From ABC News’ Brian Ross:
U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.
They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops’ strongest armor.
What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures  certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.
“The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production,” says explosives expert Kevin Barry. “So it’s the same make and model.”
U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.
“I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there,” says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. “I think it’s very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops.”
Notes Confederate Yankee:
I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war.
If these munitions can be tied to the Iranian governmentâ€â€and the article seems to strongly suggest just thatâ€â€then we clear legal and moral justification to disrupt Iran’s intentions to wound or kill American soldiers.
We have been trying to settle our differences with Iran with non-military means, but by their actions, their intent is clear. The mullahs of Iran would wage war upon America, and in doing so, have determined freedom for their enslaved pro-western people sooner, rather than later.
Well, sure—if true, this is a declaration of war. But the real question is, why is Iran willing to take such provocative steps at this juncture? Are they farther along in their nuclear program than we know? Or is there something else to this?
The answer, it seems to me, is that the Mullahs have done the poltical calculation and believe that a western coalition (outside of the US, who is already fighting in several theaters), lacks the will to act in any but the most feckless of ways. And even if they could gin up the will, the inevitable 6-8 month “rush” to war would give the Iranians time (and an excuse) to accelerate their nuclear program.
Question: Would Europeans support military action against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons to fight a war they have been conditioned to believe is “illegal”? The US left probably would back military action (this close to the 2006 elections, we are already beginning to see them morph into Jacksonian bloodletters—and besides, the polls seem to support taking action), but who else is prepared to join the fray and risk a “clash of civilizations” moment?
I mean, hell, we can’t even get sanctions passed against the Iranians—and whatever help Israel can give us will by necessity have to remain secret, or we risk drawing them into a war with the entire Muslim world.
So what are our options?
I’m not sure. But I do know that it is fortuitous that we are staged in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can waste much time. If it turns out Iran (and their Syrian allies) are behind the manufacture and supply of weapons being smuggled into Iraq to kill Americans (and bomb both Shiite and Sunni targets in an effort to foment civil war), we have no choice, it seems to me, than to quickly isolate both countries, and launch a series of strategic attacks with the hope of fomenting an uprising of our own among the Iranian student movement.
None of our options are very good at this point. But I sense that we’ll soon find out if our military is indeed “overstretched” and broken. This convergence of events—from Iran’s recalcitrance on the nuclear issue to its active participation on the side of the insurgents in Iraq—means we have very little choice but to strike and strike quickly, using the special forces and CIA intel we’ve no doubt been gathering for the past several years inside Iran’s borders.
Or maybe sombody has a better idea? And no, that’s not a rhetorical question.
****
update: more, from Ace .
the big problem is, i just don’t see the huge oppressed iranian student population you guyz keep talking about.
i think an American attack will instantly nationalize the student body.
sorry.
If we can track the shipments back to the factory, that might prove to be an educational target to blow the crap out of.
Is that my participle dangling?
SB: image
overhead
Perhaps there has been some strategery in the GWOT. Seems that Iran is facing two potential fronts.
I would suspect deploying our troops only in Afghanistan would have been a logistical nightmare. And just maybe ensuring that the UAE is one of our close allies isn’t such a bad idea afterall. Can you say Strait of Hormuz.
The will of the Left to fight will crumble when presented with an opportunity for more actual fighting. Then there will be accusations of, “They lied about WMDs! We can’t trust them on this!”
Once we have incontrovertible proof, it will be said that this is no different, morally, from American aid to Great Britain prior to 7 December, 1941.
Sometimes I think that most of our problems in the middle east could be solved by a President who will never run for election again, and 10-12 well-placed neutron bombs.
Shinji —
I’ve registered my skepticism over the mythical student uprising myself. But hey, it’s time to flip a coin. I don’t know how nationalized Iraq will be if the come under a certain kind of fire, and we make it clear that it’s attributable to a mad president and religious leaders that are fairly unpopular and fairly unsavory.
Which, of course, doesn’t answer my question about what the best course of action is. Sorry. It’s just a dodge.
No choice? what if this doesn’t work? I think there’s a spectrum of nasty things we can do to them.
Jeff
I have been sitting on this for days-waiting for
the issue break left wing wind again..I cant wait
for the news so I am going to make some right now
Are you ready on the right
lock and load
and fire at will
==============================
THE COMPLETE LIST OF DEMOCRATS
WHO CLAIMED THEY NEVER TOOK MONEY FROM
JACK ABRAMOFF
THE JACK ABRAMOFF
LOBBYING & POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE DNC
THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, AND
THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS
Each of the Democratic party individuals listed below all claimed to the National Press they never received or took or got or received a gift or had any financial contribution or money or checks or any form of cash donations or any campaign contribution or political contributions from Jack Abramoff or any of his associates
Source: FEC Records:
* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received – $22,500
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received – $2,000
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received – $7,500
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received – $79,300
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received – $14,250
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received – $28,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received – $3,500
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received – $4,300
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received – $6,250
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
THE DNC & DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY
LEADING PARTY DEMOCRATS
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Grand Total $1,541,673
The general idea here actus is to discuss these topics. For instance you could elaborate on the spectrum you are seeing and tell us what hallucenogens brought it on.
