War with Iran

[Azarkon]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH18Ak04.html

 

The Bush administration has leaped toward war with Iran by, in essence, declaring war with the main branch of Iran's military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which it plans to brand as a terrorist organization.

 

A logical evolution of US President George W Bush's ill-defined, boundless "war on terror", the White House's move is dangerous to the core, opening the way for open confrontation with Iran. This may begin in Iraq, where the IRGC is reportedly most active and, ironically, where the US and Iran have their largest common denominators.

 

A New York Times editorial has dismissed this move as "amateurish" and a mere "theatric" on the part of the lame-duck president, while at the same time admitting that it represents a concession to "conflict-obsessed administration hawks who are lobbying for military strikes". The political analysts who argue that the main impact of this initiative is "political" are plain wrong. It is a giant step toward war with Iran, irrespective of how well, or poorly, it is thought of, particularly in terms of its immediate and long-term implications, let alone the timing of it.

 

...

 

 

With the window of opportunity for Bush to use the "military option" closing because of the US presidential elections next year, the administration's hawks - "it is now or never" - have received a huge boost by the move to label the IRGC as terrorists. It paves the way for potential US strikes at the IRGC's installations inside Iran, perhaps as a prelude to broader attacks on the country's nuclear facilities. At least that is how it is being interpreted in Iran, whose national-security concerns have skyrocketed as a result of the labeling.

 

"The US double-speak with Iran, talking security cooperation on the one hand and on the other ratcheting up the war rhetoric, does not make sense and gives the impression that the supporters of dialogue have lost in Washington," a prominent Tehran University political scientist who wished to remain anonymous told Asia Times Online.

 

The US has "unfettered" itself for a strike on Iran by targeting the IRGC, and that translates into heightened security concerns. "The United States never branded the KGB [Russian secret service] or the Soviet army as terrorist, and that shows the limits of the Cold War comparison," the Tehran political scientist said. His only optimism: there are "two US governments" speaking with divergent voices, ie, "deterrence diplomacy and preemptive action", and "that usually, historically speaking, spells policy paralysis".

 

However, no one in Iran can possibly place too much faith on that kind of optimism. Rather, the net effect of this labeling, following the recent "shoot to kill" order of Bush with regard to Iranian operatives in Iraq accused of aiding the anti-occupation insurgents, is to elevate fears of a US "preemptory" strike on Iran. Particularly concerned are many top government officials, lawmakers and present or former civil and military functionaries who are or were at some point affiliated with the IRGC.

 

...

 

There is also a legal implication. Under international law, the United States' move could be challenged as illegal, and untenable, by isolating a branch of the Iranian government for selective targeting. This is contrary to the 1981 Algiers Accord's pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US government.

 

...

 

Coming 'war of attrition'?

The idea of an all-out military confrontation between the US and Iran, triggered by a US attack on the IRGC, has its watered-down version in a "war of attrition" whereby instead of inter-state warfare, we would witness medium-to-low-intensity clashes.

 

The question, then, is whether or not the US superpower, addicted to its military doctrine of "superior and overwhelming response", will tolerate occasional bruises at the hands of the Iranians. The answer is highly unlikely given the myriad prestige issues involved and, in turn, this raises the advisability of the labeling initiative with such huge implications nested in it.

 

No matter, the stage is now set for direct physical clashes between Iran and the US, which has blamed the death of hundreds of its soldiers on Iranian-made roadside bombs. One plausible scenario is the United States' "hot pursuit" of the IRGC inside Iranian territory, initially through "hit and run" commando operations, soliciting an Iranian response, direct or indirect, potentially spiraling out of control.

 

The hallucination of a protracted "small warfare with Iran" that would somehow insulate both sides from an unwanted big "clash of titans" is just that, a fantasy born and bred in the minds of war-obsessed hawks in Washington and Israel.

 

Discuss.

[Azarkon]

In my opinion, the US going to war with Iran would be akin to the US going to war with China - not the same scale of confrontation, no, but about the same level of incentives (minus Israel) exist. One must therefore wonder how sane the Bush administration is in labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization - imagine it had done that to the PLA or RGF (the military forces of China and Russia, respectively). Is there really justification for war and, if not, this kind of saber rattling?

 

We live in dangerous times...

[Azarkon]

Of course, there's also the alternative view to consider - ie that this is political "theatric" designed to intimidate Iran into submitting to the US's designs in the latest round of talks or to undermine the presidency of Ahmadinejad (support him, and you support WAR!) But I can't imagine the obvious threat-based diplomacy being received very well over there, or that it'd lead to long-term stability in US-Iranian relations.

 

On another note, one can't miss the ironic parallel with 300. Madness? THIS IS BUSH!

[Azarkon]

Some more sources:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7081401662.html

 

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," [Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress] said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...420309820070815

 

The designation would be the first time the United States has placed the armed forces of any sovereign government on its list of terrorist organizations and enables Washington to target the Iranian group's finances.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293285,00.html

 

"What we have to understand here is the Revolutionary Guards are 'Murder Incorporated,'" former Ambassador Mark Ginsberg told FOX News. He said that the Guard, which serves directly under and reports to the Iranian president, is "an army within an army" that runs the other branches of the armed services as well as building construction contracting within the country and international arms deals, among other industries.

