Iran Update
The Left Coaster has retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner watching the military buildup around Iran.
Above: Gardiner
The details are key, but here’s a hefty excerpt:
It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.
First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.
The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.
I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.
I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.
As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.
The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.
Watch for the outrage stuff.
Yup, and worse, watch for the cheesy pop-hate stuff like the lowbrow comedy movies that had Saddam lookalikes in them. That’s where it gets really chilling. Then again, it may mean the war against Iran is harder to sell – we had over a decade to demonize Saddam in pop culture, and I bet most Americans can’t even pronounce “Ahmadinejad”, let alone recognize who he is. Making the war a personal attack on a single baddie seems to be the marketing plan, usually.
The one thing he left out is to watch for an increase in the number of sticky keyboard posts from the usual jerkoffs.
It’s pretty impressive how fast they can type with one hand.
Hehehe. Maybe they type one handed so as to feel closer to the combat by simulation a war injury?
I don’t like to disagree with Gardiner, who definately knows of what he speaks, but I think they have learned at least one lesson. The “pre-emptive” strike approach to going to war won’t work again, there’s just no way to get away with it in the press, the public, the UN, other nations.
Nope. Oh, make no mistake, we’re going to war with Iran. Only this time, the approach to creating hostilities will be an “escalate and respond’ strategy”. The targeting of Iranian operators in iraq, whether they are actively working against US interests or not, is intended to draw a response, probably taking some americans hostage by iranian influenced Shiite militias in the south. But if Iran does not respond, the US will step up the provocations up to, if need be, cross border strikes against iranian military positions. Either way, eventually Iran will be forced to act, which will allow us to respond. So I think you will begin to see the transfer of necessary USAF assets into the theater after the first Iranian military response. Once they react once, the timetable will kick in. And even if they are able to hold the line and not respond, a manufactured response is alreaddy planned, probably using Iranian dissident groups as a catalyst…
mikey
So, it looks like we’re going to be using the “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!!” strategy, eh?
Suitable for an administration headed by someone with the maturity of a six year old, I suppose.
Mikey’s got it down. US troops already raided the Iranian Embassy in “Kurdistan”. Foreign soldiers entering your embassy by force (or at least with out asking nicely and waiting for permission)? Isn’t that an act of war?
The building in Irbil was not yet officially a consulate, let alone an embassy, so technically it was not an act of war. But holding the five Iranian diplomats is in violation of all international norms, and obviously invites the Iranians to take five americans in response, in order to effect a swap. Poor d00dz, they will be sacrificed in a “rescue mission” instead…
mikey
…and I bet most Americans can’t even pronounce “Ahmadinejadâ€?, let alone recognize who he is.
Not to mention the fact that Ahmadinejad looks a lot like a smaller, skinnier, darker George W. Bush — the beady close-set eyes, the thin-lipped smirky mouth…
If the government of Iran really wants to create trouble for the US occupation force in Iraq, they can just give the Iraqi militias lots of RPG-29s, and there will be a lot more burning US armored vehicles, and a lot more US casualties.
The rhetoric matches the drumbeat into Irackystan very well.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a trial balloon, to see how well (or more precisely, how poorly) the concept will sell.
Compare these Rassmussen polls with what happened in 2002-2003, and you’ll see that people are quite so willing to buy into the neocon propaganda.
I’d like to see support build for John Dean’s idea of impeaching some cabinet type such as Abu Gonzales.
Red and Black makes a good point, indirectly. We are not currently fighting Shiites in Iraq. Americans are by and large being killed and wounded by the Sunni NeoBaathist and Salafi Jihadi insurgency. The Shiites have to this point been happy too see American troops acting as their shock troops and enforcers, carrying out their agenda and paying the cost. Meanwhile, the Shi’a militias fought the Sunnis, and each other, without being a major threat to US troops unless we went places they didn’t want us. And even with that, look at how bad it’s gone.
Now, we essentially want to open up a second front against the Shiite militias. And, as Red and Black points out, if we start fighting militias supported by Iran, then we’re liable to start facing 21st century arms.
If you think things have gone badly in Iraq with the majority of their fighters, the vast plurality of their money and all the political power as allies, wait ’til you see what happens when we start a fight with, well, pretty much everybody….
mikey
Mikey: I had thought that the Sadrist militias had periodically engaged in attacks on US forces, but otherwise, I agree with you.
Also, I should point out that, given the similar weaponry, a US invasion of Iran is unlikely to be more successful than the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Not to mention the fact that Ahmadinejad looks a lot like a smaller, skinnier, darker George W. Bush — the beady close-set eyes, the thin-lipped smirky mouth…
Not only that – he dresses like Barack Obama! If you dress like a Democrat, you must be a turrrrist. Or something.
