"Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says"I wasn't aware that the United States military purchases its munitions from Iran. I think we should think about not doing that.
Last month, U.S. officials in Baghdad put out word that they were planning a press conference in which they would make public intelligence substantiating Iranian involvement in stoking violence against U.S. forces. However, the presentation was indefinitely postponed, apparently because U.S. agencies could not agree on what information should be made public. Stephen Hadley, the White House national-security adviser, publicly acknowledged last week administration concerns about the material in the proposed briefing, telling reporters: "The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts."Terror Watch: Doubts About Iran Intel
Even among U.S. intelligence agencies, there are disagreements over the significance and extent of Iranian involvement in stirring up trouble in Iraq. The latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, whose principal findings were made public by the administration last week, states that because sectarian antagonisms among Iraqis themselves are so intense and "self-sustaining," Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence."
The NIE is also known to contain three "dissents" in which one or more of the 16 agencies who contributed to the document state their disagreements with the estimate's majority finding. NEWSWEEK has been informed that one dissent relates to Iranian involvement in Iraq and Iranian dealings with Al Qaeda, though further details remain classified.
Another classified dissent relates to disagreements among U.S. agencies over how deeply the government of Syria is involved in protecting, encouraging or supporting Iraqi insurgents. Some analysts believe the Syrian government is actively supporting the insurgency, while others believe Syrian president Bashar Assad is a weak leader who may not have full control over what goes on in his country.
The third classified dissent in the NIE relates to disagreements among U.S. agencies over the role of the remnants of Saddam's Baath Party in driving violence in Iraq. The argument is over whether the Baath Party itself is still capable of directing violence, or if attacks are being carried out by individuals who happen to be Baathist. The fact that U.S. agencies disagree among themselves on these subjects only complicates the dilemma the Bush administration faces in trying to make their case about Iran.
Today’s presentation of evidence is bound to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq and, some political analysts and White House critics believe, is looking for an excuse to attack Iran.That's a hell of a lot more balance than they provided last time around.
Real Men Go To Tehran
He's the Commander In Chief of the United States of America...How's that grab all you prog-dem-libs?
...Iran's RecourseComtemplating The Ifs
IN THIS atmosphere of building tension, Iran is not going to sit idly by and wait for America to crush it. Tehran has nearly achieved the installation of a friendly government on its western border. While U.S. bases in Iraq could potentially be used to infiltrate Iran with spies and commandos and, more importantly, to support and launch air strikes, those bases are vulnerable politically, not to mention logistically. The supply lines of food, water, fuel and bullets to U.S. bases run from Kuwait to the north and through the Iraqi Shi'a heartland. Iranian intelligence agencies have given Iraqi Shi'a massive support since the U.S. invasion. The Shi'a are well organized and control the country through which U.S. supplies are moved. Islamic militants loyal to the likes of Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr could easily cut vital supply lines.
Iran can also play the oil card. If Iran were attacked, Iran could half its oil exports and thereby immediately impact the global price. It would be unwise to hope that Iran, as part of its national security plan, is not willing to shut down Persian Gulf oil exports. Iran is well equipped to shower Persian Gulf states and oil fields with missiles, or to shut down exports with a variety of other military, terrorist or political methods. At a minimum, a U.S. military air campaign, even if successful in wrecking the Iranian nuclear program, would severely disrupt oil markets for at least six months. Such a disruption would hurt the world economy, not just that of the United States. In addition, there are countries sympathetic to Iran, such as Venezuela, that have indicated they are more than willing to cut off their oil supply to the United States. The United States could find itself facing a 20-30 percent shortfall in oil imports (and that estimate assumes that the Saudi fields are untouched and that oil imports continue to flow unimpeded).
Finally, Iran can play the global terror card. Unlike Al-Qaeda, groups tied directly to Iran continue to have robust capabilities and could cause a lot of trouble over the short term. Hizballah in particular has a significant presence in South America. U.S. commercial and transportation assets there would certainly be targeted, further inflicting damage to the U.S. economy.
