Steve

You must be mistaken. I thought it was Israel that was pushing the U.S. to attack Iran.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Since I cannot see your face nor hear the tone of your voice, serious question or not??

Hey Daniel, I'm just trying to  aware.

On to another, related subject. You deserve credit for making me a more inquisitive reader and listener when the subject is Israel.  Watching Charlie Rose interview Henry Kissinger last night I had an aha moment. They were talking about what it means to have security for Israel with such violence and threat of terror on its northern and eastern borders, particularly when another country, Iran, can be the instigator without public accountability since the forces are not Iranian military.

The aha was the gut reaction combined with the rational recognition of Israel's need to conduct foreign and defense policy when its adversaries are nonstate actors so the normal tools of statecraft are ineffective. The aha of the impact of nonstate actors is exacerbated when these actors are supported or instigated by a state actor.

I don't know if I have explained what came to me...

But just yesterday you liked Bandar

"Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia called it a "crime" for Arafat to have rejected this deal."

Saudi Arabia is trying to figure out what they will do with two million Iraqi Sunni when the thing finally blows wide open. Iran is lower on the list of concerns to discuss with Cheney.Venezuela heading up OPEC rates up there as well.

The ability to be coopted by powerful, wealthy countries to fight there military battles is a mark that the US has become the military handmaidens of the Saudi royal family.

While we may be beholden to the Israelis and now the Saudis to do their will, we must not forget China. Have they not yet spoken on how we might do their bidding as well?

Too bad, no one in this administration can present a cogent and responsible vision of the US' interests.

I suspect you have it exactly backwards, mperloe. Bombing Iran is Cheney's idea, not the Saudis'. Ambassador Turki was resisting because he realized what a disaster such a plan would be for Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East.

Bandar, on the other hand, is just telling Cheney what he wants to hear...

Another interesting point Kissinger made is the threat of the Islamic non-state actors on India. While during the Cold War India and Israel had rather cool relations more recently as the two non-Muslim states bording on the Arab World their relationship has warmed.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

But he was wrong and your response, as I said was bullshit;
as much so as arguments that Iraq and Palestine are separate issues.

And here you try to pretend to separate past and present US policy while we both know it's been largely short-sighted and ad hoc, as Carter and Reagan "et al" helped fund the Shah and Saddam and in fact as the US still supports extremism in Saudi. No Jews allowed there after all. And as we both know (again) there are 20 to 30 thousand in Iran.

But the same shortsightedness marks your ad hoc defenses of Israel.

Come on, guys. This is not the US doing the Saudis' bidding. It's just the opposite: Cheney pressuring the Saudis to accept his plan for attacking Iran.  Note the careful emphasis in Steve's article (my italics):

Bandar and Massoud have sent to Cheney, David Addington and others on Cheney's national security staff that Saudi Arabia would "acquiesce to, accept, and not interfere with" American military action against Iran.

"Not interfere with"?  "Acquiese to"?  "Accept"?  Does that sound like the Saudis are pushing this thing...or is it Cheney?  Sounds to me like the Saudis are folding here. From Steve's last article on the subject:

Whereas Ambassador Turki has been forthright with the Bush White House about Saudi views of what America needed to be doing in the Middle East -- particularly with regard to checking Iran's growing power, dealing with Israel's flamboyant response to Hamas and Hezbollah incursions earlier this year, moving Israel-Palestine negotiations from pathetic illusion to reality, and getting the calculus in Iraq on a more constructive course -- Bandar is perceived to be somewhat of a "good old boy" by the Bush crowd and somewhat sycophantic when around Bush and Cheney.

Bandar is a yes-man, telling Cheney what he wants to hear.   

Cheney's promise all along was that after Baghdad, Tehran was next. Their slogan has been "real men go to Tehran" since 2002. Neocons have been talking about the "domino effect" of installing a democracy in Iraq for years. The thought was always: first Iraq, then Iran, then Damascus. Topple the regimes most hostile to us and create American allies with formerly hostile Shi'a.

Why would our Sunni allies standby as America empowered Iran by installing a Shiite government in Baghdad? Because Cheney promised them that Iran would never get the chance to take advantage of having their Shi'a brethren next door. The Saudis bought the neocon dream of toppling Iran, just like the rest of them. They thought: this could work out for us just fine.

And then reality set in. The US started losing in Iraq. The Iraqi Shi'a showed an instant affinity for Iran. Bush became a lame duck. The American public turned against the war. Any honest observor had to admit: expanding the war to Tehran is going to be very difficult. In steps Ambassador Turki - by all accounts a realistic guy.

Put yourself in Turki's shoes. Do you believe air strikes against Iran will actually topple the regime in Tehran, as Cheney promises? Of course not. Instead, it will empower Iran, enrage Muslims and the world, and turn the Iraqi Shiites into America's enemies. He sees it for the disaster it is. He knows the eventual result: a Shi'a crescent from Iran to Syria to Lebananon, dominated by Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk. He knows the one thing it wouldn't do is protect Saudi Arabia or stabilize the situation in Iraq.  So Turki tells Cheney: "I'm out. I'm not going to stand here and watch you make a bad situation even worse by lobbing 200 cruise missiles into Iran. You've been wrong about everything so far and you're wrong about this."

Before you dismiss this theory, think about it: Turki was so discouraged with the situation that he quit.  Over the specific issue of bombing Iran.  What does that tell you about Cheney's Iran plans?  It tells me that Turki was on the losing side of the debate.  He's not going to quit just because he disagrees with Dick Cheney.  He quit because he lost.  It's over.  The decision has been made.  There's no point in him staying.

