Next Small War

**NDD** · 10-15-2005

As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...

**aktarian** · 10-15-2005

Originally Posted by NDD

As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...

Insurgency in one of the largest oil exporters and state that lies at Hormuz Straits would be a bad thing. Specially since shi'ias in Gulf Arabs could get drawn in.

**NDD** · 10-15-2005

Originally Posted by aktarian

Insurgency in one of the largest oil exporters and state that lies at Hormuz Straits would be a bad thing. Specially since shi'ias in Gulf Arabs could get drawn in.

Another 30 years of their antics would be a worse thing. Just my opinion and my dream.

Largest oil exporters to whom?

**Strickland** · 10-15-2005

We should remember that the US is largely responsible for the Iranian situation due to its role in the overthrow or Mossadeq, and support of the Shah.

**NDD** · 10-16-2005

Originally Posted by Major Strickland

We should remember that the US is largely responsible for the Iranian situation due to its role in the overthrow or Mossadeq, and support of the Shah.

Negative, the Brits did that. Yes, we helped, but it was mostly them. And that is what happens when you try to nationalize somebody elses hard work.

I don't think anything would have turned out much different if he had remained in power. The Islamists would have come for him eventually.

**Strickland** · 10-17-2005

Originally Posted by NDD

Negative, the Brits did that. Yes, we helped, but it was mostly them. And that is what happens when you try to nationalize somebody elses hard work.

I don't think anything would have turned out much different if he had remained in power. The Islamists would have come for him eventually.

Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.

**NDD** · 10-18-2005

Originally Posted by Major Strickland

Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.

How is it an empty assertion? What would have stopped them?

The Ayatollah Kashani helped put Mossadeq into power, they were already players in Iran even back then.

**NDD** · 10-18-2005

Originally Posted by Major Strickland

Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.

Mossadeq's removal was about Anglo-Iranian Oil - later BP. Mostly a Brit problem.

**aktarian** · 10-15-2005

Originally Posted by NDD

Another 30 years of their antics would be a worse thing. Just my opinion and my dream.

A state is more responsive to threats and can be influenced by other means (economics mostly) than some non-stae group. And stable state has an interest in long term development while country in anarchy doesn't.

Originally Posted by NDD

Largest oil exporters to whom?

Globaly. If they stop exports (or limit them) there will be shortage of oil on market which will drive prices up, including for US.

**NDD** · 10-16-2005

Originally Posted by aktarian

A state is more responsive to threats and can be influenced by other means (economics mostly) than some non-stae group. And stable state has an interest in long term development while country in anarchy doesn't.

Globaly. If they stop exports (or limit them) there will be shortage of oil on market which will drive prices up, including for US.

I am not advocating threatening an insurgent group in Iran - I am advocating supporting them.

Yes, prices would go up short term. In the medium/long term, Iran cannot afford not to sell. I doubt they have been saving for a rainy day.

I am all for destabilizing the ME with a very few exceptions. It never has been all that stable anyway and the status quo gets a lot of people killed.

There are rooms that simply cannot be cleared. Sometimes you have to throw a grenade in and close the door and move on.

**aktarian** · 10-16-2005

Originally Posted by NDD

I am not advocating threatening an insurgent group in Iran - I am advocating supporting them.

That will lead to civil war which woun't be over soon. Unlike Taliban and Saddam Iranian mullahs aren't as hated as those two were. They are unpopular but not hated so much. So they could count on support of parts of population, specially if people see this civil war as orchestrated from outside.

Originally Posted by NDD

Yes, prices would go up short term. In the medium/long term, Iran cannot afford not to sell. I doubt they have been saving for a rainy day.

It isn't necessary that they wouldn't want to sell, it could be that they couldn't. Iranian oil infrastructure would be damaged. Either in fighting itself or loosing side would destroy as much as they could out of spite. Short term disaster, medium term bad thing and who knows about long term.

Originally Posted by NDD

I am all for destabilizing the ME with a very few exceptions. It never has been all that stable anyway and the status quo gets a lot of people killed.

And if you destabilise it can you be sure people friendly to you will come on top? Say you topple Saudi regime. Are you sure young, pro-western factions will come on top? It can be that even worse regime will come out.

Or do your eally want shaking up Bahrain so that majority shi'ia gets in power? So that Iranains might get foot in another door?

You know, democracy is good concept but sometimes it brings up somebody you don't like. Just ask Algerians.

Originally Posted by NDD

There are rooms that simply cannot be cleared. Sometimes you have to throw a grenade in and close the door and move on.

I think that if you want a true change you have to let people do it themselves. Everything that is put in from outside runs the risk of rejection. Oh it works sometimes, but not most of the times. set up conditions for it but then let the people do it themselves.

**NDD** · 10-16-2005

Everything you say are indeed very possible scenarios. And then again there are many others.

Sometimes you have to engage and see what happens.

**zenpundit** · 10-16-2005

For those interested, two highly respected military thinkers Thomas P.M. Barnett and John Robb are engaged in a public debate on their blogs over Robb's Iraq op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q2FV6ggQ3CYA.F

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblo...s2/002471.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...ensource_.html

Start of a discussion between 4GW and PNM camps. I have a thread started on my blog for comments as well.

**NDD** · 10-16-2005

Originally Posted by zenpundit

For those interested, two highly respected military thinkers Thomas P.M. Barnett and John Robb are engaged in a public debate on their blogs over Robb's Iraq op-ed in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q2FV6ggQ3CYA.F

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblo...s2/002471.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...ensource_.html

Start of a discussion between 4GW and PNM camps. I have a thread started on my blog for comments as well.

Thanks for the links!

**Merv Benson** · 10-19-2005

Recent reports from Nuevo Laredo and Aculpoco suggest that the Zeta narco terrorist and other drug gangs are fighting turf battles that the government is unable to respond to. In Nuevo Laredo the combat has been open at times and the latest surviving chief of police has made it clear that he does not intend to enforce the rule of law when it comes to the drug war. A report today, that you can check on my blog, indicates several murders in Aculpoco including high police officials. At this point the Zetas control more real estate in Mexico than al Qaeda controls in Iraq. These guys are also targeting law enforcement officals in the US. They are already a paramilitary force with training received back when they were in the Mexican army.

Recently the US and the State of Texas have beefed up law enforcment in the Laredo area, but I would not recomend going across the Rio Grande for adult beverages.

While I agree that Chavez is a potential adversary, I think any conflict with him would be more conventional. He has real assets he has to protect.

**GatorLHA2** · 10-18-2005

Originally Posted by NDD

As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...

It already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

"October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"

**NDD** · 10-18-2005

Originally Posted by GatorLHA2

It already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

"October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"

I saw that as well. I can understand not wanting to admit any internal issues and keeping face, but the Brits? LOL

**SDSchippert** · 10-21-2005

Originally Posted by GatorLHA2

It (insurgency in Iran) already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

"October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"

That's DEBKA, my friend. Rather large pinches of salt required.

Two cents.