The latter point raises an even more intriguing question--what would the Chinese do? They hold a substantial amount of U.S. debt. What happens if they decide to find some other currency to hold instead of the dollar? This could add an entirely new and dangerous dimension to an attack on Iran. Put simply, the United States spends too much and saves too little, and Asia saves too much and spends too little. The Chinese would view a disruption in the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf as a damaging blow to the U.S. economy. Although the dollar traditionally has been the currency people seek during a crisis, the growing imbalance with China creates new dynamics that could convince the Chinese that holding dollars no longer made economic sense. Under such a scenario, dumping dollars on the international market would trigger an inflationary spiral in the United States.
The scenario of an inflationary spike triggered by China's dumping of dollars may strike some as fanciful. The point for U.S. planners and policymakers, though, is to recognize that war brings unintended consequences that go well beyond the tactical realities on the ground where the fighting occurs. At a minimum, we should contemplate how a pre-emptive military strike in Iran could harm other U.S. foreign policy interests.
A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.Government in secret talks about strike against Iran
"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.
Advocates of an air assault tend to take comfort in the proposition that the destruction of a major portion of Iran's nuclear establishment would set back acquisition of weapons by many years. When asked what to do when Iran picks up the pieces and starts over again, they echo the argument of General Curtis LeMay, who advocated the preventive destruction of China's industry in the early 1960s. When Ambassador Averell Harriman asked LeMay what the United States should do when China rebuilt its capability, he said, "Hit 'em again."The Osirak Fallacy
Political, diplomatic and military obstacles to taking action in Iran have been well recognized. Strategists who think of themselves as stalwart, steely-eyed and far-seeing regard these obstacles as challenges to be simply overcome or disregarded in order to do what is necessary, even if it is less than a perfect solution. But if bombing known nuclear sites were to mean that Tehran could only produce a dozen weapons in 15 years rather than, say, two dozen in ten years, would the value of the delay outweigh the high costs? The costs would not be just political and diplomatic, but strategic as well. Provoking further alienation of non-Western governments and Islamic populations around the world would undermine the global War on Terror. Inflaming Iranian nationalism would turn a populace that is currently divided in its attitudes toward the West into a united front against the United States. Rage within Tehran's government would probably trigger retaliation via more state-sponsored terrorist actions by Hizballah or other Iranian agents.
The military option that is possible would be ineffective, while the one that would be effective is not possible. The military action that would work--an invasion of Iran--cannot be done, since America's volunteer army has already reached the breaking point in handling missions less challenging than subduing Iran would be. The only means of definitively preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be occupying the country forever. This would ensure that the regime we install remains compliant with American judgments about what the country does or does not need for its own security in a dangerous neighborhood. One might note in passing that there is no reason to assume that the reformed Iraqi government the United States is struggling to stand up will not revive a nuclear weapons program if U.S. forces were ever to allow it genuine independence.
Bearing in mind diplomacy's lack of success, what alternatives to carrier-group sabre-rattling do the preceding 36 commenters see?I can't take seriously the view that a nuclear Iran is somehow a good thing, or something that we shouldn't worry about. The comments preceding mine all seem to be along the lines of OMG BUSH SENDING ANOTHER CARRIER TOWARD IRAN IS THE WORST THING EVAR.
That's not a snarky comment — I'd be genuinely interested in what strategy other Mefites propose to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran.
...many Iranians say the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program has become a rallying point for a president who otherwise would be facing substantial public dissatisfaction over soaring inflation, rising unemployment and widespread censorship.Iran reformists want U.S. to tone it down
This has been a source of frustration to Iran's reformists, who dealt the president's party a blow at the polls in local elections in December but complain that the Bush administration's threatening rhetoric has pulled the rug out from under them.
