Fox News: Iran Bombing Plans Get Serious
posted at 6:33 am on September 12, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | regular view
How serious? This serious:
…according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.
The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.
But here’s some important context: these discussions have ramped up just as Germany decides to ditch multilateral sanctions.
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Are we just calling Germany’s bluff? And, in the process, reminding Iran that there are much worse things than sanctions?
If we’re bluffing, though, they’re going to raise us–threatening “teeth-breaking” reprisals against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Britain is going to see their raise, and raise them right back:
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a “proxy war”.
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
350 new troops at the border are mainly there to interdict weapons shipments, but they also serve as, effectively, hostages just as our troops in Seoul are hostage there: if they are attacked, it guarantees their government will have a political imperative to retaliate.
“Proxy war” is a term I’ve seen a lot in the last few days. General Petraeus mentioned it, of course, about the current situation in Iraq. But “proxy war” has been Iran’s game for a long time now, and as a thorough new report by Thomas Joscelyn lays out in chilling detail, our failure to come to terms with that fact means they keep winning hand after hand.
Exit Question: I thought the nuclear program was for energy, not medicine. Light water reactors require enriched uranium; heavy water reactors don’t–so I guess they’re planning to shut off their enrichment centrifuges. Right?
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:
I think you missed one of the most interesting points in the article:
“The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.
Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.”
Shrewd move if they declare the IGRC a terrorist entity. The Europeans then get hit where it really hurts – pocketbook. Guess we learned our lesson from the Oil for Food scandal and its influence on the buildup to the Iraq war.
Bradky on September 12, 2007 at 6:51 AM
I doubt he missed it.
I’m glad they don’t address every point. I would rather read it myself because I gives me something to comment on.
O/T,
Putin dissolves the Russian government?
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 7:06 AM
True enough. But I think that is more significant than us planning to bomb them.
I saw that about Putin. More intrigue from Russia.
I read Novak’s “The Prince of Darkness” and by his account Gorbachev was more like Bush I, and that Yeltsin was the real hero behind the changes.
I hope that some day Bush II admits the “saw his soul” was his dumbest remark in 8 years.
Bradky on September 12, 2007 at 7:13 AM
Great,Germany wants no part of the sanctions against
Iran,so much for ally support,maybe someone could
remind Germany they lost the war.
canopfor on September 12, 2007 at 7:22 AM
Time to withdraw our troops ASAP!!! From Germany.
Texas Nick 77 on September 12, 2007 at 7:35 AM
Two thoughts……
1) If we are going to push back with Iran, we’d better consider the broader implications as they relate to the sectarian violence in Iraq. Our guys are living with the Shia and would be easy targets if the population decided to turn on them. And what about the IA and the police? They could decided that their support for Iran is more important than American alliances.
2) If we are going to do this, EVERY single politician, especially the defeatocrats, should commit to memory these statements.
There is no such thing as a moral war and there is no rational reason to try to fight one. It’s very easy to sort out who should be fair game. Those that are not for us, are against us. If someone , through act of omission or co-mission, causes ANY US interest to be put in harms way, they should be subject to the full force of US might in defense of this country’s interests. PERIOD! And yes, that means civilians.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 7:37 AM
You made a great point and I did not make that connection until you mentioned it. Reading that reminded me that the countries that were involved in the O for F scandal were the ones who are really responsible for the war in Iraq. I have nothing but disgust for their part in the destabilization of the region. Instead of coming to us, their allies, they went to the enemy.
The UN needs to go. It is a waste of money and effort.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 7:42 AM
Time to withdraw our troops ASAP!!!From Germany.
Texas Nick 77 on September 12,2007 at 7:35AM.
Texas Nick 77,I’m not suggesting that the United States Airforce should pull out of Rammstein,just that it’s maddening when allies,or Nato partners,won’t pitch in.
canopfor on September 12, 2007 at 7:44 AM
csdeven, the first person I’d put on your list would be Brian dePalma.
I don’t know if the Brits can handle the Iranians. I used to have such great respect for them, but now that respect is quite shaken. These were the guys who flew on the wings of an Apache to recover the body of one of their fallen in Afghanistan. These are the guys who mounted a bayonet charge in Iraq. But then they became the guys who were taken hostage by the Iranians. I hope they can prove that they’re still the same badasses we’ve always thought they were.
