything that could honestly be called a military. Now, 2 generations later, those countries can afford to hate and criticize us because they know it is in our nature to continue to protect them.

This puts us in a tough spot now because the war against islamonazism is a big game of hyperviolent international whack-a-mole and Iran is the king of the mole-hill. The US simply isn’t big enough to have a mallet waiting everywhere the jihadis rear their ugly little heads.

We need allies to help us. But barring some great epiphany, the old-world juveniles will never really recognize jihad as a threat and join us in the fight to save the west and the world from the continuous and growing onslaught of jihad terrorists.

Wingo on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM

This puts us in a tough spot now because the war against islamonazism is a big game of hyperviolent international whack-a-mole and Iran is the king of the mole-hill.

Wingo on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I would say that, while Iran is the King of the Moles, the mole-hill is the gulf oil fields. They are what gives the arabs/persians/muslims all their political power and all of the money to finance their war, AND they cannot be trusted with the security of the fields – as Saddam Hussein demonstrated when he intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire. If people really wanted to end this war they would realize that it will end only after the gulf oil fields are wrested back from the arabs and persians. Letting them steal the fields in the nationalizations of the 60′s was one of the greatest mistakes the West has ever made. Ever.

For the legal types, it can be called an internationalization of the world’s most important resource, just as they accepted the nationalization of those same resources.

But, so long as the political power and wealth flow into the hands of the arabs and persians, and the security of the fields is left in their hands, there will be no peace for the civilized world.

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 1:36 PM

I agreed with the rest of your post, Wingo, but just wanted to register my pet bugaboo about the oil fields and their role in this war. I should have stated that above.

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM

progressoverpeace, one problem with your idea. As the jihadists know that ‘oil’ is their only economic “big club” weapon, it will be protected like Fort Knox, not just by Iran, but all of OPEC, including our good friends (spit!) the Saudis. These Bin-Jed Clampetts will not give up their cement swimming holes and fancy eating tables without a fight.
And that fight would include using their money to sway public opinion against such actions, smearing it as world conquest in the Bushitler mode.

Doug on August 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so if injury be done to a man it ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM

It appears that every 50 years or so The U.S. has to step up to the bad guys and say”stop being stupid,or we will slap you down” this is truly one of those times,why are we always the hall monitor?(glad we are though)
Bob

Bobnormal on August 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Agreed, Doug. But it’s worse on the other side, to my mind.

Personally, I don’t know why OPEC is still allowed to operate. All of the “internationalists” seem to have no problem with this cartel, though the same people railed against Microsoft for being a “monopoly” when Linux has been freely available for years (to mention but one alternative to Microsoft).

Your point about the sheiks and mullahs getting nervous over their money and power possibly disappearing rings true to me, but I don’t see this war ending any other way, not without the sort of massive destruction that would otherwise be required. And, if we destroy enough of the arab/persian world to totally defang them, then they wouldn’t be able to administer the fields, anyway.

As to the public relations fight, it will be tough. But enough Americans remember the OPEC embargo of the 70′s to make this not so hard a sell as it might appear (fingers crossed and praying).

Of course, the libs love to jump on statements such as mine to claim that we are looking to “steal the fields”, but I don’t think it would be hard to win that fight. Like I said, if they lean on legal aspects, then the move from nationalization to internationalization (adminstered by the US and allies, not the UN) is easily argued and won.

Still, it would be a difficult fight, as you point out, but it seems to me to be inevitable and necessary. It would also be the most “humane” way of ending this war, since any other way will involve enough killing that, if I were to detail it I might get banned from this site. :)

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Folks who want to attack Iran now don’t seem to have a plan in mind.

Maybe the commenters here don’t but who’s to say whether or not the Pentagon has a plan?

aengus on August 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM

The “12 million” illegals would solve the military recruitment problem. They should be required to do 4 yrs of service. They get free health care, food, semi-shelter, and they would prove their loyalty to the US. That should be good enough for them.

Then, they work for the US gov for the next 4 yrs on infrastructure (at minimum wage)….you know, bridges and stuff.

Then, they would be US citizens.

Takes care of the immigration problem and military recruitment together.

nottakingsides on August 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Newt for POTUS, Bolton for VP!

sabbott on August 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM

By law the president is the commander in chief and has the legal right to employee military force for up to I believe 90 days before congress can do anything about it. In those 90 days Bush could eliminate Iran’s economy from the face of the earth no oil production means Iran has zero income, no refinery capacity means nobody in Iran can drive, no bridges means they wouldn’t have anywhere to drive even if they did have gas.

Some say that Iran would not make the mistake of attempting to take the US military on but instead rely on asymmetrical tactics, I say…helloieeee they are already doing that. With all of Iran’s disposable income, well hell all of their income dried up thanks to not being able to produce oil their asymmetrical forces/terrorists would face some serious logistics problems. It’s damn hard to fight any kind of war when you don’t have bullets or bombs.

