I keep seeing this tendency as well, for the Bushbunch to push a war with Iran, but then I think, "With what Army?" Let's be blunt for a second. This war has cost the United States many things. Almost 4000 dead, tens of thousands gravely wounded, prestige, influence, treasure, all in a cause that was idiotic to begin with and then so badly managed by civilian authorities it robbed the military of its victory.

But I believe that the worst thing this war has done for the US (notice I do not speak of the horrible tragedy this has become for the Iraqis), is that it has exposed the limits of US power.

I work in the construction business doing things underground. I learned long ago that you can beat on the center of a rock forever and never move it. The trick is to find the edges of the rock. Expose one edge, then get under the opposite edge with a tool, and you can move the rock.

This stupid war has exposed the edges of US military power to our enemies. They now know how long we can sustain an overseas commitment and with how many troops. We have no more troops to commit to a war right now and everyone knows it and is taking advantage of it.

Nuclear proliferation is the worst thing going on in the world right now. Iran getting the bomb while ruled by a bunch of priests with a world view of c. 800 A.D. is scary as hell. Pakistan already having the bomb while ruled by a military junta that is one well-placed rifle shot from falling to even more militant priests is scarier. (Pray for Benazir Bhutto. Most Americans have no idea of the risk to her own life this woman is taking in the name of her nation.)

The United States is, at the present time, seen as a toothless tiger. We are fully committed to a war we did not have to fight and therefore unable to meaningfully threaten to fight a war we might really need to.

For all their bellacosity, the worst thing the Bushbunch has done is show the world how to beat us. They flipped their cards and went all in early. Now we can no longer bluff.

..a strike now on Iran would be a grave mistake, in every strategic and political sense — not to mention the humanitarian one of harming a populace...

But it would be Decisive. What's one more grave mistake for The Decider, who is counting? He has made a lot of mistakes which have filled countless graves and shows no signs of any regrets. Dubya is not the kinda guy to wait around for some 'slow implosion of the theocracy'.

Reference a comment from early 2007 from military analyst William Lind: link

The Democrats have to stand up this week, loud, clear, and demonstrative, and declare that they will not get hustled into supporting a mindless, counterproductive attack on Iran. They will not appropriate funds for it.

How much funding would they have to appropriate? The rumors say that the attack that is planned will be a sustained, intense, but relatively brief air and sea-based campaign directed against the entire regime, including government and military facilities. Hasn't the needed weaponry already been purchased? Haven't all the necessary deployments already been made? What's left to appropriate?

As Ammonite notes, Bush will claim authority for an attack under existing Congressional authorizations, so Congress would have to de-authorize an attack explicitly. And they must credibly threaten to initiate impeachment proceedings following such attack. It's hard to see them mustering the support for these bold steps.

You are right, of course, that the recent rumors and any subsequent rollout could just be designed to press the case on sanctions. But that's part of the problem. If Congress threatens to de-authorize an attack on Iran, they will come under intense pressure from the White House, and much of the media, which will claim that Congress is cutting the legs out from under Bush's "bad cop" routine.

Once upon a time: Iran has “surged” in Iraq to counter the US surge, this Petraeus horseholder believes, but he'd hate to put a number on it and he's not in a position to be qualified to answer. It's true that we don't have any evidence but it's the techniques they use that give them away.

Major General James Simmons
Deputy Commanding General for Multi National Forces in Iraq
interview with Hugh Hewitt (extract), August 29, 2007

HH: All right, I'll follow up with him. But then let me ask you generally, do you think Iranian-backed attacks are increasing or decreasing right now?

JS: I believe that the Iranians have supplied, they have surged supplies, training and munitions into Iraq to counter our surge operations that we are conducting.

HH: And what level does that rise to? Are they doubling, tripling their effort?

JS: I would hate to put a number on it, but what we saw was in July, we had the highest number of EFP's that we have had in theater. Those EFP's come from Iran. We have still seen a significant uptick in EFP's, although the numbers are probably going to be lower in August than they were in July. The number of rocket attacks and indirect fire attacks into our FOB's and our camps has been elevated, and the fires have come predominantly from Shia-dominated areas, and those are Iranian made munitions that are being fired in that. And then we have some very clear evidence that there has been training that has been sponsored by folks that use the techniques that Iranians use to train people.