You know, the spectrum of soft and hard power, sanctions, boycotts, support for insurgents, actual strikes, invasions, etc…. the full spectrum. I don’t know why its ‘no choice’ but to have some strikes and hope for the mythical student rising.
Old news, folks.
My opinion is on my blog. Click my name.
TW = “instead”. I thought I’d just link instead of writing another long comment on Jeff’s dime.
TmjUtah is right…..this is old news, the Brits were accusing the Iranians of this months ago.
Instead, this is possibly a sanctioned leak with the intent of ratcheting the pressure up on Iran, not unlike Syria. The Mad Mullahs are less worried about international pressure (for a number of reasons), but proof that actively supplying terrorists does provide more leverage for the Coalition, Iraq, and President Bush. Plus the Brits, who have a decided interest in this, although I doubt they will join in on this fun (given the home situation).
What will that leverage allow? I don’t know for sure (Dubya and Karl stopped calling me a while ago
), but certainly this adds more legitimaticy to the conclusion that Iran is a rogue state (y’all remember the “Axis of Evil”?). This might be a stragetic advantage with wavering or neutral countries.
But I don’t think military options are out of the question……having secure bases a short flight time from the Iranian border provides for many options.
Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age.
GOD!!!! I’m agreeing with actus…..
There are a number of steps that we would prefer to take as we approach any possible full force actions.
We are quickly passing the (meaningless) UN apeasment stage, but there remain courses we can take before pulling the final trigger. It is my belief that we do not want to create another Laos. BUT, we will continue to posture and be prepared. It is a realist view, I agree, and the presence of our forces assembling on the borders could be message enough (albeit again, a realist will say that this would cause further tension). Include the occasional overt “recon” overflight (remember the low SR-71 pass before, I think, Gulf War I?) Mix in some strategic hits either cloak and daggegr or tomahawk et. al., and you could begin to incite distrust in the populace.
World oppinion? Russia likes their rekndeled client state affair too much. France has made some nuanced diplomatic statements against Iran, but it also seems that Chirac/ Villepin and the gang are trying to straddle the fence. At least publicly. The UK would be a hard sell actually.
We do have the luxury of time. Not alot, but at least we are allready in theatre. We have the technology to delay continued special weapon development. Maybe even stop it. If we had a ticking clock, we would act, and would not be concerned with interantional oppinion. But the imported IEDs and terrorists are 1) a growing concern that warrent immediate tactical actions, and 2) definitive evidence for future reprisals when necessary.
Finally, if that doesn’t work, print up a bunch of cartoons of Mohamad pissing on the koran and sign Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name to it.
I was in college during the Iranian hostage crisis of ‘79, and was pretty much politically disengaged, but I’ve wondered many times, over the last 4.5 years or so, what the world would look like today if Jimmy Carter had passed the message along to Ayatollah Khomeni that if the American embassy wasn’t cleared of radicals and restored to status quo ante within 24 hours, a major Iranian city would become radioactive ashes. And then another and another until they complied. Those cocksuckers would still hate us, but they wouldn’t fuck with us I bet. Of course that would’ve taken a major set of balls, which Mr. Carter reminds us of almost daily, that he doesn’t have and never did.
what do you mean by iran “weapons” ????!!!!
I refer you all to the will of the warrior motivated by his spirit. If we think in terms of our own (I hesitate to say western, based on the uh, whatever you call the graduates) understanding, we are marshmellows on an open flame. They do however, respect fear as it is part of and I submit to you all, a substantial aspect of their ability to control/rule the hordes. Waffling should be off the table.
Oil and scimitars is all they understand, and they should and shall die by the same, if there’s a collective, interested in the only solution for this particular Arab plague.
Clearly, this neither threatens nor addresses the sane Arab supporters of freedom and life. A life without the fear of a daily threat by some jerk wad Imam, is what any normal, yea healthy, person would wish for. Withholding the cure, is a far more evil thing to do.
I would like to know what the new Iraqi government thinks about their old buddy Iran arming the insurgents?
Hamed,
He’s referring to high-quality, manufactured shaped charges. The ones that are punching through our heaviest vehicles are professionally-made… far in excess of what any insurgent is capable of producing.
A large enough shaped explosive charge will punch through almost any amount of armor; that advantage is virtually always with the bomb-builder. The most effective of the armor-penetrating charges also have a metal (copper or similar) “melt sheet” on the surface of the charge. When the charge detonates, it not only focuses the blast against the armor, but the melt sheet (as the name implies) turns into a plasma jet of superheated molten metal. Those charges are very effective at punching holes through even the heaviest armor.
THOSE are the iranian weapons they’re talking about.
No, the reaction will be like it was after Powell’s speech to the UN: “they lied to us before, so how can I believe them now?”