Why is it that nobody around here reads Sy Hersh's stuff?  He wrote about Cheney's plans two weeks ago:

The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President's staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser "believes that, so far, there's been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq," the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney's office "want to end the regime," the consultant said. "They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran."

What, so we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, a country whose control over the flow of crude oil largely influences the direction of the global economy?

(just to review, the Saudis are the one country with the excess production capacity to influence the price of oil; open the spigots, oil goes down and the world economy purrs. Tighten up, oil goes up.)

Let's not forget that OBL's choice of Saudis for the 9/11 attack was purely political and very deliberate; he hates the house of Saud and was hoping to sow discord between the US and the Saudis.

To be sure, I would love to see our nation disentangled from that corrupt bunch of feudal lords. But to do that, we must break our addiction to cheap oil.

I used to think this kind of thinking was tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory stuff. Now I'm the one pushing it.

Re: the justification/fallout.

There are really two approaches for the White House on bombing Iran:

1. Focus on the nuclear issue, and follow the model they used to get into Iraq. They don't have much time to get sanctions through the Security Counsel (although the French are in), followed by the cooked intelligence, and the inevitable "we have exhausted all diplomatic options" speech. Still, if Bush announces his "new way forward" early next month, then follows McCain's advice and adds another 20,000 troops, the dust won't really settle until February. And if the extra troops have a little success, he could buy himself another month, putting us into March. If he's pushing for sanctions that whole time (or accusing the Security Counsel of not doing it's job for refusing sanctions), he may have just enough time to muster up a justification before pulling the trigger.

 Of course, there is another way:

2. Simply bomb Iran's nuclear facilities without warning, then offer an ad hoc justification after the fact. These are only air strikes we're talking about, after all, which doesn't require the troop movements or preparation a full invasion would entail. Hit them hard, flip the world the bird, and deal with the domestic fallout with a mountain of cooked intelligence, cheap excuses and attitude. The DC establishment would be so flipped out, it would take weeks for people to make sense of things. People would go a little nuts, but I bet it would muddle the consensus on pulling out, especially when Ahmadinejad hits the airwaves and starts challenging the US to bring it on.

I suspect it will be some combination of the two.  Use the Security Counsel to build the case against Iran, relying on the Europeans for political cover.  Then at some point in the next couple of months, launch an unanounced attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.  The justification will be three-fold: (1) Iran's nuclear program, (2) Iran's interference in Iraq, and (2) Iran's specific threats towards Israel.

What would be the fallout?  Sy Hersh suggests it wouldn't be too bad:

The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that - as Clinton said earlier this year - "we cannot take any option off the table." Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, "A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die - the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail."

While most evidence indicates that Iran is, at a minimum, five years away from having a bomb, Ahmadinejad is quite helpful in this regard.  His constant statements about destroying Israel and heavy handed suggestions that Iran is on the way to building a nuke can take the place of real intelligence for the purpose of persuading the public. 

Much like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad plays the role of the villain perfectly.  And that's all the neocons really need to stoke American passions and justify an attack.  You can bet that once the attack occurs, Ahmadinejad's response will be to challenge the US.  At that point, moderate Democrats and pundits will shut up and stay the course.  If there's one thing that will re-energize the American people, it is a legitimate "bad guy" to focus on.  Ahmadinejad is all to happy to play the part to perfection...

If Democrats were brave, they would pass a resolution explicitly denying Bush the authority to hit Iran without Congressional approval.  Sort of the opposite of the Iraq resolution.  But I wouldn't bet on this happening.

It looks as if al-Turki put Obaid up to the Washington Post piece as a desperate ploy, a 2x4 to the WH head. It failed to get a rise out of them, he had to disavow Obaid, and things look even worse at home if his brother has to resign as Foreign Minister. So he bails.

Why be shy?  Let's go get Ghawar!

Stratfor has been following this tale and their take is that al-Turki opposes the bomb Iran coalition of "moderate" Arab states and was incensed to hear of secret meetings between Israelis and Saudis. These meetings were reported on and denied in the Israeli media.

A month or so ago, there were reports in the Turkish media that Jordanians, Israelis, and Turks were meeting at "think tanks in Ankara and the topics of discussion included Iraq and of course, Iran. Turkey is of great import if a war is on the horizon and there are seriously competing interests and influences at work. For one, Turkey, Syria and Iran all have Kurdish populations causing more (PKK inTurkey, Iran) or less, (Syria)(?) trouble. They cooperate.

Obaid seems very slick and apparently knows his way around the DC thinktank circuit from the inside out. He also was a party to Cheney's visit with the King in Ridayh. Supposely the King assured Cheney that the Saudis would not allow Hezbollah to take over the government of Lebanon.

I hope Obaid isn't a former student of the current Iraqi ambassador to Syria, Mr. Ahmad Chalabi.

lally,

Any sense of whether a joint US/Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is in the cards?  While this would probably worsen America's image abroad, it would provide invaluable domestic political cover for the White House, since few Democrats will criticize Israel.  Seems like a good way to strike Iran without the political fallout a solo mission would entail.

common does not mean a 100% match.

exactly. so what if they're a medieval autocracy/theocracy that has weekly beheadings, zero democracy and teaches their children to hate jews and christians? we split hairs - come on up to the ranch, abdullah! now venezuela, there's a regime we have nothing in common with.

"Do I take it that you agree that the Saudis want the U.S. to bomb Iran?"

Maybe they do. Certainly the Israeli leadership does. Certainly the U.S. leadership does.

So the question is, who among U.S., Israeli and Saudi partisans will be thoughtful enough (as Turki apparently is) to reject what would certainly be a disastrous course of action for the entire region?

Matt Emmons