 

The Revolutionary Guard boasts such veterans as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many Iranian business leaders.

[Hurlshort]

It wouldn't happen during Bush's term, he doesn't have the time left and these things don't move very fast, unless of course there is some sort of attack on US soil. It's also not comparable to Iraq, as we had a lot of bad history with Hussein before we invaded. Plus, Ahmadinejad isn't nearly as loco as Hussein and won't give the US much justification for an invasion.

[Meshugger]

+ Ahmadinejad doesn't really have the power to declare war by himself. He has people above him, that don't want war (The council of Mullah's, or whatever they are calling themselves.)

[Pop]

We call this "saber rattling". Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

[Walsingham]

Iran is both well armed and resilient. Given that the coalition has no spare ground troops to work with you are talking about an exclusively stand-off attack with ships or aircraft. Neither of these methods would achieve anything significant. Maybe blow up the odd barracks here and there. Therefore the odds are firmly on the side of this being a theatrical ploy intended to pressure Iran in the ongoing neotiations over their involvement in Iraq. They too are probably thinking Bush is just crazy enough to launch strikes at senior IRGC leadership - a possibility if we have intelligence assets capable of giving us a lead on location.

 

The only other possibility is that a strike by the USN would be aimed not at land forces, but at drawing out Iran's large fleet of small strike craft. If they could be engaged on favourable terms it might draw the sting out of Iran's greatest bargaining chip - her ability to close the Gulf to shipping.

 

Interesting, but hardly dramas.

[Guard Dog]

We call this "saber rattling". Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

That is exactly correct. As is Hurlshot when we pointed out that Bush will be gone in a little over a year. Not enough time at all with obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan already. I would not worry about it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

A lot of people claim Iran is like the heart chakra of islamic terrorism in the middle east, but Iranians are Shia-muslims whereas Al-Qaeda and most of the other nutbags out there are Sunnis. Seeing how these two groups hate eachother just as much as they hate "the great satan" I dont know if that whole thing holds any water.

 

 

I think we should just let Iran be, there is no way a war could fix the mess that country has become. It will probably take decades to improve but thats what it takes.

[Walsingham]

Kaft is right, of course. It is easy to forget that many do not make any disrtinction. The Shias are a powerful potential ally against Al Qaeda, since they - as apostates - are actually a step below even us infidels. You're allowed to kill infidels. You are obliged to kill apostates. Or so the jifascists would have us believe.

[Enoch]

I don't see what all this war talk gains us. The more sabre-rattling that goes on, the more solidly the Iranian people line up behind their current government. 10 years ago, the consensus was that democratically elected reformers would slowly undo the theocratic elements of the post-1979 Iranian government. Bush's "axis of evil" speech set that process back years, and further military threats (and invasions of neighboring countries) continue to compound this error.

[Walsingham]

Enoch, you make a good point about US moves rallying domestic support. However, there is a history of the USA doing precisely this as a favour to Arab governments who are playing ball behind the scenes. Anwar Sadat being the most celebrated case. Fiery rhetoric right up to the point where he signed a peace accord with Israel.

 

The probability that this is what is happening can be seen in the recent behaviour of the two players. In the last round of talks on the future of Iraq, both sides preceded the talks with violent protestations of hate, and left quietly and unobtrusively. Saudi Arabia then arrested the usual suspects who were jifascist agitators then complained that Iran was being too aggressive. Turkey also lined up troops on the border with Iraq, presumably to indicate their displeasure at the notion of either a Shia fundamentalist Iraq, or a free Kurdistan (which the Iranians might contemplate.

 

I don't know enough about Iran to know how the internal politics may be working. However, it is my belief <engage Tom Clancy unit> that there are two main bodies of thought. On the one hand you willl have a moderate group of clerics who see now as a good time to start playing ball with the Americans in return for concessions in Iraq, and an end to sanctions, which are causing serious unrest in Iran. Against them you will have members of the IRGC who have always operated with a good deal of independence and who are likely to view all obstacles as mere irritations. Remember these chaps lost more than 1 million men fighting Iraq in the 1980s. They will hardly baulk at being bombed, and view the objections of the civilians as mere weediness.

 

If the above analysis is correct then, as I said before, we may see US air-strikes executed as a means of performing political assassinations as a gift to the internal groups we can work with. As well as being a way of 'punishing' persons organising and sanctioning IRGC guerrilla training units in Iraq.

[Hildegard]

Israel is going to cost your head one day United States, it already cost you so much money and people and it ain't gonna stop...I already said more then a year ago that war with Iran is certain and why, I have no wish of repeating myself.

[Pop]

Israel is going to cost your head one day United StatesMiddle East, it already cost you so much money and people and it ain't gonna stop...I already said more then a year ago that war with Iran is certain and why, I have no wish of repeating myself.

Fixed.

[Walsingham]

Israel is going to cost your head one day United States, it already cost you so much money and people and it ain't gonna stop...I already said more then a year ago that war with Iran is certain and why, I have no wish of repeating myself.

 

So you wouldn't say that the troop surge in Iraq has absorbed what fighting slack there was in the US Army? thus changing the circumstances since a year ago?

 

And why aren't you on here more often, dammit!