Consequently, 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.
On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran’s known nuclear targets.
Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.
The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat. “They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.
“The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options,” the diplomat said.
Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of “schadenfreude” at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney’s office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, “We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically.”
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.
I have said all along, and I still believe there is one way Bush can save his presidency as well as guarantee a GOP sweep in 2008, and that is to strike hard at the Iranian regime, and keep striking it until it falls.
If he does so, the world will suddenly become a far safer place, and even I will revise my opinion of his watch drastically upward. (via Alfred Centauri)
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
> Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever.
Just like the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981 set their nuclear program back for 20 years - but not forever.
That would be fine with me!
Exactly, Marshall. To try for the complete elimination of Iranian efforts towards a nuclear capability is a counsel of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
I personally believe that degradation of the Iranian gasoline refinement capacity via airstrikes plus the sort of blockade of the Straits of Hormuz that two carrier groups could do with one hand tied behind their backs would lead the Iranian thugocracy to ruination within weeks. Iran might be a significant crude producer, but it is still thoroughly dependent on imports of refined petroleum products. Swingeing chastisement (e.g. by saturation bombardment of Quds Forces assets) of any attempts by the Iranians to conduct extra-territorial retaliation would be both prudent and justified.
I suggest just one bombing run of B52’s. And remind the crews to wear their leadlined shorts.
genes, you Gaia-killing boor, B-52s are very fuel inefficient. What you want are B-2s - they drink their fuel through a straw, not a firehose. We need to save that gas for Al Gore so he can fly to another Save the Earth gig.
I still say that convicts in radiation suits can place automated drilling rigs on the glowing sheets of glass. And the glass would be much prettier than the sand and scrub brush that’s there now.
When you got no concern about what people think, and a worldview that understands true evil, you’ll do things that surprise most people. If you have nothing to lose, then your enemies have everything to lose.
Thus, Ahmad-in-a-jar is dead meat before Jan 2009
Seems everyone here is pretty gung-ho for bombing Iran, but here’s some of the reasons I think that would be a bad idea (note: I am a Iraq hawk and still support the surge):
1. Our troops are in a very dangerous position being in Iraq, I think it is VERY likely that if we do start bombing Iran, Ahminjahd will think the Time of the Hidden Imam has arrived, and so will thow ALL of his cards down: Syria, the overwhelming majority of the Shiite militias/agents in the Iraq army/police force, Hezbollah attacking Israel with Hamas, all sleeper cells of the Quds Forces will activate across the world, and will start sending ground forces across from Iran to “liberate” Iraq.
Even with all of our sophistication, fighting a 3-front war is a BAD idea, especially when over so many of our troops are embeded in a sea of Shiite forces that may be proxies for the Mahdi Army, Badr Brigades, and other agents of Iran.
Plus, Turkey may either want to a)not get involved and so prevent us from using their air space for flights into Iraq like they did in 2003 or b) invade Kurdistan to get rid of that nagging Kurd problem once and for all while the Americans have their eyes turned elsewhere.
If Turkey is somehow prevents us from using their airspace, our supply-lines are then dependent on the Gulf, and then if Iran wants to start “suicide rafting” our ships there…
2. You think gas prices are bad now, they are definetly going to be higher after we bomb Iran/hostilities ensue, and holy shit will they be high if Saudi Arabia also gets involved (likely so as to prevent Anbar et al from being ethnically cleansed), and there is the likelyhood that Iran, the US, or someone else may just hit a major oilfield and cause a permanent spike in oil prices. Right now, our economy has got some problems, something like this could turn into something BAD. Major BAD.
Look, if you believe Amhminjahd is a crazy-bastard (and I do), then what is preventing him from releasing all cards on the table when/if we bomb Iran?
I think the costs to bomb Iran right now are too damn high, and the best thing we can do right now is to hunker down, seal the border, and focus on Iraq while getting people like Sarkozy to take the lead in pressuring Iran.
What say y’all?
The main problem is that religious fanatics who believe the “hidden Imam” will save them are never going to respond to pressure, from Sarkosy or anyone else. They’re going to continue working on an atomic bomb until they get one, and then use it. Only by bombing their nuclear facilities can we delay their attempt to bring on armageddon.
That’s quite a worst case scenario you’ve drawn, but it isn’t likely. Once the world (Turkey, et al) realizes we mean business, they’ll get out of the way. We simply can’t allow a deranged regime to have nuclear weapons. Then our troops in the region would really be in danger.
Perhaps a 5 KT nuke down the well the hidden imam is supposed to come up out of?
Hard to still believe in him if he (or Allah) can’t stop that.
Just sayin’
One of the reasons I voted for GWB in 04 was my belief that by the end of November of that year he would make the airspace between Tehran and Diego Garcia the busiest in the world, unfortunately I was deeply disappointed this did not happen. He talked the talk but didn’t deliver. Frank_A, you may have valid reasons for doing nothing but I believe that waiting is going to be much worse for us than doing something now, even now may be to late.
