The US war with Iran has begun

June 22, 2005 7:21 AM

The US war with Iran has already begun.
posted by acrobat (54 comments total)

We have always been at war with Iraq Iran.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:33 AM on June 22, 2005

Any links to the russian news sources documenting the flyovers and bombings?
posted by odinsdream at 7:37 AM on June 22, 2005

ya know, as much as I believe that Bush & Co. have done (and WILL do) a lot of underhanded, illegal, immoral things... I think I want to read it documented someplace other than Aljazeera.net
posted by HuronBob at 7:39 AM on June 22, 2005

No way, d00der, Al Jazeera is truth right from Allah.
posted by keswick at 7:45 AM on June 22, 2005

I've seen this article every day since Sunday, and I keep wondering, "Didn't we already go through with this? Oh, right, that was somewhere else." The question I've always found that kind of puts the kibosh on the "We're going into Iran next" notion is - where will the troops come from? It's become common wisdom that they're drastically overextended as it stands; will the US announce, as in one of the more amusing Onion articles of late (can't get into the archives to find it) - that our exit route from Iraq will be "Go through Iran"?
posted by graymouser at 7:46 AM on June 22, 2005

HuronBob, you mean some American Newspaper (ha ha)? This is an article by Scott Ritter, and this guy has the game sussed. If you think he hasn't been correct in his writings before, I'd like to know about it.

Anyway, now seems to be a good time to buy Iranian caviar stocks. It's going to skyrocket soon.
posted by acrobat at 7:48 AM on June 22, 2005

Oh thank God, it's Scott Ritter. I wondered how he was going to support his inside scoop that we would be bombing Iran in June 2005. By my count there are only eight days left. I figured we were going to have to get on with the bombing right quick!
posted by pardonyou? at 7:48 AM on June 22, 2005

Unfortunately, no one cares. It was about oil, the evidence was fixed by Bolton, Cheney and the boys in the Office of Special Plans, and of course, that we never really had an exit strategy. Those who are so supportive of this war will NEVER, EVER admit they were wrong. Our only hope is that they realize they were lied to. (Side note, the paper that the Downing Street Memos were leaked to was the Sunday Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (FOXNEWS?!?)
posted by rzklkng at 7:49 AM on June 22, 2005

An opinion from Mark Radulich from Progressive Conservatism (supporting Ritter's assertions). Azerbaijani President to visit US.
posted by peacay at 7:52 AM on June 22, 2005

If Bush starts another full-scale war right now, with troops stretched as far as they are, the public outcry will be tremendous...even -before- Bush is forced to institute a draft.

As I've said before, history books will not be kind to this fool.
posted by Kickstart70 at 7:52 AM on June 22, 2005

HuronBob, you mean some American Newspaper (ha ha)?

How about any reliable global news source at all? Like the BBC, or Le Monde?
posted by unreason at 7:52 AM on June 22, 2005

err maybe 'supporting' is not the right choice of words
posted by peacay at 7:53 AM on June 22, 2005

Maybe al jazeera is the only publication which would run this nonsense by Ritter. You think any respected publication would run this piece? It's bullshit on stilts.
posted by dios at 7:54 AM on June 22, 2005

graymouser, I understand your position with regard to troop numbers as being sensitive to the reality of the situation, but you must remember who's in control, here. Cheney recently said the insurgency is, what was it...in its last throes?

This isn't new. Advice from generals was given prior to entering Iraq with regard to the troop numbers not being sufficient. This advice was ignored. If Bush pushes for another invasion, it will happen despite reality, and it will be another botched mess, just like everyone paying attention knows it would be. Sure, the military will do its best to try and succeed, but they're walking up an infinite slope. It's tragic, really.
posted by odinsdream at 7:55 AM on June 22, 2005

Here is a clip of Tucker Carlson interviewing Ritter about this article. Via Crooksandliars.com
posted by Espoo2 at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2005

I knew there were some clowns in Washington, but I never knew they had stilts!
posted by Balisong at 7:58 AM on June 22, 2005

yeah. im going to wait to hear this from a few more reputable sources as well ...
posted by bernard@knowmore at 7:58 AM on June 22, 2005

If you think he hasn't been correct in his writings before, I'd like to know about it.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.