Never mind that the “lies” weren’t lies; the left lives in a fantasyland in which any fact they don’t like is a “lie”.
True story Robert. Every light in the house is on and yet……
I’ve got no answer to your question, Jeff, but I do wonder if Dubya should do anything at all before the pros and cons are totally hashed out in public. And I’m talking about making it topic “A” in the Congress and MSM and alternative media. It seems to me that if we broaden the war to include Iran and Syria, the American public needs to be on board in a very, very serious way. If they aren’t, the effort will fall apart. I’ve got career-military friends who have done two deployments, and one of them has done three, since 911. I’ve got family who’ve done one tour in Iraq with the Guard. If the public isn’t ready to sacrifice on the level of WWII, I wonder if, in the long run, it will be better for us to conserve our resources until Americans feel their lifestyles and lives are threatened by Islamo-fascism? You know, like when David Gregory can’t get halwa in his favorite Turkish market in Georgetown.
I could be wrong. After all, I’m only an inanimate mineral for feeding cows and wild animals.
Just occurred to me—which probably means Karl Rove thought of it last year—maybe the 2006 mid-term elections should be all about Iran, Syria, and the prospect of widening the WOT.
Although I bet nobody will mention it could require sacrifices by the American public.
“…launch a series of strategic attacks with the hope of fomenting an uprising of our own among the Iranian student movement.”
Yeah, because that worked out so well the last time. I’m sure the Iranians have forgotten all about the post-GWI “uprising.”
You know what?
I’m sick of this idea. Let’s blow some stuff up and then hope that the ensuing chaos will maybe result in some faction doing something effective.
What the hell kind of strategy is this?
If they’re a threat, let’s take care of it ourselves.
Christ on a goddamn pogo-stick; what a bunch of delicate flowers we’ve become.
What “sacrifices” by the American Public? Less pork barrel from Congress to pay for it all?
I’ll get my rucksack packed for deployment nummber 2 and stand by. The public has me/us to do the fighting and my family to do the worrying. I would just appreciate a little public support, a little less moonbattery and a really nice parade when we are done – fair enough?
Whatever we do, not only will Europe not be with us, they’ll be shooting at us.
France, Germany and UK were among the largest exhibitors at the big Iranian arms fair held post- OIF, offering the Iranians SAMs, armored vehicles and artillery.
Charmingly, the Brits showed up while their troops were still being shot at in Iraq.
We’ve already ID’d post-sanction European weapons in Iraq, such as the rockets used in the hotel attack on Paul Bremer in the early days of the CPA (French). Anyone want to guess at their source?
Yes. And it’s not because we’re afraid of how many of ours will die, it’s because we’re afraid of how many of theirs we’ll kill. Slaughtering the enemy is just so selfish, and we can take anything but being called selfish. That’s why we voted for the compassionate conservative.
TW: Western civilization won’t be killed, it will sacrifice itself for the sake of those less civilized.
Well-said, MJ.
Most of the people in the military don’t do it for attaboys… they don’t expect to walk down the street in their uniform and have the public scatter rose petals in their path.
It’s the little unexpected things that make you glad you went. I remember an airline employee who thanked me, and went out of her way to help me (unsolicited) when I got back from my first ME deployment… I never forgot it, and it meant more to me than all the parades put together.
Whenever I’m travelling in an airport and end up eating at one of those concourse restaurants, I keep an eye for any military people. If they’re there, I take their waitress aside, discretely pay their check, and tip the waitress handsomley to not tell them (I’ve been busted once or twice by a sharp-eyed troop).
Those little gestures of sincere thanks from fellow americans are worth more than all the parades in the world.
The very very very few Iranian people I’ve talked to are unhappy with Iran, believe most people in Iran are unhappy with the state of Iran, but that they aren’t about to do anything about it.
OTOH, I was watching CNNi today, which shockingly approaches American political issues more rationally than regular CNN does. In the interview of one former Iranian diplomat, he said he believes that a compromise can still be reached. For all of Iran’s tough talk about cutting off oil supplies, Iran can afford that less than the rest of the world can. He managed to convince me at least that political and diplomatic pressure (go John Bolton) can still win the day in Iran.
“If true” is the first part of the matter. The second is whether, even if they are coming from Iran, they are being assembled on orders or tacit approval of Iran. The third is whether a “declaration of war” is the best way to handle such a situation.
But if war it is, all you pro-war guys better enlist now. The military is stretched too thin as it is.
There’s at least one nifty possible answer: blockade Iran and destroy their domestic refinery capacity. The Saudis are already ramping up production (hmmm, I wonder how that came along just now?) and the Iranians can only produce about 30 percent of the gasoline and distillates they need right now.
Then we offer the Iranians fresh gasoline and $1000 gift certificates to Victorias Secret the day they have free elections.
Why? There is always the draft (and that’s assuming that we would be putting boots on the ground).
I’d really like to see the data that supports this notion.