Well, we can’t seal the borders, because we don’t have enough troops there.
Second, I remember reading tons of learned analysis prior to both Iraqi wars, and the one in Afghanistan, that absolutely assured us we couldn’t possibly do what was necessary to win.
I don’t think you have any notion of what we can do. I have assumed from the beginning that if we want to do it militarily, we probably can. I’ve been right, and folks like you have been absolutely dead wrong.
Don’t confuse the morass of a politically driven effort to “democratize” an occupied Iraq with the brilliant military campaign that utterly destroyed Saddam in about three weeks, with only a handful of US casualties.
Iran is yet another third world country riddled with corruption, and with a military that is a real paper tiger, thanks to terrible training, maintainence, and haphazard supply lines.
It is far more vulnerable than you seem to understand. But it isn’t vulnerable to pressure from Sarkozy.
They are not vulnerable to pressure unless that pressure is applied by brute force, they will understand massive body count and destruction but nothing else. They long ago declared war on us, we have proceeded to deny the truth of that even as they continue to prosecute that war maybe not on our soil but against our citizens. We are showing our weakness by not taking them seriously and to me that is completely intolerable and will only lead to some catastrophic
end.
1. Our troops are not vulnerable in Iraq. They are vulnerable only to political correctness that ties two hands and one leg behind their back. The current operation in Iraq is nothing more than a policing operation. The “war” was over in three weeks and was brilliantly executed. Iran has very few cards to lay down. As I have stated before, 3 to 5 days of air operations will render Iran impotent. And Syria? Please, don’t make me laugh. Syrian military capability can be entirely destroyed in 2 to 3 days. “…all sleeper cells of the Quds Forces will activate across the world, and will start sending ground forces across from Iran to “liberate” Iraq.” Are you serious? Anything moving from Iran towards Iraq will be blown into oblivion. It’s quite easy to track anything moving in that part of the world. They will simply die. Fighting any war with any number of fronts is a “bad idea”. Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary for survival. We don’t need Turkeys help. Look at a map. Turkey will stay in line and do as they are told. They will not attack Iraq while Iraq is defended by the USA. “suicide rafting”? Do you know how easy it is to blow every single “raft” out of the water?
2. You think gas prices are bad now, just wait ’till Iran has nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the west.
“I think the costs to bomb Iran right now are too damn high,…”
Do you think the costs are going to go down? History would suggest the cost of waiting is always high.
As an alternative to military action against Iran - which can still be reserved as a last ditch option - why not notify banks and corporations around the world that they have 60 days to divest from business in Iran or we will bar them from ANY financial presence in the United States? Companies and financial institutions would then have the stark choice of choosing to continue to do business in an economic backwater that is a pariah state or with the world’s largest economy. Such a supercharged sanctions regime would rapidly lead to economic meltdown in Iran, isolating the mullah’s theocracy and probably causing full-scale revolution among the Iranian people.
Erik, our banking system has already done much of what you propose, to little effect. The more draconian sanctions we’ve proposed require the UN to get the world behind them, and are being thwarted by Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council. And they wouldn’t work anyway. You can’t force the insane to listen to reason.
And it would appear that about 80% of the world and 50% of the US are insane, or at the very least have never studied any history.
Fucking right wing morons …
Wrong thread, you want:
Two, Two, Two Nuts In One!
Fucking left wing morons…
So you think China will set back and let the US take over Iran. They will let us exhaust it resources and after our troops start putting bullets in the back of the heads of their officers who only want to use them as fodder, they will come in and sweep up what is left. Yep we will be drafting 40 year olds by the time its over. kiss the 7th fleet goodby when they start firing all those anti ship cruise missles they bought plus the ones they reverse engeneered to add to even more of them. With all the money sent no one will bother to attack the US as it will be a third word economy by then. As if it isn’t already.
Of course. They didn’t stop us in Iraq, did they? Why? Because they cannot, and they know it.
The rest of your comment is even more drenched in dumbass drivel, so I’ll just do us both a favor and ignore it.
Well you sure used the wrong name troll. China has enough problems keeping the lid on. If they actually tried to send large numbers of troops elsewhere they’d have a regime change. As for our troops they are more likely to bust a cap on your racist, elitist, socialist ass.
Aww, Bill beat me again.
And probably did it better.
Have you noticed that the Left seems to have given up on Russia, now that the Commies are no longer in charge, as being the big bad Commie daddy who will “restrain” the evil US, and are now serving up Red China, an even frailer reed for their pathetic hopes that some Commies, somewhere, will back their stupid fantasies against liberty in general, and the US in particular, in the real world?
Who’s talking about taking over Iran? Get in there, do the job and get out. Let them clean up the mess.
I think the Russians have given up on Russia.