I saw the story about Putin on Lucianne, if it’s true, it could be the biggest event of the decade, surpassing 9/11 as the one event that will most effect our lives for years or decades to come. Is the Soviet Union back?
Tony737 on September 12, 2007 at 7:49 AM
Agreed. Our enemy recognizes no line of distinction between our citizens & soldiers, we should afford them the same courtesy.
The majority of our populace has become fat, lazy and spoiled, with no stomach for war or sacrifice. Our fore fathers cringe at the thought of nuetering our troops with suicidal Rules of Engagement, like ignoring the enemy because he is in a mosque – INSANE!
Radical islam HATES us. If smoking a mosque makes them hate us a few degrees higher than they hate us now, I’ll take the trade and put the pain on the baddies.
Alden Pyle on September 12, 2007 at 7:50 AM
German trade with Iran (according to scumbag Asia Times) very substantial.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 8:01 AM
I hope not. Fox is reporting that this move allows Putin to name his successor in front of his (Putin’s) stepping down from the office in 2008.
And yeah, DePalma should be given the patriotic version of “The Clockwork Orange” treatment.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Once again, csd, I agree with you 100%.
Texas Nick 77 on September 12, 2007 at 8:07 AM
Sorry, more off topic….
Anyone former Navy? There has been an earthquake in Indonesia. My middle son is on a destroyer in Hong Kong slated to be home end of Sept. We already have our flights and reservations to meet him in Pearl. Is it possible that they will detour the ship to Indonesia to assist?
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:11 AM
I was in the submarine service back in the late sixties/early seventies. No doubt, if there is substantial damage to the area, they could be diverted. Any word how hard the quake was?
Texas Nick 77 on September 12, 2007 at 8:17 AM
CS, that’s *IF* he steps down. For the past year or so I’ve been expecting Putin to name himself ‘dictator for life’. And who would do what about it? All the lefties all over the world would rejoice and call him a hero for freedom. Oliver Stone would make heroic movies about him, Danny Glover would visit him and call him a savior, Harry Belfante will write songs about Putin, praising him for saving the world from the eeeevils of capitalism, etc etc. They sure do have a strange definition of ‘freedom’.
As for Iran, the Air Force needs to try it their shiney new F-22s :-)
Tony737 on September 12, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Tony737, that’s exactly what’ll happen. In the past few years, Putin has taken out dissidents, filled the government with his own cronies, sold weapons technology to both Syria and Iran, and basically set all of it up. And the really sad part is Russia would probably cheer madly when he does it. Apparently they miss having a dictator. Ever read “Epicenter” by Joel Rosenberg? Creepy stuff.
mjk on September 12, 2007 at 8:21 AM
csdeven…
If you go to navy.mil and punch in the ship name it will give you links to her official and unofficial web pages…might be something there or at least a link to the family support site for ships family.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Ouch!
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:27 AM
I’d love to here the non-sound of F-22’s over Iranian airspace in the morning!
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Thanks.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Related….
New info on the Israel/Syria airstrike….
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411391714&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 8:33 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean. Though, I am always heartened when I watch the Military Channel and the Brits are showing off their wares. Very impressive and and reminds me of the sentiments you describe. Oh, for the goos old days. :-) (the attitude anyway. I love the techno advances in war pron!)
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 8:47 AM
pffft. everyone, thats really Ringo Star. I mean who are ya kiddin?
johnnyU on September 12, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Whatever happens, this crap of “privately welcoming, while publicly protesting” has to stop. We can’t let Germany and the EU treat us like that. Either you are on board or you aren’t. The first time some tinpot PM gives us lip about this I want the Sec of State to call them out, to quote from their private meetings, to humiliate the poor SOB in front of the world.
Support us or oppose us but this rank and abject hypocrisy must end.
Thomas the Wraith on September 12, 2007 at 9:22 AM
It is hard to respect the once vaunted Royal Navy with how easily their people were captured and their mothership was not nearby to provide support and her skipper was afraid of violating orders to do so.
I’m sure there are some parts of the British Army which have not been pussified. Lets hope the rest of the British military can remember their history.
