« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Countdown to Confrontation with Iran?
Did you know that talks with Iran to negotiate its nuclear program were taking place in Geneva? I didn't. The talks included France, Britain, China, Russia, Germany, and the U.S. Who knew!
Did you know that in a dramatic about-face, the U.S. actually attended the talks? If you didn't know, don't feel bad, I didn't know this myself. That's why I'm writing about it. Undersecretary of State William Burns joined the meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. As far as I've been able to discover, this was our first face-to-face contact with Iran since 1979.
It's not that I don't pay attention to the news. I tend to pay lots of attention if the news involves Iran. But I found out about the meeting after it had already ended, when a friend from Canada e-mailed me a link to the U.S.'s statement to Iran, made today: You have two weeks to suspend uranium enrichment or else.
Two weeks. That's not very much time. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said:
We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only lead to further isolation.
Okay, strong rhetoric that translates to even harsher sanctions. Like what, I don't know. But the difference here is twofold: the U.S. formally attended the talks, and now we have backup. In other words, we are progressing toward a goal. Iran seems to think it will take time to reach that goal. I wonder. What I wonder is, do we really have the same goal Iran does? Or are we going through perfunctory motions as we did before we bombed Baghdad? I also wonder why the news of the U.S.'s attendance at the meeting hasn't been a bigger deal to the MSM? That just irritates the crap out of me.
I won't link to all the articles by journalists and others who think we are headed for a military confrontation with Iran. Seymour Hersh, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, and others have voiced their certainty that we will engage with Iran, and I believe them. It gives me lots of anxiety because I do not trust the current administration to be patient. The only one who seems to be a little patient is, surprisingly, Condoleeza Rice.
Now that Obama is overseas, in the middle of the action, what do you think his response is going to be? Do you think his experience there will change his views about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Israel?
In the meantime, for anyone who wants to do something to protest potential U.S. aggression against Iran, United for Peace & Justice is staging discussions and demonstrations in several states across the country July 19 through July 21. Check out the National Days of Action Against War on Iran Calendar here. I didn't know about these events until today, either, so please rec if you want other people to know about them, too. Thanks.
Comments (205)
Did you read the uber-alarming op-ed in yesterday's NY Times??
Using Bombs to Stave Off War
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/19/DDIN11P3D9.DTL
July 19, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that was obviously not the right link. ;-)
Try this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html
July 19, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, hadn't seen that editorial, so thanks for the link. I generally steer clear of the NYT editorials about Israel because they are always apocalyptic like that one.
I just came across a blog that seems to be tracking legislation and activity in Congress related to Iran, called Iran Nuclear Watch. Looks like it's trying to present U.S. activities factually.
July 19, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting reply:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/benny-morris-justifies-is_b_113725.html
July 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did hear about Burns attending the meeting - on a BBC broadcast.
July 19, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a difference between U.S. and UK coverage:
Bloomberg.com is playing the meeting results with this headline: "Iran Snubs Western Efforts to Suspend Its Nuclear Enrichment."
The Times UK online called the meeting the "most highly publicised meeting for nearly 30 years" (it was?) in an article titled, "US gives Iran two weeks to think again on enrichment." I like that "think again." Almost Monty Pythonish.
July 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Gasket. Scanning some MSM, I'd say it's a bigger story at the BBC & Guardian & in Canada than at CNN, the NYT etc. Maybe their "foreign news" hole is only so large & they already have Obama's trip, Iraqis troop deadline, trial of Bin Laden's driver. So it's tough to blame them. After all, Bin Laden's driver is an issue we all relate to. Besides, Iraq PLUS Afghanistan PLUS Iran is tough to process.
So I'm looking on the bright side. If the media start playing up the possibility of thermonuclear war amongst Israel, Iran & the US that'll just bring all the End-Of-Days-Rapture-Me-Baby fundis out. I mean, which would YOU rather have, as a rational person - A house you can't sell, a construction job, $100 gas fill-up's.... or the Great Tractor Beam settling into position to hoover you up?
A two week deadline. The US appearing alongside allies, but face-to-face with Iran at negotiating sessions. Talking about setting up an informal diplomatic office. Everything prepared for a "Look... We Tried" kinda storyline, eh?
I'm with you Gasket. I'd say, "Hit the streets, babies. All you Obamabunnies too." Because I'm not sure I'd be wanting to inherit this earth if the Bush clowns pull the trigger - $10/gallon gas, massive unemployment, troops overseas getting torched, Ultra-High-Red-Terror-Alerts every damned day, ancient cities sown with salt. Hard to talk positive change in that setting.
July 19, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Know what else we won't hear much about in the U.S. that my friend told me about? The video clips of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr being interrogated at Guantanamo when he was 16. Wall-to-wall coverage in Canada this week. Any mention in the U.S. media? Any?