HH: Can you expand on that a little bit, General, as to what kind of evidentiary markers you find that would lead one to believe the Quds forces are involved, or Hezbollah?

JS: It's the techniques that they use for in placing the weapons systems, particular the indirect fire systems that they're using, which require some form of military training to be able to execute that.

HH: Have we captured actual Iranians in operational settings, General, as opposed to simply doing espionage, meaning that they're commanding and controlling attacks on Americans?

JS: I really don't think I'm in a position to be qualified to answer that one.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=d3daae76-7f52-4b29-a9b5-06573738a55f

Hey, Katie Couric was a better spokesperson for General Petraeus than this rube!!

But he's not alone. He's had lots of help.

Reminds of the one about the pediatrician who says he loves his job because he's got so many guys working for him.

I share the anxiety that the Iranians might be able to severely damage US warships with their anti-ship missiles and subs. But I think it's very unclear whether or not this is really the case, and unless one is a real initiate in this stuff and has served in the US Navy, one probably doesn't know enough to discuss this intelligently. Iraq also had substantial air defenses, but those proved to be completely impotent against US capabilities that were 2 generations ahead of them. The Iranian C-802 missiles are a variant of a Chinese missile that's supposedly pretty good, but they're not as sophisticated as the new Russian-made Yakhont or even the older Moskit. In order to launch them, the launch platforms have to get within range, and it's possible that the US could take them all out at the beginning of the operation. Such missiles can be detected electronically at several points during their launch and flight, and the Aegis anti-missile fleet system is supposed to shoot them down long before they get through the protective frigates to the carrier; at that point there's still the Phalanx system. The Iranians' Kilo-class Russian-made diesel subs are potentially very quiet, but no one knows whether the Iranians have been operating them well enough that the US doesn't know where they are; it seems unlikely that the Iranians' 13,000-man Navy, which never had much expertise, is anything like as effective and professional as the Chinese. The US suffered no losses to Iran while sinking much of the Iranian navy during skirmishes in the late '80s, and they had fast attack craft and torpedoes back then too.

Both the Gulf War and the Iraq War suggested that the US military is so far ahead of other conventional militaries in terms of weapon systems, integrated battlefield intelligence and communications, and training, that in a matchup against an unequal opponent the US can go virtually unscathed. It's when things get messy on land that the US starts to take hits from very low-tech but intelligently placed attacks -- IEDs, EFPs, punji sticks, whatever. So while the US Navy might be in for a nasty surprise if it hits Iran...it might not. The disaster might start to develop afterwards, in Iraq, in the Gulf, or in the streets of the US.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Don't believe the hype. Ain't no attack gonna happen. Its just propaganda scaremongering to get teh Iranians to back down and give up their enrichment program, and to distract the public during Preteaus's report - maybe a rallying cry for the elections.

Of course, the Israelis love this sabre rattling at Iran and may engineer a confrontation. If you frame the issue as "either attack Iran or sanction Iran," you conveniently leave out the option of engaging Iran, which is what the Iranian dissidents themselves have said is best but Israel doesnt want to see happen. If Iran and the US ever get along, Israel will have to share access to the US and risks being left in the cold - and THAT is the true threat that Iran poses to Israel.

Read Dr Trita Parsi's book on this issue:

Treacherous Triangle-The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (Yale U Press)

He declared that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late."

Oh yeah, allies. That would be... um... let's see. Republic of Palau? I think Palau is solid.

El Baradei is doing all he can to avert another war based on lies. The most recent IAEA report (a few days ago) states that transparency is increasing in Iran's enrichment program and El Baradei sees Iran becoming more cooperative. The author stated that such a report will make further UN sanctions less probable as well as putting the brakes on any US military intervention. If the administration does roll out another PR campaign for war, we can look forward to another round lies.

US and El Baradei At Odds Over Iran's Nuclear Program, IHT, 8/31/07

As to whether Iran can or will strike back. Figure that they've been sitting there the last five years trying to figure out how to do it.