Sir Winston must be rolling in his grave. I’d love to hear a statement from Lady Thatcher concerning her opinion on the state of the British military.
Mooseman on September 12, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I was totally thinking the same thing.
When we think of war with Iran we must remember the Iran/Iraq war. The Iranians rushed to their deaths in the face of a superior Iraqi military. When planning for this war (and it will come) we need to keep in mind the Satanic death cult nature of Islam. I’m sure there’s a way to make that work in your favor as the commanders shape the future battlefield.
*cue Eddie Money* …I’ve got * two tickets to paradise…
Mojave Mark on September 12, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I move that we ditch milksop allies like Germany for a tough bastard like Russia.
Look at the matter practically, Russia and the US are two vulnerable superpowers. They have enemies in common, China and Islam. Each, if it would stop and think, needs the other. We need Russia’s energy fields. They need a powerful ally to help them hang on to them. Together, the US/Russia would be unbeatable.
Now, what form of government the Russians give themselves is irrevelant. Give me a wise autocrat in the Kremlin who gets the advantages of partnering with the US. And give me a US president smart enough to do the same with them.
Besides, as Grozny found out, the Russians aren’t squeamish about dealing with Islam terror regimes. We could learn from the Russians.
As for Iran. I don’t think we have enough bombs or guts to do the job right.
dhimwit on September 12, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Drudge reporting Syrian site was nuclear installation provided by N. Korea.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 9:31 AM
So we can’t rely on Germany to help place sanctions, but we could rely on France to help bomb Iran? How screwed up this is.
amerpundit on September 12, 2007 at 9:37 AM
It seems time is running out for all parties concerned.
Yakko77 on September 12, 2007 at 9:39 AM
good point. remember, the Russians were fighting on the same side as us in WWl and WWll, although their reasons may have been different. If their ideology doesn’t shift too far left or right again, a BIG IF, maybe we should talk.
Also, they have a 3rd enemy in common- IRAN. And I am assuming they know it, and are making sure they are paid before their reactor there is destroyed. You gotta admit, their actions don’t add up, unless they are truly paranoid about NATO expansion into E. Europe.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 9:41 AM
IMO, in spite of France’s not insubstantial exports to Iran, France’s game is to divorce Syria from Iran, so that Syria will butt-out of Lebanon, which is where French influence in the Mid-East is exercised. Thus France’s hard-line against Iran. Also, remember, France is an “Arabic” power, not a Persian one.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 9:44 AM
As long as we’re just describing our pipe dreams, I’ll say I’d prefer the Americans tell the Europeans their territories are now American Territories, and give them the terms under which they can eventually be made States.
Kralizec on September 12, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Too much traffic for it to load. Looks like a busy news morning. I just woke up and find out about another big quake in Indonesia, Putin and Russia, and this with Iran. Crazy world we live in, fixin’ ta get crazier.
Thanx for this link, see-dubya. (linked above too as new report by Thomas Joscelyn) I read it yesterday and it is a fascinating history of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and Iran. The Administration would do well to educate the American people and the world on what Iran has been up too. For example, their probable involvement in 9-11 is reason enough to bomb them back to the 19th Century.
Iran has earned sanctions for pursuing nuclear weapons to be sure. However, we have been letting them get away with killing Americans since Beirut, at least. Now they are killing us in Iraq. Something needs to be done. What will Russia and China do in response? The scenarios get pretty crazy, but can we just let Iran continue to get away with murder? We sure can’t let them have a nuke.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenburg in on my coffee table. Time to read it. More importantly, time to pray.
Ordinary1 on September 12, 2007 at 9:47 AM
HaHa. have heard that suggested as a solution to the illegal problem. Annex Mexico, everyone becomes a citizen, we get the resources–they get good governance and US citizenship.
Hell, could be a model for the world.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Germany will never opt for force unless they are attacked.
The country is Green, nannied, and unionized. It is Munchkinland. They might dance if the witch is dead but they aren’t going to help put her down.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Should have added an “on the other hand.”
Russia is an Oriental power, more than an Occidental one, in both geopgraphic and cultural terms. Hence, the resort to authoritarianism. We may be intrinsically culturally incompatible. Certainly it has played out like that.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Arab countries, Russia, and the EU are all waiting for US to take care of Iran. China, on the other hand, might have a thing or two to say about that.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 10:17 AM
mjk, yeah I read Epicenter, it was great. A must read! I just hope no more of his predictions come true.