I haven't watched the clips myself (they were posted to YouTube), because I don't know if I can handle it. All I know is that Khadr shows the interrogators his bullet wounds (he was shot in the back when he was apprehended at 15), and he has a sobbing breakdown after they leave the room.
Anyway, I'm not saying I think we are definitely going to war with Iran (especially in 2 weeks!), I just want to keep track of what's going on. Also, I want to share info with others and hope they'll share info in return.
July 19, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about sharing info on how you manage to insert links with names you give them (I can't seem to make sense out of the wikipedia instructions apparently) ...
July 19, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I thought I had a chart of codes, but I can't find it, so I'll try to describe how to do the coding.
1. 2. word space
3. href="
4. cut and paste entire http address (no extra word spaces before or after)
5. ">
6. type the word you want people to click on
7.
So it looks like this, only without spaces before and after the address (I inserted spaces in the hope that the example would show up and not become invisible when I posted it):
http://www.ilejflzsnvlzj.com ">linking words here
July 20, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit! Well, the first half of the code is invisible, of course, because I typed it correctly! So just follow the numbered steps and see if it works for you, Wholly Rogue Emperor. The only word space in the entire code comes after the letter a.
July 20, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH! Do-over!
Type this part of the code first:
1.
2. a
3. word space
4. href
5. =
6. "
Then cut-and-paste the entire http address, followed by:
7. "
8. >
Type word you want people to click on, followed by:
9.
10. /
11. a
12. >
Good luck! LOL!
July 20, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, #s 1 & 9 are the less-than sign!
July 20, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make sure you write it all down on a piece of paper, WRE! (If I haven't totally confused you, that is.)
July 20, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Khan
July 20, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, dear! thanks mucho! no wonder people don't go into this very often! I think it's starting to sink in now with all the help that's finally appeared to get me on the right track!
and don't worry -- I shall cut & paste it into at least several places!
in fact, I'll even do as you say exactly and just write it out with a pen!
I can't wait to be able to finally do it myself! hahahaha
July 20, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure it's worth it, gasket?
July 20, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record: No.
July 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
now gasket, don't go getting all twisted around by B Glad -- don't let him influence you into stifling your kind and generous impulses! it was worth it as far as I'm concerned, and I hope you'll feel pleased with yourself for being so helpful and caring*^!
July 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Hocking shows you how the code for a hyperlink looks in a comment his early June Help thread: HERE.
Look at that as I go over it, it goes like this: to make a link, you type everything he has there, the arrows, the a href, the equal signs, etc., except you replace the url he has put there with the one you want, and the link text he has (which is the word this) with what text you want the link to have.
Everything must be as he has it there, you cannot get the spaces or placement wrong.
Ben happens to know the code to make the code display and not implement, I don't. That's why I have to point you to that; i.e., if you or I just paste what Ben did there into a comment, it will display as a link, because that's the actual code to make that link. You could even try that as a test, copy that which Ben put there in a comment of your own, and it will display as a link. Unfortunately, I think he made that url up so you will get an error if you click on it, but it will display as a link.
If you don't want to memorize the code, put that example from Ben in a saved document and call it up every time you want to do one. Copy and paste from your doc and then erase his url and his link name and put in your own.
July 20, 2008 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suggestion: you could use Ben's old thread there to try it out and experiment.
July 20, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL
July 20, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard about this stuff. It's called "html" or something like that, isn't it? :)
July 20, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, art; I did get the link bit earlier this morning finally -- but your link to Ben's Guide was still quite useful to me with so many other tips ... he and California Paige and others there were most patient and helpful with all of us who still needed help with this stuff*^! It was nice to see how many others benefitted from being 'walked through' the steps--and without any sarcasm either!
July 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely excellent post and much appreciated, as well as rec'd.
I, too, am anxiously anticipating Obama's reactions and remarks after he returns.
However, I'm also a bit more 'stressed' knowing Bush has a few months left at this critical juncture. Scary. And the thought of McCain taking over is too horrific to even consider.
(Please, if the last few posts are because you're still off your meds, flush those puppies down the toilet!)
July 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't aware of this at all. Excellent post, RTBAG. Rec'd.
July 19, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a CommonDreams.org link from today:
Nationwide Protests to Oppose War with Iran
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/19/10473/
July 19, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for that pale attempt at humor up there. On this one, sometimes I just hafta. I'd appreciate some help here, if people got the time (& if it's not too far off where you're going Gasket. Please feel free to shut me down or shunt this off elsewhere.)
My problem is I can see NO GAIN in a military hit on Iran - for anyone. AS LONG AS Iran does NOT throw the 1st punch, then who gets the blame? Iran? I don't see it. I just don't see enough hatred or worry about Iran to make it stick. Iraq & the BS on that still resonates. So Israel & US will own it. "We'll" have done it.