One thing that seems to get lost in the discussion of what we can do to Iran and what Iran can do to us in retaliation, but something I can't stop thinking about, having grown up in Poland, where the memory of WWII is still very much alive.

If US attacks Iran unilaterally, without any allies at all (other than Israel, perhaps) -- as seems likely -- what's to stop the rest of the world from "ganging up" on us? The way Europe reacted to Hitler's attack on Poland? It's true that, due to Hitler's better military and equipment it took a long time to beat him back and that it would, probably, not have been possible without US's help. But, all the same, WWII did end up with Hitler in a bunker and bombs destroying most of of Germany. And it wasn't Poland who did the bombing... Same way as Iran might not have to.

FWIW:
A friend of mine who works for an alternative investment company (as they call themselves) told me to closely watch oil futures contracts to figure out when it's going to take place (if ever). He advised to specifically look at the open interest on the NOV07 and DEC07 contracts. I still think it's not going to happen because the administration has not decisively split Syria from Iran (yet). Or perhaps they don't care, or they gamed it out and they are confident that Syria risk profile is no longer an issue.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

The Democrats will support whatever mid-east war AIPAC wants because AIPAC scares them shitless. And the bloodthirsty thugs at AIPAC want war with Iran. It's that simple.

This is all bullshit so other bullshitters can come along and say shit like this:

"The Democrats will support whatever mid-east war AIPAC wants because AIPAC scares them shitless. And the bloodthirsty thugs at AIPAC want war with Iran. It's that simple."

Grow the fuck up.

The fact is, we have seen this whole scenario before.

Cambodia. Laos.

The US was losing the war in Vietnam. Nixon identified "sanctuaries" in Cambodia and Laos where he and his henchmen said the VC were being assisted and also staging troops. The Tonkin Gulf resolution gave no authorization whatsoever for the illegal use of US military forces in either country. Nixon entered both nations with impunity and a Congress with ten times the balls of the Pelosi/Reid Congress of Cowards was nearly powerless to stop it. The attacks on these two nations helped to destabilize them and did nothing to thwart VC progress in South Vietnam. The US would still have lost the war (as we will in Iraq) but had we not ventured into those countries the regional situation in SE Asia might not have been as unstable as it was upon our departure.

Now, Bush is losing his illegal/immoral war of aggression against Iraq and is using Iran as a scapegoat. Nothing could be clearer than this. US actions from day one of the invasion of Iraq have been little more than a criminal enterprise.

A compliant media and the Cowardly Congress (including, I might add Hillary Clinton and other major candidates for President) have been very willing to go along with the storyline that Iran is a rogue state that is dangerous and threatens US interests. And while the mullahs are not our friends, the people of Iran have never been our enemies. The rhetoric against Iran over the years has been toxic to our relationship with the Iranian people. None of this would be happening were it not for our 50 plus years of one idiotic move against Iran after another in an effort to preserve hegemonic control over mideast oil. There is no way that either the media or Congress will stand in the way of the attack on Iran that appears to be coming sometime soon.

IMHO,the only means by which the illegal attack on Iran can be stopped is by the people themselves hitting the streets and staying there in a sustained antiwar effort. Only in this manner can the citizens demonstrate to this vile government presided over by tyrants that they know what they're planning and do not support such action.

Sadly, most citizens, even those vigorously opposed to an attack in Iran will just hop in their SUV's, go home every night, watch news of the attacks on tv and deplore them, and then say, "demonstrations don't make any difference."

Even if that were true, and I don't think it is, at least by protesting in advance these crimes against humanity planned by Bushco, our people will have gone on record as opposing them. That counts for something. Yet, I genuinely believe that if the millions who understand what is going on were to visibly demonstrate their opposition it is quite likely that these attacks could be averted. But sadly we will probably never know and the attacks will take place without any military threat from Iran, but then the likelihood of additional terrorist incidents in the US will increase exponentially and we will enter a long and futile cycle of international revenge yielding nothing of value to us, bankrupting the national treasury and robbing our posterity of the peace and prosperity they deserve.