--Scott Ritter, March 2003

Preemption: Please don't try to argue that Ritter was just predicting the insurgency that arose months after the "end of major combat operations" [sic]. He made this statement just as U.S. troops were approaching Baghdad, and there was still a lot of speculation that there would be fierce resistence in the city. He was clearly predicting that the U.S. military would not be able to take over Baghdad at that time. This was incorrect.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:00 AM on June 22, 2005

It's bullshit on stilts.

That is classic. With your permission I would like to implement that statement's use in my daily dealings at work. If you have more like it I would love to hear them. Also, what are the origins of that phrase? Handed down from a grandfather or something like that?
posted by a3matrix at 8:04 AM on June 22, 2005

[good catch]
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:04 AM on June 22, 2005

Metafilter: It's bullshit on stilts.
posted by unreason at 8:07 AM on June 22, 2005

Pardonyou?, I so hope you are right and that BushCo will not attempt another "regime change". Anyway, most of us will be around to see, won't we?
posted by acrobat at 8:08 AM on June 22, 2005

Also, what are the origins of that phrase? Handed down from a grandfather or something like that?
posted by a3matrix at 8:04 AM PST on June 22

Well, the original phrase was "nonsense on stilts." Bentham used it to describe religion.

Bullshit on stilts is the more colorful version that I first heard from Christopher Hitchens.
posted by dios at 8:12 AM on June 22, 2005

Ritterness aside, the case doesn't really have to rest very much on fact: he says that the "pre-war" against Iran has begun, which I wouldn't find surprising if it were true, given the monumental disregard of this administration for public opinion. I don't find it so unlikely that covert operations are going on there - we probably have covert operations going on in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and every other country we could possibly gain something from operating covertly in.

This guy may be a little too convinced and may think he has incontrovertible evidence, while we know to temper our judgment with skepticism and patience, and we know that even if he had such evidence, what possible difference could it make given the effect of comparable evidence before?
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:18 AM on June 22, 2005

Acrobat....

" HuronBob, you mean some American Newspaper (ha ha)? "

Did I say American???

Did you want to just come out and call me an idiot and this was what happened?

and, I LOVED the little (ha ha)!
posted by HuronBob at 8:19 AM on June 22, 2005

"x on stilts" is a cute phrase, but it's not an argument. Ritter does have an argument, and I haven't seen it refuted yet.
posted by muckster at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2005

I watched the clip of the interview with Carlson. With Iraq, I was pretty sure that the claims of WMD were BS. However, when I see Ritter making the connection that since the claims of WMD with Iraq were BS that it's likely that the claims of a nuclear weapons program in Iran may be BS, I'm forced to really question everything else the guy has to say. That's because I do believe that Iran has an active nuclear program in the works.

I don't know if we're going to go to war with Iran. I think it would probably be a pretty big mistake -- especially now, but sadly, it wouldn't surprise me too much. Still, I'd rather hear about it from another source. He just has the air of somebody trying to make the facts conform to his own skewed view of reality.
posted by willnot at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2005

I think I want to read it documented someplace other than Aljazeera.net


because it's not as impartial and accurate as, say, Fox"News". Allah forbid.
posted by matteo at 8:22 AM on June 22, 2005

Unlike Iraq, there is no 'no fly zone' where we can bomb indescriminately in Iran. We may be building up forces there, but who knows.

On the other hand, if Iran dosn't give up their nuke program, who knows what might happen. I honestly don't think the US has the military capability to take over Iran at this point, unless they are willing to give up Iraq anyway.

Surgical strikes against suspected nuke sites seems more likely.
posted by delmoi at 8:22 AM on June 22, 2005

Debkafilter
posted by Nahum Tate at 8:26 AM on June 22, 2005

because it's not as impartial and accurate as, say, Fox"News". Allah forbid.