More important is that any sensible assumptions figure Iran throws a punch back. Beyond possible missile damage, real of feared oil disruption means $200-$300/barrel - for MONTHS. So Jason & Jennifer Lunchbucket bleed cash every day. How's that work for Bush? Boy that's hard to see wearing well.
The rest of the world'll be pissed as hell too - not only another psycho US-involved war, but they'll be paying out extra billions too, and they're already facing food riots and oil meltdowns.
What would the US military gain by direct involvement? They know this could suck them into a dozen new fights. All over the Middle East, and beyond. None of which would be surgical, quick, or in which they'd look good. No flowers & parades, that's for sure. Other interests? The US oilco's are already making big $, so they don't need it. McCain?? Hell, Mr "Bomb Iran" is gonna find it hard to make it stick that's not a Bushie.
So who BENEFITS? Israel? Maybe. But do they really think they can lay a new round of damage on another country & not make things worse? I guess some must. But they would CERTAINLY produce a thousands-deep NEW crop of suicide bombers.
The wilder eyes may see this as a complete Fuck-The-World move desired by lunatics within Bush-Rep'n world, a way to trigger fascism/black boots, but I find that hard to fathom - even as someone happy to explore low probability/high consequence 'Black Swan' events.
About the only way I can make this 'Make War On Iran' idea make sense is if it happens in conjunction with some "Terrorist Event" closer to home. If that happened as well, the game changes.
Anybody got any help? What's a US interest, right now, in this?
July 19, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"About the only way I can make this 'Make War On Iran' idea make sense is if it happens in conjunction with some "Terrorist Event" closer to home. If that happened as well, the game changes."
How , then, is Iran proven to be the culprit? Knee-jerk reaction, no doubt, but also no doubt that the same mindbending slant the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq would be in play.
July 19, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hiya barefooted... Delayed response. Apologies. "How, then, is Iran proven to be the culprit?" The Bush admin seems to have become fairly skilled at fast-labelling terrorist acts as having been done by whoever they want to nail. As the Spanish govt did when it was hit at Madrid. These instant labels may or may not turn out to be wrong. But if time is tight, how could we be SURE an event wasn't by Iran, rather than al Qaida or some dude in Oklahoma?
So I guess I'm saying, if Iran did NOT attack any US installations of troops, the US might well need some other event both to justify its actions to other nations - and to whoop up the domestic population - so that it could "retaliate." Otherwise, if Iran & Israel got into an actual exchange, it might use that as its pretext.
That make sense?
July 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can we be sure, indeed. That is the problem in a nutshell. Do we believe our administration when they throw their arms in the air (no offense to McCain) and proclaim the enemy? To lead to yet another mission accomplished? While young people still die?
No reasonable person should progress an argument that leads to murder without at least a second thought. Are you really killing the right guy? Should our country not do the same?
July 20, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just going to answer part of that, because I don't understand it all. For example, I don't know what will happen to the price of oil if we bomb Iran. So maybe it becomes clearer if we take it one step at a time. I'm pretty sure that the first thing we will do is completely destroy the Iranian air force, their air defense system, their missile system and their navy. Probably a stray missile or two will hit any refining capacity Iran has. My thought is that will happen if Iran responds to an attack on its nuclear program in any way. I don't know if Iran wants to play without those assets or not. My guess is they don't. Our military has plenty assets left for knocking a country down, as long as we don't ask them to occupy it. I'm sure Iran is perfectly aware of that fact. We will up the sanctions. We may bomb their nuclear facilities. There will be no war.
July 19, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's (at least) 3 ways oil prices could rise: 1) If the US or Israel hits installations, and slows the flow. 2) Oil prices in the market WILL spike from that whole "uncertainty premium" schtick. And as we know, this can last for weeks & months. 3) Most worrying for me, IRAN can just turn down the taps. Yes, they need cash for their people. But. The Mullahs have shown they'll squeeze down their domestic economy, even in the absence of war. Maybe they just cut exports by 1 million bbls (out of 2.5 million right now.) Price rises by $50-$100, so they'd lose very little NET cash, even in short-term. So they've got one hell of a weapon. And right now, they're in their strongest position - much stronger, vis a vis the US, than say, 12 months ago.
July 19, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand what you're saying. They'll cut back on production when? In response to sanctions? Okay. In response to an attack on their nuclear facilities. Okay. In response to having their navy, air force, missile and air defense systems completely destroyed? Too late to do them any good. Strength in relation to the US Navy? Surely you're kidding.
July 19, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking how oil prices would move in response to a physical attack - on the nukes or the rest of the military. And no, Iran couldn't handle the US Navy. I was just trying to figure out their path through IF they were attacked, and oil is the Big One - since they control the spigot. If it only added $50/bbl X US consumes 7 billion bbls/year that's an additional $350 billion on top of the $900 billion it pays for oil. Can the US afford that, for very long, on top of everything else? I'd say a pretty clear no. These numbers tend not to mean much to the general public, but $350 billion is probably more than the banks have written off to date. And the world economy? No chance - there's 50 countries out there who couldn't hold the line against falling from recession into a pit.
