The Middle East Update Part I: Iran

It's been awhile I know. I blame the Nintendo and the Wii and the game Metroid Prime 3 for being so damn hard to put down. lol (but I'm not kidding!!)

One of the sources I go to daily for news - Rawstory - has done a lot of its own original reporting and investigating lately regarding Iran. [And by lately, I mean over the past two weeks]

What they have turned out are a lot of rumors and pieces of investigative journalism that give us some reason to be worried about the Cheney camp in the White House getting their way (or waiting for some intel connecting Iran to Iraq attacks in order to use it as an excuse for strikes against Iran)

Rawstory

Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months -

Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." His Time column also suggested that "as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities."

Baer explained that what his sources anticipate is "not exactly a war." He said the administration is convinced "that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf" but that "if there is an attack on Iran it would be very quick, it would be a warning."

"We won't see American troops cross the border. ... If this is going to happen, it's going to happen very quickly and it's going to surprise a lot of people," said Baer. "I hope I'm wrong frankly, but we're going to see."

However reliable Robert Baer has been in the past, and we definitely should take his warnings serious, these are just rumors so far. I've seen plenty of similar warnings that have not panned out. But as we get closer and closer to the end of the Bush Administration the chance only increases for strikes against Iran.

This administration does truly sees Iran as a grave threat and they do not trust any future administration (Republican or Democrat) to "deal with" Iran correctly. And one doesn't have to guess that hard what "correctly" means to them!

Further, the situation is a little different today. Today they seem have stepped up their case for rationalizing strikes in Iran from "They are trying to build nuclear weapons" (which wasn't moving anyone) to "they are helping insurgents and militias kill US soldiers and interfering in Iraq" (which is more provocative, but even here I doubt most Americans will support ANY Iran strike). They still need a "trigger" though

The Bush Administration expects a quick war, to which I say: "Are you stupid?! Think this through"

Yes, your strikes will be quick but...what about Iranian retaliation? Or is the US assuming that Iran will just lay down and take it? They have agents, and reach around the world through covert actors and they can hurt US interests globally. Plus, Iran is a much bigger nation with a much more sophisticated military (that would still likely get slaughtered in a conventional fight), and it is right next door to Iraq. If you think Iran is interfering in Iraq now, imagine the carnage they can sow if they were so inclined.

Adding that, one of the main goals for the Neoconservative hawks is for a regime change in Iran and to eliminate it as a power in the middle east region. But, a strike on Iran will only galvanize the support of the Iranian public behind the ultra-conservative and deeply unpopular presidency of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (think about how the 9/11 attacks rallied the American people behind the previously unpopular Bush presidency).

Neoconservative do not seem to think beyond the actual strikes and the "message" it would send. They don't seem to ever think about what comes next: the consequences, the counter-strikes, the world reaction, how it will strengthen the grip on power in Iran of President Ahmedinejad etc...It's enough to drive you nuts!

But lets get back to that "trigger" for war that Cheney and the hawks in the Administration are desperately looking for.

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

Read the whole thing. If you want to get a sense what current and former intelligence officials think about the prospects and motivations behind the Bush Administrations current Iran strategy. None seem to be of the opinion that strikes in Iran are not the ultimate goal of this administration.

I'll add, as does the article, that there is nothing tying those IED's to Iran directly. At least nothing I've seen.

------

But what would a strike against Iran look like? Would it be limited to WMD sites or to critically wounding Iran as a regional power and destabilizing the regime?

The following study seems to point to the later: [study cited by Rawstory]

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.


• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.


• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.


• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.


• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.


• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.


• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.


• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power.

What a horrible prospect. Charging headlong into war that I see escalating into an ugly mess where Iran, overwhelmed by the US's conventional forces, resorts to irregular and terrorist tactics at US interests and targets globally. Just like many of Iraq's former solders resorted to asymmetrical tactics once overwhelmed by conventional US force. We call many of those former Iraqi soldiers "insurgents" now.

Iran's reach may be more global than Iraq's though. One of the first targets will likely be oil and fuel targets.

But not only is it foolhardy, it's...immoral. Think about it: To eliminate Iran as a strategic competitor in the region it may just critically wound the Iranian regime (sowing chaos), destroy road and fuel infrastructure and much more.

The "collateral damage" may be significant although the long-term "collateral damage" may be more significant.

1) A radicalized Iranian populace that will rally to aid of the regime
2) A destroyed economy and physical infrastructure that will destroy the livelihood of all people in Iran by destroying its economy and all means for it to go on with business as usual. This will feed the chaos.

We will punish and hurt the Iranian people, you know, the very same people those cynical ass Neoconservatives claim to want to help by "liberating" them from the "tyranny of the mullahs." But your motives become a little suspect when you want to reduce the country they live in to a "weak or failed state."

In other words a state so weak that it cannot exercise any control over its territory. Dumbed down even more: A state where the government cannot police or keep order in its own country, cannot provide for its people (because it cannot). Say hello to warlords, strong-men, and violence. Then again, some of the pressure towards total chaos may be mitigated if the Iranian people rally to support their regime. In that case, its already-bad economy will still be destroyed and its peoples lives still destroyed so its still not shits and giggles.

These neocons can give a damn about the Iranian people though. They cynically use them as props and tools to put a "nice" face on their true goals: Eliminating any and all regional competition for power, even before it emerges.

Or if not cynically, than its obvious that their thirst for power is much more powerful than their desire for democracy.

-----

Here's something more recent and the source is someone in the government as opposed to a study using open-source information:

Pentagon '3 day Blits Plan' (London Times)

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

So what is it?: Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities, destroying its military as well, or complete crippling? Though, destroying its military will probably not have the desired effect (regime change) if the people rally behind the regime against US aggression.

-----

So what is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad thinking about the possibilities of a strike in Iran? Apparently he's not so worried:

TEHRAN: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed the chance of a US attack against Iran as impossible, saying that Washington already had enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is in no way the possibility of such an attack by the United States. Even if they take such a decision they cannot implement it," he told a news conference. "They have to solve the question of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Politicians do not deal with imaginary things. They deal with reality and this is propaganda. This (an attack) is not on the agenda of US officials and it cannot be," he said.

You know, he makes a point that I'm sure plenty of us have made in the past. The US is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, and also still contends with Afghanistan; how could it possibly think to get itself into more dookie (to use the technical term).

But, with this President...you just cannot assume that this logic will work. Prior to war with Iraq, I could not imagine how an invasion made sense because it just didn't make sense: The case for WMD's seemed weak (to those who paid attention), Iraq was successfully contained and was no longer a threat to his neighbors...why would he invade and get himself into a situation where there would be violence and resistance to our presence we thought.

All I have to say to Ahmedinejad: Don't let your logic, however sound it may be in most situations, lead you to discount out of hand the possibility of this President ordering strikes in your county. He's a president with nothing to lose (he's already failed in Iraq), everything to gain from "success," and a president who has less than two year left in office and so won't put up with the consequences of his actions for very long.

Who knows whether Bush will go all the way but I know one thing:

Don't underestimate his propensity for stupid...and I mean that in all seriousness.