Furthermore if we are going to bomb Iran I say don’t stop at their Qud’s forces, take down their entire military, make it as close to impossible as possible for them to supply their operatives with weapons food fuel or cash. In other words starve their asymmetrical forces/terrorists to death right from the beginning.

doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM

But, so long as the political power and wealth flow into the hands of the arabs and persians, and the security of the fields is left in their hands, there will be no peace for the civilized world.

I hate how that sounds but I kind of agree. Over and over they demonstrate a lack of sanity. They torture, maim and kill one another over disagreement about religion. These pathetic people control the lifeblood of the entire planet. Why does the world let them continue their stewardship?

Is it because we all hate and distrust each other so much that we’d never decide how to manage the resource?

Ernest on August 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM

aengus on August 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Maybe the commenters here don’t but who’s to say whether or not the Pentagon has a plan?

Anyone who thinks the Pentagon doesnt has a plan either hasnt paid any attention to the news ever, or really needs to put the crack pipe down. The War College has contingency plans for almost every thing, hell I’m pretty sure they even have plans drawn up for a hostile space alien invasion…

doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Allowing fatalistic theocratic lunatics to have nuclear bombs is not an option,

How this is stopped is the only question.

Economic pressure (too many of our “allies” trade with these nutjobs), sabotage, psyops (“The Mahdi has returned!”) campaigns, paid agents (they’re already hanging their own people for being “Western agents”, so it wouldn’t be much of a change), etc., all need to be underway.

You don’t let children juggle hand grenades and you don’t let ayatollahs play with nukes.

profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Why does the world let them continue their stewardship?

Ernest on August 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Indeed, Ernest.

Is it because we all hate and distrust each other so much that we’d never decide how to manage the resource?

I don’t think so. I think it is white guilt, once again. Since WWII, the West has been obssessed with trying to show how much “better” we are than others, not “stooping to their level” – which is what internationalizing the fields would be. More liberal cognitive disonance.

And the conservatives seem to be cowed by liberals screaming about “war for oil”, which is not only inaccurate but totally dismisses the FACT that oil is the most strategically important resource in the world (without which the world would come to a grinding halt and billions would die) and only the dimmest of wits would not have their national security strategy pay very close attention to such a necessary resource, even aside from the fact that the oil fuels the war against us.

That’s how it looks to me.

progressoverpeace on August 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM

infidel4life on August 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Exactly. Disable their response capability with the first blow.

Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Let’s get this party started! No troops just air and lots of it.

Simultaneously, we need to get the Iranian people to take their country back.
Help them like the French résistance.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:23 PM

The “12 million” illegals would solve the military recruitment problem. They should be required to do 4 yrs of service. They get free health care, food, semi-shelter, and they would prove their loyalty to the US. That should be good enough for them.

Then, they work for the US gov for the next 4 yrs on infrastructure (at minimum wage)….you know, bridges and stuff.

Then, they would be US citizens.

Takes care of the immigration problem and military recruitment together.

nottakingsides on August 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

I served with some outstanding fellows Marines from both north and south of the border but they where culled from the general population. I don’t even think the army would take that rabble.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Ditto. To paraphrase General George S. Patton, I’d rather have ten divisions of Iranians in front of me than one division of those illegals behind me. They abandoned their country, why should we assume they would defend ours?

Texas Nick 77 on August 24, 2007 at 12:03 AM

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

I served with some outstanding fellows Marines from both north and south of the border but they where culled from the general population. I don’t even think the army would take that rabble.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM

I totally agree with you and our military isn’t effective without like-minded, loyal, highly-trained soldiers.

I just assumed there were some positions that didn’t require much technical expertise (digging, fetching, building roads/barracks/infrastructure, maintenance, some forms of security, etc…) As far as infantry, I assume there are some illegals or ones in the immigration process that are pro-US and may want to prove their loyalty? Couldn’t most of the idiots be filtered out through the training process and be forced into the “grunt-work” positions?

I think that some of our US military currently enlisted just wanted a job and such, and (through training and time) have become highly honorable, loyal, respected, highly skilled and disciplined men.

I doubt there is nothing useful for the military that could be attained from a pool of 12 million (or 20 million) illegals or more from immigrants wanting in. Doesn’t our military training process filter the idiots from the rest? Couldn’t the bad apples be deported?

nottakingsides on August 24, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Before equating Arabs with Muslims-not all Arabs are Muslim. Some are Christian, Hindu, whatever. And Arabs are actually the minority in Islam. Granted, they are the ones causing the most ruckus, but please remember that not all Arabs are Muslim.

Doug on August 24, 2007 at 1:14 AM

Doug on August 24, 2007 at 1:14 AM

You are correct, which is why the enemy in this war is most correctly described as arabs/persians/muslims (APM). Three different groups (though not disjoint) with different agendas, but all of which are actively targetting the West and progress.

Personally, I think our biggest problem is not with muslims, but with arabs and persians, from a cultural level. It just turns out that arabs “own” sunni islam and use it as a weapon, while the persians “own” shiia islam and use that as a weapon.

progressoverpeace on August 24, 2007 at 1:30 AM