That's a false dichotomy. No one's saying it has to be in Fox news, or even in any American news. Show me the story in the BBC news, in Lemonde, or in any of the major German news outlets, and I'll take it seriously. Until then, I'll take it with the same grain of salt that I would if I saw it in the tabloids.
posted by unreason at 8:28 AM on June 22, 2005

the original phrase was "nonsense on stilts." Bentham used it to describe religion.

Philosophy-filter: I always thought it was his description of natural rights, no?
posted by joe lisboa at 8:28 AM on June 22, 2005

He was clearly predicting that the U.S. military would not be able to take over Baghdad at that time. This was incorrect.

I think it's amusing you believe Baghdad has been taken over. How are you able to ignore reality so easily? Watch this when it gets posted online in about a half hour, then tell me how much control you think the military has in Baghdad outside of the walls of concrete surrounding a few of Saddam's palaces.
posted by odinsdream at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2005

Is the credibility of the source of an opinion piece even relevant? Isn't the author's credibility (and the facts he analyzes) what's really central, here, as with any opinion piece?
posted by joe lisboa at 8:31 AM on June 22, 2005

It'll be an air war, and a one-sided one at that: once Iran's planes are destroyed and their power plants (nucular or otherwise) blown up there'll be nothing to stop US bombers and cruise missiles from beating them down further. Then instead of a ground invasion the US (probably through the UN) offers a truce: Iran must agree to US demands, accept sanctions and pay an indemnity, or the bombing will resume. With so many air bases in the area and complete control of the Gulf there's no real need for a ground war; the US has all the time in the world to bomb, bomb, and bomb some more. I bet the US already has an Iranian puppet government ready to install, including close friends of the Pahlavi family, after the Iranians have been pacified by cholera, maiming, homelessness, starvation and so on.
posted by davy at 8:31 AM on June 22, 2005

August 19, 2004

Was Iraq always about Iran? Iran turns toward the United States, again.

posted by four panels at 10:10 PM CST (69 comments total)
posted by four panels at 8:32 AM on June 22, 2005

dios, I sure hope you're right for two reasons: Mainly that I don't want much want an attack against Iran to happen, and secondarily because if you're wrong, you're never going to hear the end if it around here.
posted by alumshubby at 8:33 AM on June 22, 2005

Show me the story in the BBC news, in Lemonde, or in any of the major German news outlets, and I'll take it seriously

like the Downing Street Memo, you mean?
posted by matteo at 8:33 AM on June 22, 2005

Like anyone else, Scott Ritter has been wrong before and he's been right before ("Iraq no longer has Weapons of Mass Destruction.") It would be nice to see/hear more evidence of these CIA/MEK Iranian bombings Ritter is talking about... we, the general public, usually have to wait awhile to get confirmation about covert CIA activities. We sure didn't hear about the Reagan Administration trading missiles to Iran as it was happening, only after the fact. If the CIA is working with a known terrorist organization to bomb targets within Iran (shades of working with The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), it'll probably be awhile before the evidence gets leaked down to us... if it ever does.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:34 AM on June 22, 2005

joe - you very well may be right. In fact, after thinking about it, I'm pretty sure you're right.
posted by dios at 8:34 AM on June 22, 2005

I don't find it so unlikely that covert operations are going on there - we probably have covert operations going on in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and every other country we could possibly gain something from operating covertly in.

DING! As are each one of those countries you named.
posted by Necker at 8:37 AM on June 22, 2005

Is it possible the bombing hasn't started in force because Bush doesn't have his tool in the UN yet (Bolton, I mean). Bush would surely wait for the pretense of UN sanctions against Iran's nuclear program to proceed (openly), right?
posted by jmgorman at 8:41 AM on June 22, 2005

Show me the story in the BBC news, in Lemonde, or in any of the major German news outlets, and I'll take it seriously

like the Downing Street Memo, you mean?