Not only is it unlikely to be successful, the end result could be something much worse than failing to achieve any war aims. There are 130 000 (soon to be 150 000) US soldiers at the end of a very long supply line. The key point of that supply line is, at least in my amateur understanding, the port of Umm Q’asr. This port is in the heart of Sh’ia territory. If I were the Iranians, and I had half a brain, I would be looking for means to disrupt or even cut off that supply line.
If the President continues to struggle for “Victory” in Iraq via escalation, he may attain it, but only for America’s enemies.
That will be the point where the President shouts “I’m invincible! The Black Knight always triumphs!”
I disagree about it being unlikely to succeed. The obvious goal of all U.S. military operations in Iraq, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, the Gulf of Hormuz, and related theaters, is to speed the coming of the Rapture, which will initiate the reign of the Antichrist who will be defeated by Lord’s Heavenly Host so that He may begin His reign on earth.
All that this requires is an apocalyptic battle in the Holy Land.
Unlikely to succed? Think again, you secular servant of satan!!!!
“Obama’s bin laden with al qaeda problems…”
“Wait, don’t you mean ‘all kinda’?”
“That’s what I said!”
“No, I heard you. You said ‘al Qaeda.'”
“Hussein al Qaeda?”
But if Iran does not respond, the US will step up the provocations up to, if need be, cross border strikes against iranian military positions. Either way, eventually Iran will be forced to act, which will allow us to respond
If Iran has any sense, it’ll delay matters by dragging it into teh UN as much as possible. The General Assembly would love to pass a motion censuring the US for any provocation, and it’s going to be difficult to talk about “the eeeevil Iranians” when the UN said YOU attacked THEM.
Hürriyet (“Liberty”) Newspaper :
http://hurriyet.com.tr/english/5752920.asp
According to the USAF …
http://www.incirlik.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123037277
… the Hürriyet story is wrong about the number of F-16 fighters.
The correct number isn’t 24. The squadron has 16 fighter jets.
According to another Turkish newspaper …
http://thenewanatolian.com/tna-21049.html
Opening Salvos of a greater Middle East War
A war involving the US, Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda…..
http://www.crusade-media.com/news46.html
If Iran has any sense, it’ll delay matters by dragging it into teh UN as much as possible. The General Assembly would love to pass a motion censuring the US for any provocation, and it’s going to be difficult to talk about “the eeeevil Iranians” when the UN said YOU attacked THEM.
Sure. Look how much good it did Nicaragua.
Also, I should point out that, given the similar weaponry, a US invasion of Iran is unlikely to be more successful than the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Is it likely to be an invasion, do you think? I’d have thought they’d just bomb the bejeesus out of them. I mean, imagine how galling it would be for Ahmedinedjad to have to admit that he had absolutely no bejeesus. How could he hold his head up in polite society? He’d be laughed at by small children in the street.
One should note that the same day the F-16s, et al., landed in Incirlik, the Turkish PM vociferously affirmed his government’s right to unilaterly intervene in Iraq. Is the quid pro quo for Turkish support of any action we might take against Iran our acquiesence to Turkish suppression of independent Kurdish statehood?
Paging Congressional Democrats, the War Powers Act for you on line one…
Sweet jeebus, this line has been used way too much, but it really fits here: If you’re not scared, you haven’t been paying attention. This whole thing is positively terrifying. Congress needs to put the brakes on this now. It is time to impeach the whole lot from the Chimperor on down.
I suspect those tricky Iranistanians will sneak into Kuwait and blow up a US run radio station…but we’ll catch them at it and kill every one of’em.
Then we can retaliate by invading Iranistan and…
It is time to impeach the whole lot from the Chimperor on down.
Candy, it looks like the best bet right now is to support efforts in New Mexico. My rudimentary understanding is that impeachment can begin if one state legislature votes to initiate proceedings and a member of congress from that state takes it to the floor (government scholars feel free to correct me here . . . )
Sure. Look how much good it did Nicaragua.
The US was unlikely to ever have to go running to the rest of the world because Nicaragua turned to shit. They’ve had to do that for Iraq; does anyone think Iran is going to turn out better?
tiny little news item. didn’t raise any eyebrows. buried on the back page a couple years back…
dammit, the link didn’t post…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1355835.htm
Red and Black:
Also, I should point out that, given the similar weaponry, a US invasion of Iran is unlikely to be more successful than the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Hobbs Land Gods:
Is it likely to be an invasion, do you think? I’d have thought they’d just bomb the bejeesus out of them.
Yep, and that’s exactly what Israel ended up doing to Lebanon: smashing the civilian infrastructure in a giant episode of collective punishment. For freedom, you know.