...For years there has been little or no critical reexamination of how and why the limited, specific, and ultimately successful postwar American policy of "patient but firm and vigilant containment of Soviet expansionist tendencies...and pressure against the free institutions of the Western world" (as George Kennan formulated it at the time) has over six decades turned into a vast project for "ending tyranny in the world."Manifest Destiny: A New Direction for America
The Bush administration defends its pursuit of this unlikely goal by means of internationally illegal, unilateralist, and preemptive attacks on other countries, accompanied by arbitrary imprisonments and the practice of torture, and by making the claim that the United States possesses an exceptional status among nations that confers upon it special international responsibilities, and exceptional privileges in meeting those responsibilities.
This is where the problem lies. Other American leaders before George Bush have made the same claim in matters of less moment. It is something like a national heresy to suggest that the United States does not have a unique moral status and role to play in the history of nations, and therefore in the affairs of the contemporary world. In fact it does not.
As a factor in combat, the helicopter may be on its way to the same place the machine-gun sent the horse cavalry. For years advanced armies have operated mainly against guerrillas and third world forces possessing no serious defense against attack from helicopters. They have revamped military doctrine on the unspoken assumption that the helicopter’s relative invulnerability would continue, or could be countered only by the weapons of another modern army.Helicopters: A Strategic Turning-Point?
The only practical challenge to this belief came early in the Iraq invasion, when U.S. attack helicopters massed for a nighttime assault on what was thought the Revolutionary Guard’s main line of resistance. Only Wagnerian music and Francis Ford Coppola were lacking.
But to reach their objective, the helicopter force had to overfly positions held by the lackluster Iraq regular army. The latter’s soldiers, with such an armada passing low overhead, instinctively reacted by firing their rifles and other light weapons at it, as did farmers and villagers. The assault had to be called off in disarray before reaching its objective because nearly every helicopter had been damaged by this improvised resistance...
If the insurrection in Iraq is acquiring the means to counter U.S. helicopter operations this is a matter of potentially large strategic importance. U.S. forces throughout Iraq depend for an overwhelming part of their supplies, gasoline and ammunition on road convoys from Kuwait made up of civilian trucks and tankers.
Those convoys have military escorts but rely on helicopters to scout the route for ambushes and roadside bombs, and to defend them when attacked.
If these convoys were seriously disrupted, it would have disastrous consequences for American troops spread across the country. There are few usable airstrips at American bases, and the Air Force is reported now able to supply something like a quarter of the needed supplies, and to estimate that in an emergency it could increase that to around a third. However cargo planes are also vulnerable to attack. They mainly have to be defended by ground forces patrolling or controlling all the territory around airfields from which missiles could be launched (including Baghdad airport). But if an isolated base is not supplied with fuel and ammunition, it can’t make its air approaches safe.
Little in the Washington debate indicates awareness of the possibility of an American Dienbienphu. The dispatch of up to 50 thousand additional troops to Iraq is debated in terms of whether this will or will not provide an all-conquering “surge” of forces.
Few have noted that it also provides up to 50 thousand more American hostages, should there be a general uprising against the occupation. If Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran – which, as Zbigniew Brzezinsky warned the Senate last week, is where Bush policy is leading – one obvious Iranian means of retaliation would be to promote an expanded uprising in Iraq that offers an opportunity of taking hostage an entire American army.
...Robert Guillain, Le Monde's able correspondent, cabled a bitter valedictory from Hanoi:posted by y2karl at 8:18 AM on February 12, 2007
" 'Let the enemy come,' said our troops at Dienbienphu, 'and we'll show them.' We'll show them? We'll show what, and to whom? 'We'll show those who face us in battle,' they said. 'We'll show the enemy. And we'll show them in Hanoi. We'll show them in Saigon, the people busy sipping cool drinks on shaded café terraces or watching beautiful girls in the pool at the Sporting Club. We'll show the people of France, the people of France above all. They have to be shown. They have to be shown what their neglect, their incredible indifference, their illusions, their dirty politics have led to. And how best may we show them? By dying, so that honor at least may be saved . . .' Our dead of Dienbienphu died, I claim, protesting, appealing against today's France in the name of another France for which they had respect. The only victory that remains is the victory of our honor."
« Older When I was a kid, my dad, who grew up in London, d... | rideaccidents.com... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by keswick at 12:50 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]