Major John—the biggest sacrifice might be (knock on wood) loosing the lives of lots of men like yourself. I don’t think the American public has the stomach for that unless the trumpet is blowing clearly, and we know the MSM tries to make sure that doesn’t happen. But I’m ignorant of what it would take to bring Syria and Iran to heel. I’m assuming it could take lots more blood and treasure. Maybe just lob some big stuff in there? Drop some stuff out of Stealths? You’d know better than I.
Parade? We can arrange a big parade, no problem. All we have to do is stop funding crap like new chainsaws and generators for farmers in Mississippi who had Katrina blow a tree down on their driveway.
NewGuy—I contribute to some family support groups, and since you mention food, I mailed a big check last year to that D.C. group that sends the wounded out to a first-rate steak house. Hope that counts. And thanks.
tristero:
It is a paradox of sorts that as technology and tactical knowledge increases, thereby decreasing Infantry manpower requirements and making defeating an enemy force in combat easier [well, less costly in blood and treasure], our fighting forces have shrunk to a point where occupation becomes problematic. It is much easier [simpler, anyway] to kill someone than to control his behavior by non-lethal means. In a post war reconstruction environment, such as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lines are sometimes blurred between combat and police functions.
Do not ever make the mistake of thinking that because of some moderate difficulty we are having in performing police functions with Infantry troops that our ability to defeat an enemy in armed combat has been diminished.
Though if the Mad Mullahs in Iran make that mistake in judgement, it wouldn’t bother me too much.
Does this mean I should remove my ‘blog for Iran’ buttons?
Tristero,
It seems to me that everyone who stands to lose with a nuclear-armed Iran should step up to the plate… which would include the residents of most of Europe, Israel, and pretty much anyone who uses gasoline.
That list should also realistically include the residents of most civilized nations and various vitriolic websites, since everyone seems to agree that Iran with nukes is such a dreadful idea. After all, even democratic leaders have been castigating Mr. Bush for not doing enough about Iran.
If, however, you were simply making a chickenhawk smear…
Salt Lick: It wasn’t my intention to minimize anyone’s gesture of thanks, and I hope that’s not how my post came across. I’m sure your contribution was appreciated by everyone it touched, and I salute your digging deep to help.
I served and did several SWA deployments, but my part was small, and not as dangerous as what many of these troops have endured.
Hmmmm… what to do… what to do…
Perhaps the President could announce that due to the Casus Belli that Iran has given us that we declare them to be a hostile state to us as part of our foreign policy, and reserve the right to do as we please against them in the future?
And then Congress could use its powers *short* of Declaring War to help enforce that foreign policy?
Of course both of those parats of the government would need to actually understand the <a href=”http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html” target=”_blank”>Constitutional </a>powers that they have sworn to so as to exercise their offices. What a novel idea!
But then again, I do have strange thoughts.
Preview… what you see is not always what you get… sort of like electing politicians to office… only faster
I think real war with Iran is coming and I am not at all optimistic that sanctions can stop it. Since 1979 those that rule Iran have viewed us as the enemy, and have been making war with us. I wish it were not the case, but it is.
I think we must seal the border, and allow no one accross. I think we must blockade the country and prevent it from exporting its oil. I think we must bomb strategic targets, beginning with anything that has to do with nuclear production. Lastly, I think we must target their leaders (including al Sadr) for assassination, and this includes the mullahs.
Or we can wait until they have the bomb and use it, and then retaliate in kind.
Either way this is a war that has been coming between us for over 25 years.
I don’t have any brilliant thoughts on what to do except if we do know where the bombs are coming from we should definitely take that location out. And take video of secondary explosions.
What I don’t get is the reference to Israel…if we need Israel’s help in this matter (other than intelligence if they have it) then we are in big trouble.
I see Clarke is to be trusted now. It’s so hard to keep track of wingnut enemies; do you think you can provide a flow chart, Jeff?
I’m all for just taking their oil fields and using air supremacy to hold them indefinitely. Meanwhile, let’s pump the shit out of them and sell the oil to all takers. Keep the money–less expenses of course–in trust with Kofi and Co. on behalf of the new Persian regime.
If anything will motivate those Iranians to organize a new government quickly it’s the idea of Kofi watching their dough.
Russia keeping us from sanctions, though the Iranians are almost certainly helping the Chechens? Puts a whole new twist on that “sell you the rope you’ll hang them with”, doesn’t it?
Sadly, we cannot forget the crowd over here that hates us more than they hate the enemy. Nothing short of a traceable low-grade nuke on us on our soil will get them on board. Sad as it seems, that is what it will take.
This sort of plan is working so well in Iraq we should export it to the rest of the middle east.
Do we know for sure if the Iranian IEDs are being given or sold to the insurgents? I believe understanding that structure goes a long way towards framing a solution.
Actus, in what way does that resemble what we’ve done in Iraq? I mean in reality, in this life here on Earth. Not in some deluded fantasy world where your response might make sense.
Yes, that’s why we’re working on elections, stability, civil society, civilian infrastructure, training the military and police, keeping the country unified, border security, etc. Because we’re there to ‘just take the oil fields’.
Compared to what we’re actually doing in Iraq, just taking, holding and using the oil infrastructure would be easy.
Idiot or liar, actus – which one is it?
or?
Yes. With Air supremacy. I guess you’re right, Iranians don’t deserve any of those things we’ve brought to Iraq, just air supremacy.
actus
You said there was a spectrum of nasty things we could do to them, and then gave us a list of what those things could be. If you were the POTUS, what would you do?
Don’t worry about being wrong and please don’t have your answer necessitate use of a time machine.
Going to have to do something to those Iranian bastards, but what it might be, I can’t imagine.
Bush’s record in Iraq not being all that good….
I would be in favor of sending those munitions
back to the Iranians.
One at a time.
On an appropriate delivery vehicle.
Did you get those packages we sent back to you? Sorry, we must have forgotten to fuze them!
TW: “member” of the conspiracy?
In response to this article? Punish the leakers. In response to iraq? The general democracy promotion, funding legitimate institutions, etc that tend to undermine authoritarianism. Avoid policy making with the sorts of “its time to flip a coin” methods of avoiding responsibility for the result of the coin flip or my inability to have idea of what to do after the coin flip.
oh. And so long as i’m POTUS, I’d also like a pony.
“In response to iraq?”
Duh. I mean, in response to Iran.
Would you use the pony to punish the leakers?
No, that’s what grand juries are for.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff
1. Begin building an intercontinental railgun.
Frankly I think this is something the US government is already working on since it’s scaling up a technology that’s already being actively pursued. Such a weapon would allow for the launching of smart weapons from within the USA to any point on Earth, suborbit or low/high orbit with rocket boosters. What this would do is allow us to launch massive bombing campaigns from a cold start. Since all of the weapons are located here in the USA, along with the launcher, there’s no need for forward bases, overflight permissions or risk to American pilots.
With such technology the bombs could simply be filled with concrete since explosives would be unnecessary. We would also have a solution for deeply embedded structures, bases and bunkers. If one isn’t enough, then throw a couple hundred at it. What I know of current railgun technology is that the USN version throws a 5kg projectile about 350 miles with enough terminal energy to dig a 40’ hole, and can fire 12-15 per minute while doing so. But that’s designed to be put onboard a ship while a land-based intercontinental railgun wouldn’t have such restrictions. Build a nuclear power plant to power it and you’ve got a solution for any sort of problems. Plus with a land-based railgun you could also build it much longer than onboard a ship. This would allow for lower overall G’s when accelerating the projectiles to suborbital velocities. A weapon like this would probably be able to use the 2,000lb to 5,000lb bomb as the more mass the better for accumulating kinetic energy.
What this sort of weapon would allow is for an extended bombing campaign where not only could we bomb someone back to the “stone age” but we could also keep them there. We could prevent the construction of any structure, building, dam, powerplant, refinery, port structure, bridge or road.
And that would apply to everyone on the planet.
Another interesting point is that such technology could be rapidly converted to civilian use for launching civilian loads into orbit.
2. Frankly the best way to irritate the Iranians is to use existing irritants.
Specifically the Baluchis. The Baluchis are located in southeastern Iran, and southwestern Pakistan. I’m hesitant to advocate arming yet another group of muslims to fight an insurgent war, but this would severely distract the Iranians. The Baluchis have already tried two attempts to kill the President of Iran, so they’ve got gumption on their side. Instead of farming this out, like what happened in Afghanistan, we could specifically direct weapons shipments to the Baluchis to fight the Iranians. This might cause problems with Pakistan since they also have a Baluchi population but I figure some sort of agreement could be made to keep those Baluchis out of any trouble with Pakistan.
And if this causes some headaches for Pakistan, I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
3. I don’t place much faith in these Iranian students. I’ve read some opinions written by a few and almost universally they don’t want an American invasion. I think any sort of invasion by America woud mobilize the Iranian population regardless of their age or affiliations. IMHO I think a general invasion is a very bad idea. Any concept that involves invading Iran in order to emplace democracy or overthrow the regime is probably doomed. The mullahs are disliked and even hated to a point, but I don’t think quite to the point that Saddam was in Iraq.
4. IMHO what fascinates me is that overwhelming Arab/muslim ethos of personal courage and honor, and their utter and complete inability to deal with oppression. I’m absolutely certain that if a Saddam-type rose in America that he’d be hung from the nearest tree in short order. Yet there are more murderous tyrants in muslim countries than there are flies on a dead camel.
It’s rather odd.
5. I think one possible solution is to invade Iran and take the oil fields.
The primary driving force in the current crisis is that Iran has money to fund it’s research and bombmaking efforts while the West, largley Europe, badly needs the oil that generates those profits. I’m not advocating yet another Oil-For-Food type situation but I think the current geography of Iran does lend itself to such a strategy.
Saddam pointed this out in the Iran-Iraq War when he invaded Iran in order to take Iran’s oil fields. Those oil fields are very close to the Iraqi border. It would be possible, and a real bitch to hold, those oil fields and continue operating them. What it would take is to drive into Iran, capture the oil fields and then force a mass exodus from that area of all Iranians. In effect it would be an American or Coalition enclave in Iran. This would deprive Iran of most of it’s oil funds while continuing the supply of oil to Europe. The net effect is that would kill two issues. The first being that Iran has money to play provacateur with and the second being that the oil fields are held as a Damocles sword over the head of Europe.
This strategy would also severely weaken the hold the Iranian mullahs have over the Iranian people. Nationalistic fervor would cement the population to a point, but inability for the mullahs to actually accomplish anything plus the drought of funds with which to hire the bully boys that the mullahs have used in the past would pose a serious destabilizing force.
6. Frankly I think sanctions would be utterly worthless and I won’t bother discussing them.
7. Aother strategy is to just piss everyone off and bomb the oil refineries and port facilities in Iran. If we do enough damage it’ll prevent the Iranians from earning any oik revenues for years. And at that point the Iranian government would have to choose between feeding their populace or continuing the work on the bomb. We already know the Iranian government hates America so there’s no real loss there. Plus the loss of oil revenues would also significantly reduce the stranglehold the government has on the population. There are plenty of downsides to this as it would vastly antagonize Europe, China, Russia and Iran.
Hey. Fuck’em.
8. Last, and very much least, we could declare war on Islam and start slaughtering muslims until there’s none left.
…
*shrug* Not many good options frankly. It’s a pity but all of the scenarios I see that involve any sort of military action and Iran end up with a general conflagration that turns into a West vs Islam war.
Or maybe sombody has a better idea? And no, that’s not a rhetorical question.
Hithcens does, apparently:
Why Bush Should Go To Iran
The Supreme Council is the problem. Ergo erasing the Supreme Council is the solution. Hit them one night when they’re meeting and address a couple of cruise missiles to each mullah’s home address for good measure. The only non-mullah that should be similarly dealt with is their toady, Ahmadinejad. We must also have additional rounds of strikes planned to take care of any we missed. Furthermore, We don’t TOUCH their parliament, don’t TOUCH their oil infrastructure and don’t TOUCH their military in an effort to make Iranians understand that our beef isn’t with Iran or Iranians, but rather with their aggressive, unelected leadership, and to convice would-be successor thug-mullahs that seeking power isn’t in their personal best interest. If we’re very, very, lucky, we can avoid a nationalist backlash of otherwise sympathetic Iranians coalescing to protect their homeland.
Iran’s political successors can be offered a conditional surrender by Congress whereby no American boot touches Iranian soil if they get their shit together and build a democratic, non-aggressive normal government.
Hmmm.
The problem with that is that you’re striking at not just a bunch of corrupt bastards but also at their religion. I simply don’t believe that enough Iranians, and no doubt many other non-Iranians, would be outraged enough to declare war.
*shrug* there are no easy answers
Some of them were elected, from a field of candidates approved by the mullahs. I don’t know about electoral fraud, but I think there was a less hardline choice, and it was rejected. However there was no true reformist choice.
I realize it’s counter-intuitive, and certainly there are no easy answers, but if we can decapitate the leadership without making the lights go out in Tehran, we have a chance. Call it ultra-surgical war.
;peter
I bet Iran is quaking in its boots. I get the impression there are still Americans who don’t realize yet what a paper tiger their country has become.
In 1938, the liberal powers of the time served up Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler.
The Czechs didn’t have nukes.
Once the Israelis convince themselves that Iran is a nuclear threat, they will act. They don’t have the conventional resources to seriously degrade the Iranian nuc program. Worse, if the mullahs actually have inventory, the target set that must be toatally destroyed in order to prevent the use of that inventory widens exponentially. I don’t care how good the Mossad is – they will not have a street address for where the weapon(s) are stored. A nuke in London or Paris or Rome or New York… even a half dozen detonated across the West, would be unlikely to incite a genocidal response from the Western powers.
The West has that option. Israel doesn’t. Two or three dirty bombs, and they cease to exist. Israel has spent a lot of money on ABM technology; nobody has yet developed a sure defense against a shipping container.
That’s a long way of saying that Israel will sterilize most of Iran, with emphasis on known or suspected weapons stores, command and control, and leadership. Concurrent with that attack they will take steps to eliminate the numerical superiorty of the enemy at their borders, and within the Palestinian areas. They do have that capability.
I believe that our diplomats and administration have probably made the above points clear to the Euroes. I would not be terribly surprised if they didn’t carry signed documents to that effect from the Israeli government.
Our side isn’t making an argument based merely on the prospect of hundreds of millions dead across tens of thousands of square miles. Nope, we’re dealing with Europeans here. The immediate aftermath of such an attack will produce an economic shockwave across the world and Europe’s governments are incapable of surviving that event given their tottering economies and tattered social fabric; unassimilated Muslim populations will factor large in their considerations, two.
If the Israelis deal a killing blow to their immediate Islamist threat, the Euroes will face internal chaos from the ghettoes of enraged muslims all across the continent.
It is in the best interests of free people across the planet that all the resources of the West be employed in an extensive, effective, conventional operation to disarm Iran, and bring down its government, than to force Israel to commit Armeggedon in order to survive.
The United States possesses the people, weapons, and leadership to make this happen on conventional terms. If our “allies” fail to take a public and conscious side when (not if, and sooner rather than later) we undertake this mission, they will have abdicated any right to be considered allies.
Do you mean since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, or just in general?
Hmmmm.
@ TmjUtah
1.
Not a chance. Israel simply doesn’t have the capability. We’d all like to think they do, but they don’t. And quite frankly it’s rather absurd for America, as powerful as we are, to hope that Israel decides to stick it’s neck out for us yet again to deal with a situation that we’re unwilling to face.
As for Israeli capabilities what’s lacking is both the appropriate munitions and the range necessary. In order for Israeli jets to strike at Iran they’ll need overflight permission from Iraq and refueling by tankers operating from within Iraq. That’s frankly unlikely.
Additionally Israel at first sought to buy 2,000lb bunker buster bombs. Then gave that up and bought 5,000lb bunker buster bombs. And I seriously doubt those would be enough. A F-15 loaded with a heavy bombload isn’t going to have the necessary range to strike Iran so mid-air refueling will be necessary. Then there’s the issue of Iran’s recent SA-15 mobile SAM purchases which will make striking very dicey for non-stealth aircraft.
IMHO the noises being made by Cheney and Bush about not allowed Iran to build nuclear weapons is because Israel has given up the idea of a first pre-emptive strike.
2.
Completely wrong. A nuke detonated in the West would certainly result in a nuclear response. Particularly in Paris since the French government has come out and stated for the public record what that response would be. Essentially France will nuke into oblivion anyone who uses a WMD on French soil.
3.
Actually America spent that money. Israel is using the Patriot batteries originally developed for the USA.
And that shipping container thing isn’t all that correct. It takes a LOT of shielding to prevent a radiation detector from detecting a substantial amount of nuclear material. As for a “dirty bomb” that’ll be much less effective in Israel than here in the US. Really the only major effect of a dirty bomb would be to significantly harm the Israeli agriculture sector as European nations would ban the import of food from irradiated areas along with the bad publicity.
But I really don’t see people who deal with homocide bombings on a regular basis being all that fazed with a dirty bomb that’s largely propoganda rather than reality. Seriously now. What’s the most significant danger from a dirty bomb anyways? That I might get cancer from it in 30 years?
4.
Yes Israel has that capability but it’s unlikely that they’d do that. It would require a renounciation of their entire national ethos. It would require an embraceof genocide, which I really doubt would happen.
On the other hand I do think that Israel is capable of nuclear retaliation against the Iranian government. But the rest of it I think is currently beyond the political or social ability of the Israeli people.
5.
Frankly there are far more than the one Iranian threat. It’s extremely unlikely that the other muslim nations aren’t themselves seeking nuclear weapons with varying degrees of success. I for one would be extremely surprised if Saudia Arabia didn’t already have Pakistani made nuclear weapons.
6.
Never happen.
Europe would never sign onto this because their militaries are utter crap and at least 20 years behind America with very few combat experienced soldiers. Additionally many European armies are shot through with muslim radical sympathizers. The US Army had to deal with a few radical soldiers who took the opportunity to murder fellow soldiers. The European militaries are in far worse shape in that regard and there’s a serious amount of doubt over the actual reliability of the muslim soldiers in European uniforms.
A conventional war in Iran would be Iraq with the difficulty multiplied by about 50. Iran’s society isn’t as divided as Iraq is and there’s no substantial native population that could be relied upon as we can in Iraq with the Kurds. Additionally all of the religious hierarchy in Iran would be against us and it’s possible this would sway forces in Iraq against us as well.
Additionally the only force we could hope to help us would be the Iranian students, but that’s a very thin hope as many would be more outraged by an invasion against their homeland than encouraged by the deposing of the current regime.
As for regime change, where would we find those native politicians and leaders to form a new government? Would we make Iran a colony and impose a new Raj there? Frankly that’s a silly idea.
*shrug* there are no easy answers. And Iran coupled with the incipient religious war down in Nigeria is a bad combination. We’ve got two major trend lines now. An increasing trend line of muslim aggression and a decreasing trend line of Western/Christian patience. When they intersect we’ll see the start of a real war and not this pseudo war we’ve been fighting so far.
It’s really a pity that muslims are too damn stupid to understand the shit they’re starting. But they’ll learn one way or another.
The Supreme Council banned thousands of candidates from participating in the last elections they held. They could start there.
It’s funny, In Vino Veritas posted a link to the Hitchens piece at the same moment I posted about taking out the mullahs so I didn’t get to read it beforehand but it’s supportive of the idea. Also, although I’ve yet to convince myself that taking out Iran’s permanent rulers is the way to go, I am becoming convinced that striking Iran’s nuclear sites is NOT the way to go. The mullahs have managed to engage many Iranian patriots’ sense of sovereign independence with it’s nuclear program acting as a symbol of Iranian national aspirations, and attacking those facilities would enrage them.
However, an attack on their leadership WITHOUT an attack on those facilities or the Iranian military would speak very loudly to Iranians and the world of the US’ lack of appetite for hegemony over Iran and we could thus avoid engaging Iranian nationalism at te street level.
:peter
Hmmm.
You have a point there. But you’re also making an unfounded assumption that these candidates:
1. Are capable.
2. Are popular enough on their own to command respect and allegiance from the population.
3. Wouldn’t be antagonistic to our bombing Iran.
4. Would be willing to work with the West.
5. Wouldn’t have ambitions towards nuclear weapons.
*shrug* I frankly wouldn’t want to end up like Napoleon. He encouraged one of his senior generals, General Bernadotte, to become the new Crown Prince of Sweden. Once ensconced as the new king, Bernadotte declared war on Napoleon and ultimately helped defeat him.
So yes there were thousands of candidates outlawed by the mullahs. But that does not automatically make them acceptable, reasonable or even useful in the capacity of creating a new regime.
It’s a nice thought. But there’s no substance there other than speculation and conjecture. We hope this is true, but there’s nothing there.
ed!
All five of your points are, sadly, valid. And I am operating from the assumption that the mullahs didn’t ban the forbidden candidates arbitrarily, which, if correct, is the only point in my favor. This sort of prescription would obviously not have worked in Iraq given Saddam’s emphasis on the “total” in totalitarianism, but Iran is somewhat different. There, the mullah’s authoritarianism has waxed and waned, giving legitimate reformers periodic opportunities to coalesce and even experience political success, whereas in Iraq any suspected opposition to the regime resulted in immediate torture and death for entire extended families.
Unfortunately for us, the level of knowledge of our adversaries’ intentions and capabilities that would provide for sound, confident decisions on our part are almost never one of our options. Indeed, as in Iraq, the fact of our ignorance is most often a crucial if not determining factor in itself. For example, in Iraq, our ignorance of Saddam’s WMD status being reframed as an untennable risk by the 9/11 attacks is what really drove us to war in 2003, as opposed to any actual knowledge of Saddam’s intentions or capabilities. yet still, even in hindsight, it was the intelligent thing to do. Whatever happens in Iraq, it is very unlikely that we will again face a leadership there built around a family of agressive psychopaths that we would have continued to face had we not acted.
By posting this speculation and conjecture I’m merely wondering if our military strengths can be refocused further in such a way that we can increase our opportunity for victory at a lower cost to all involved.
yours/
peter.
ed –
I appreciate your reasoned and well spoken disagreement.
I agree with you totally that there are no easy answers.
A conventional strike won’t even be considered by Israel. They do not, as you point out (as did I in my original post), have either the technology or the mass to make an effective attack.
Retaliation is not – cannot be – their stance toward Iran. I reiterate the point that the survival of their nation is in the balance. Kill all the Arabs/Muslims on the planet AFTER Tel Aviv is a smoking hole, uninhabitable for generations, would be a demonstration of forebearance totally at odds with the social, historical soul of the Jews who survived the camps.
“Never AGAIN”. On any day, a random terrorist may blow up himself and two or ten or twenty Israelis. He does that with homemade explosives and hardware scrap. The figurehead president of Iran lives rhetoric indistinguishable from that “any random terrorist” and is putative head of state of a country built on “death to Jews/Freedom/the West”.
They will take him at his word, and rightfully so. Anything less would be exactly the same as lining up like sheep to get on the train to Poland.
BTW, I do agree that nuclear attacks against the West, outside of Israel, would probably be retaliated for. With the most modern weapons, plentiful and precise, and designed to be used in clusters as airbursts. Efficient, and most importantly, clean. If France gets nuked, sure, they’ll level Qom or some other significant target. Away from the oil fields…
Countries with a lot of nukes and a lot of depth and a lot of people can plan on that basis. Israel ‘s arsenal is probably 95% tactical/battlefield yield. I have never seen any literature purporting to describe a fusion weapon in their arsenal. That means air delivery by gravity bomb, a lesser number of standoff delivery systems, and some small number of theater missiles.
Those weapons will be ground bursts be made as lethally dirty as possible, and will be deployed in a fashion to take full advantage of seasonal weather patterns. Their airforce will be decimated by the one-way sorties necessary to hit essential targets. They’ll hope to have enough left to defend themselves in the aftermath.
This was up on Drudge when I got home this evening.
Never again.
TW – “start”. The Iranians won’t get a chance to start an attack.