Retired General Wesley Clark has been speaking out about the very real possibiity of attacking Iran for a long time. His information came from inside the Pentagon shortly after 9/11. His website has transcripts of his interviews, speeches, and articles, many of which include this subject:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/84

As a member of the board of VoteVets, he co-sponsored a grassroots effort at stopiranwar.com.

Recently he wrote a take-down of war-mongering Joe Lieberman:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2463

Why have so few been listening? Here is a 4-star general, former head of NATO/Supreme Allied Commander who knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to war, who is a highly respected diplomat honored by many nations, and is a true progressive on domestic issues.

And we're stuck with the DLC darling Ms. Clinton, or the green-behind-the-ears Obama, or the slick lawyer who can't be bothered to know what his hedge funds are doing.

I cry for my grandchildren.

bullshit

I dunno. It strikes me that the only way a campaign like this could have any hope of succeeding is if the United States deploys tactical nuclear weapons.

If things escalate to that level, then all bets are off, everywhere on everything.

Howard of course is both articulate and correct. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. It's always, even in the kiloton range, going to be a big bang, a radiation bang, and a strategic bang.

The trouble with Iran is that the list of target sites grows exponentially. When I first looked at this, a few years ago, the Iranian nuclear facilities had been dispersed, distributed, hardened and made redundant. That meant that to truly knock out or impair Iranian nuclear capacity, you would have to hit at least a dozen, and as many as twenty to thirty targets. These would be targets which would be geographically remote, at the outer limit or beyond bomber (without refueling ranges). These were targets which presumably would be hardened in underground bunkers, have security and air defences and warning of the attack. Uphill battle all the way.

How uphill? Consider that the American 'shock and awe' campaign at the start of the Iraq War was unable to exterminate, dislodge or overcome Saddam's command and control structure. Without a ground invasion, Saddam would have continued to remain in control of the country. This sort of mission is going to be a lot more difficult in Iraq.

Since then, every time I looked, the list of targets keeps growing. To successfully stage the raids and drop the ordnance in sufficient volumes as to have half a chance of succeeding, then you have to paralyse the Iranians ability to respond. This means taking out their air force, their air strips, eliminating civilian airstrips and airfields that could handle military traffic, missile batteries, etc. And of course, that means taking out warning systems, radars, communication and radio centres. And since civilian communication and transportation systems might be pressed into use, the attack extends to civilian infrastructure. It was up to 400 targets. Now people are throwing around 10,000 targets.

That's pretty nutzoid. As I see it, a campaign of that magnitude is logistically nightmarish, and the longer it goes on, the better chance of screwing it up.

Look at Pearl Harbour. The Japanese weren't hanging around for a few weeks. The Israeli's didn't keep coming back to Osirak. There's never an unlimited window to pull these things.

And even with all that, there's no guarantee at all, there's no clear way of determining that it will work. Let's face it, if we couldn't take out a chump like Saddam, after he was on the ropes for twelve years and we were turning his mistresses and family members left and right, then taking out dozens of hardened redundant sites is a tall order.

Even success may be a measure of quantum. Setting Iran back a week, a month, six months, a year? What are the serious chances of setting the Iranian nuclear program back more than a year.

And is a year or less worth the catastrophic destruction, the loss of lives, the moral atrocity? Hell, a year or less by any measure has got to be considered a catastrophic failure. Particularly given the potential for even modest blowback, such as an aggressive, adversarial Iran.

so, where do nukes come in? Might be seen by the Bush administration as a shortcut. Instead of 10,000 missions, a mere handful. Instead of endless, time consuming, potentially unsuccessful missions on hardened sites... drop a 'bunker buster' nuke and end the problem.

So, a 'tactical nuke' for a 'tactical objective.' Eliminating a hardened target.

Only problem, it's not really tactical. And it's not really a bunker buster. It's just a regular nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon used in a ground burst. Which means a very dirty nuclear weapon indeed. Lots of fallout, lots of mess.

Lots of contamination, lots of casualties. Lots of consequences of every imaginable sort radiating endlessly in every possible direction.

Only for the dangerously insane.