Exactly. But with Iran. I could buy the US news not covering this story if it were true. What I don't buy is the British, French, and German news not covering it. If this were true, it might not appear on Fox, but it would certainly appear somewhere else besides Al Jazeera.
posted by unreason at 8:42 AM on June 22, 2005

davy -

That scenario makes sense; in fact it's much more the standard US style of war than this mess in Iraq. The potential for an air war is always much stronger than that for a ground war, and gets much less overt resistance. I think that one is far more likely than another occupation attempt.
posted by graymouser at 8:44 AM on June 22, 2005

Dammit, davy, I was mentally agreeing with graymouser that much as they'd love to invade Iran, they just didn't have the capability. Now you're scarin' me. That sounds all too plausible.
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on June 22, 2005

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

I'm sure they are. That is called "contingency planning." We also performed war games that were Cuba invasion scenarios up until the mid '90's. Apparently, by the assumptions made in the article, we were therefore at war with Cuba. At that time the Army switched to more desert scenarios, I wonder what they had in mind with those?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:49 AM on June 22, 2005

I think it's amusing you believe Baghdad has been taken over.

And I think it's amusing that you disregard what I wrote and what Ritter was clearly saying. Hey look, we're both amused!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:55 AM on June 22, 2005

the US has all the time in the world to bomb, bomb, and bomb some more

Yeah, because the Shia majority of Iraq, who's Iranian families will be being bombed, will just watch that happen now that they are in charge of Iraq.

It's kinda hard to call it an "insurgency" when its basically the entire country trying to kill you.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:55 AM on June 22, 2005

Al Jazeera was started by ex BBC World Service staff and funded by the Emir of Qatar, making it as biased/credible as most other privately owned news networks.

That's not to say Ritter doesn't have a vested interest in this story, but to dismiss Al Jazeera out of hand always seems a little hasty to me.
posted by fullerine at 9:01 AM on June 22, 2005

Most people wouldn't count being backed by a middle-eastern dictator as a sign of reliability.
posted by unreason at 9:04 AM on June 22, 2005

It's about as credible and sensationalist as Fox. What is al Arabia reporting, they are more the CNN of the Middle East.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:05 AM on June 22, 2005

Yeah, because the Shia majority of Iraq, who's Iranian families will be being bombed...

Hard as this may be to believe, all Shi'ites are not the same. Iraqi Shi'ites have Iraqi families; Iranian Shi'ites have Iranian families. Yes, there are some Iraqi Shi'ites who fled Iran at some point, but they're a small minority, partly because Saddam drove most of them out at gunpoint figuring them for security risks. And during the Iran-Iraq War, to the surprise of both Saddam and the Ayatollah, Iraqi Shi'ites fought for Iraq against the invading Iranian troops. Sorry to complicate your worldview.
posted by languagehat at 9:07 AM on June 22, 2005

It'll be an air war

I watched a special on Fox "News" a few weeks ago where a senior military analyst predicted just this.

Makes sense. We don't have the troops for an invasion, and Iran's armed forces would be far more formidable than Saddam's were, anyway.

But my question is this - if and when a concerted bombing campaign against Iran begins, what is to stop them from streaming troops over the Iraq border and attacking our troops? We certainly don't have the ground resources to respond immediately, depending on how many troops they'd come with.

Second is, in the event of a bombing campaign, what are the chances that all of a sudden, suicide bombers start setting off their payloads in US shopping malls or some such? Really, at what point does our continued march in the Middle East result in blowback?

And third, and I never see anyone discussing this, it might be considered that while Iran is undoubtedly developing nuclear weapons, that our invasion of Iraq prompted both Iran and North Korea to speed up work on their nuclear programs, that they specifically might have that deterrent so we don't pull an Iraq on them?
posted by kgasmart at 9:08 AM on June 22, 2005

Pollomacho,
But see in context, planning an invasion of Cuba is contingency planning of the most speculative sort and while certainly a waste of money didn't then and doesn't now imply an invasion of Cuba.

Whereas planning an invasion/air war/ attack on Iran, in the context of being already involved in a questionable military adventure in its neighbor, Iraq, led by a civilian government in the US with clear ties to both petroleum money and military supply companies and a hardline preemptive war philosophy...

Air war seems likely. Clinton style.

Acrobat:

Why not say, Scott Ritter, in an Op-Ed, Says: "The US war with Iran has already begun."
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:10 AM on June 22, 2005