Tony737 on September 12, 2007 at 10:31 AM
The issue won’t be the Brit soldiers; they have proved with great certainty their big brass balls. It’s their leadership we need to worry about. But if they’re on the ground, we have a great and formidable ally.
F*ck the Germans; I trust we’re in Rammstein for our purposes, only. Bradky’s comment on Putin and Bush is spot on; I pray that history regards that comment as irrelevant foolishness, but it doesn’t look that way today.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 10:31 AM
I have no doubt their military can handle the Iranians. What I question is wether their politicians will let them.
taznar on September 12, 2007 at 10:38 AM
There’s a special problem with permanent US bases abroad. In Feb.’03, the WSJ had a piece entitled “Homesick for Schnitzel.” It described the attitudes of some US servicemen who had been stationed in Germany for a long time– long enough to marry German citizens and have “German” kids. I can’t find the article now, but the point was that there were murmurs (or louder) among some there that the US should not be going to war with Iraq.
So a reason against permanently stationing American soldiers in foreign countries is that they may assimilate into the local culture and become sympathetic to the political views of the host country. For that reason, we might wish to move Rammstein.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
In other words, Germany knows something needs to be done, but they’re not willing to make the sacrifice or get their hands dirty in order to get the job done. Like too many of our “allies” they see the role of making the sacrifices and getting dirty as the responsibility of the US.
If that is Germany’s position, I’ll be blunt and state that’s the position of a moral coward -hiding behind the skirts of another country when faced with a challenge.
taznar on September 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I offer no better proof of your assertion than this: Marcos the Dickeater Mulitsas was stationed in Germany.
Azackly.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
The Germans are a very unique case and all thoughts on their actions or lack thereof must take Germany’s recent historical role in the world into consideration. Germany was at the epicenter of (in other words they started) two world wars in the last century, this fact is not even remotely lost on the German people.
Their reluctance to even remotely be in a position that might be perceived as agent provocateur is quite reasonable and understandable, hence their private approval and public disapproval.
doriangrey on September 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I just wanted to say thank you for finally posting a ‘fresher’ pic of the Irantian Midget. All the graphics (vampire Hillary)could use freshening.
Doug on September 12, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran
jimbo2 on September 12, 2007 at 12:39 PM
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Oh, yes there is! This philosophical corruption is precisely why we have cowardly, inept leaders, elected by unknowing, apathetic citizens brainwashed by decades of nihilism and skepticism. It is moral to defend the Good, and more specifically, a way of life based on freedom and reason and respect for individual rights. It is immoral to refrain one iota from defending that way of life.
America, while becoming increasingly poisoned, is still the greatest country on earth. It offers man the best, most moral way to live, and that way should be defended 100%. Our enemies strike at us from helholes of their own making, and in spite of our immoral, altruistic efforts to benefit them.
Islamist regimes have made plain what they are out for: the destruction of man as he should live, replaced by a mystical zombie slave. And Muslim civilians support that goal by their fanaticism and tolerance of the slave-drivers. They are not innocent. They have had every chance to reject their jihadist leaders, but they only grow more bloodthirsty.
It is profoundly moral to destroy the Islamist threat against this country, and to unleash so much devastation, that the return of such a threat is unimaginable to anyone. It is rational to do so, because man cannot live as a slave, and any attempt to enslave man must be stopped. Maybe you meant that it is immoral and irrational to start a war, to initiate force against another nation. That is, indeed, immoral, but that is what every jihadist country has already done to us. It is essential, and moral, that we retaliate with overwhelming force.
Your last paragraph suggested that you understand that the enemy must be wiped out, without consideration for civilian deaths. I assert that that is moral and rational.
Lazarus on September 12, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Point taken.
csdeven on September 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I take this quite seriously.
Recall the pretext leading to the Iraq invasion was the unwillingness for our European “allies” to enforce “serious consequences” against the malignant Saddam Regime.
Moreover, the Israeli bombing in Syria must be taken into account.
What other recourse?
Captain America on September 12, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Comment pages: