A scenario post by John Robb.
The Coming Conflagration
Printable View
A scenario post by John Robb.
The Coming Conflagration
I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment one way or another on Robb's blog, but it certainly seemed simplistic. Maybe thats why it seems plausible, if a bit of a reach.
I see nothing "likely inevitable" about a U.S. war with Iran . Rock is right ,
tis a "bit of a reach."
Zen, what is your take on all this? Seymor Hersh was on CNN last night saying the US worked with Israel in their recent campaign as a test for a possible airpower campaign against Iran.
Hi everyone,
Since Slapout9 asked, here's my observations.
The scenario as written by Robb is not implausible but it is too linear. Wars often could occur at other times than when they actually happen to break out. WWI could have happened in 1912 over Morocco, the Civil War could have broken out in 1850 and so on. The tension with Iran could linger for years as did the case of Iraq from 1991-2003.
I think readers/viewers are best taking reporters like Sy Hersh or Yossef Bodansky as prolific aggregators of interesting raw data and then go on to form their own opinions as to the reliability.
An American EBO campaign against Iran would go better and worse for the U.S. than did Israel's against Hezbollah/Lebanon:
Better, in the sense that the Iranian mullahs run a state and not a militia and there are lots of really valuable infrastructure for the USAF targeteers to make merry marking for destruction. Khameini and Ahmadinejad can't avoid the disadvantages of running a targetable shop - our pressure, unlike Israel's, would be direct.
Worse because without a suitable - that is to say " legitimate" pretext - to hit Iran so severely, the blowback is going to be substantial. Much worse than with Iraq; taking down Saddam, while unpopular in the international community, can be rationalized in foreign capitals to an extent as an anomaly, unfinished business, a serious error or the like. Taking down Iran makes this behavior of ours a pattern - an alarming trend to middle rank powers and a worrisome one to other great powers who for the most part will also be unhappy about $ 150-225 / barrel oil. If sufficiently irritated, they will take countervailing measures to prevent themselves from being rendered irrelevant in world affairs and express their unhappiness with our policies. And I'm talking about our friends here, not just the Russians or Chinese.
Now, if Iran provides us with a pretext by an aggressive act of sufficient lunacy - always a possibility with Ahmadinejad - or if we are clearly acting to stop imminent weaponization of nuclear devices, we will receive a pass to some extent, at least from our allies. If the Iranians were particularly provocative, even the Russians or Chinese will have a muted response.
On an attack of this magnitude we need to have our ducks in a row or not do it at all.
Why are you assuming that Ahmadinejad is an irrational actor? Is this not a poor planning assumption? Is he simply a populist, who says what many of his constituents want to hear?Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpundit
I do not believe that war with Iran is either imminent, or in any way in our best interests. One thing is certain, if we treat Iran as an enemy, they will surely be so. The same is true for China. If we treat them as a threat, they we surely become one.
Hi Strickland,Quote:
Originally Posted by Strickland
I said it is a "possibility", not a certainty so I wouldn't plan on the Iranians handing us any gifts. (as an a clarification, I was commenting on Robb's brief, not advocating an attack on Iran which, for more reasons than I stated previously, has great potential to go poorly for us even though I'm sure we'd deal out lots of physical damage)
The smart thing, on Ahmadinejad's side of the equation is to not to do anything that would facilitate the U.S. justifying any kind of military conflict. I say it is a possibility because the Iranian leadership is factionalized and positioning oneself on foreign policy ( Israel, the U.S., nuclear policy) in public speeches appears to be a tool of elite Iranian politics. Ahmadinejad has consistently reached for inflammatory rhetoric, not because he is nuts but because despite holding the presidency, there are other groups and bodies that he has to persuade to support his policies ( The Guardian Council, the Expediency Council, the Majlis, the senior Pasdaran commanders, the Supreme Guide, the activist base and so on).
Zen, you make some very good points. The blow back is the most concerning to me, the US is getting very good at picking fights and not being able to finish them. The president made a serious mistake when he mobilized the military for war, but he has never mobilized the nation to support multi- campaigns and the direct and indirect effects they can and will have on our nation.
Major Strickland, I agree the guy that runs Iran (I am not even going to try and spell it) is crazy like a fox. He goes on TV with that #### eating grin of his and spouts a few insults and we start reacting.
My thoughts are this. Tell them to go ahead and build your bombs. Build all you want. Give them to the kids. Put them on the street corners. Keep them in Iran and we (the us) will not be a problem. We should issue a proclamation that spells out what we would consider to be threatening activities to our security and if they violate them we will strike.
I was taught something a long time ago when I just started on the police force. Never fear the weapon, always fear the man!! a weapon is nothing without a man to use it. Our problem is not Iran's weapons it is the men running it.