July 19, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they'll do it if we attack their nukes. But they won't do anything to give us an excuse to attack anything else. If they do, the price of oil won't matter to them. How will they survive in the region with no defense or military capacity at all? If they attack an American vessel, for example, who is going to pull us off of them? The entire world knows they suckered us in Iraq. They'll quit while their ahead.
July 19, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think they'd give us an excuse. Somehow, I suspect if anyone out there feels the burning need to bomb Iran, it's the Israelis, so they'd be upfront anyway. If that happens, and the US is seen in active support, why wouldn't Iran try to throw a quiet punch back - just by turning down the spigots? We gonna bomb 'em again, this time just for the oil? That'd be tough.
And while Iran may have played a role in suckering the US into Iraq, I think pretty much the whole world - and the US population - sees it as the Bush crowd just went on a bender. For oil vengeance, psychological reasons, whatever. The intelligence agencies may know more & better (Dear God, I hope so), but I can't see any of them shouting that fact too loud. Looks bad.
July 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we agree they can turn off the oil in response of us bombing their nukes. I have no opinion about how effective that would be. If they make the mistake of responding militarily, it's the end of the hunt. Even if Obama is President at the time.
July 19, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think money, then. No such thing as war is hell get over it anymore. Wherever we drop a bomb, it is followed by taxpayer dollars to rebuild. Kinda like - gee, we wanted to make a point but sorry for being so messy about it. Or, we wanted to get rid of that (insert choice for "that" here) but we'll put something back, swear! Better than ever!
July 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so. We didn't put anything back in Iraq following Desert Storm. And there were two schools of thought about Iraq. The break it own it school that prevailed and the knock it down and let someone else pick up the pieces school, led by, my sources tell me, none other than Dick Cheney. Had Cheney prevailed instead of Powell, there would have been no occupation. Ironic? But I doubt we'll make that mistake again. Next time we break them down and let the rest of the players in the Middle East sort through the rubble. I'm sure Iran knows. They did very well with the Iraq gambit. They are not going to risk their own existence as a modern state in a confrontation with the US military.
July 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you doubt we'll make that mistake again? Political correctness extends to the battleground, apparently. For whatever reason the United States will not destroy what it will then not rebuild. Billions of our dollars have gone not to our military effort in Iraq, but to cleaning up the mess. While that country puts so much cash in their bank account from the oil they produce that they can barely close the door on the safe.
The rest of the players in the Middle East sorting through the rubble? That's a nieve and dangerous assumption. As is that Iran is not willing to risk their own existance as a modern state. To date, Iran is not backing down. From anything. Reminds me of the Bush administration. Look how far that's gotten all of us.
July 19, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the nature of the modern battlefield. We can treat any country in the world exactly like we treated Iraq, as long as we don't tie up our forces with an occupation. If we had pulled out of Iraq right after we captured Saddam Hussein, Bush would be appointing an heir this year. Iran would have gotten Southern Iraq, which they will get anyway. Unless ... we destroy their military. Then Iraq may get some more ports on the Persian Gulf, maybe even on the Caspian Sea, and dominate western Iran? Who knows what will happen when Iran is a wasteland? I ask again. Who is going to call us off? We bombed Iraq at will for over 10 years. Seems to me we heard warnings about the oil supply before Desert Storm. Has the occupation been going on so long that the world has forgotten shock and awe? Do you think the Iranians are going to let that happen to them? If they keep playing chicken with their nuclear program, it could.
July 19, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't usually find myself in agreement with you, but you're right about this.
The interesting permutation is Bush taking the pretext, the nuclear facilities, and assuming that in the fog of engagement some fire will be directed toward attacking aircraft (or so it will be claimed), legitimizing attacks against Iranian military assets in order to beat them back in regard to their ability to project force/influence in Iraq, and perhaps destabilize the mullahs.
That could be a fairly substantial air campaign, depending on how far Bush wants to go, but it occupation wouldn't be in the cards, just the aerial bombardment component.
July 20, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the nature of the modern battlefield. We can treat any country in the world exactly like we treated Iraq, as long as we don't tie up our forces with an occupation. If we had pulled out of Iraq right after we captured Saddam Hussein, Bush would be appointing an heir this year. Iran would have gotten Southern Iraq, which they will get anyway. Unless ... we destroy their military. Then Iraq may get some more ports on the Persian Gulf, maybe even on the Caspian Sea, and dominate western Iran? Who knows what will happen when Iran is a wasteland? I ask again. Who is going to call us off? We bombed Iraq at will for over 10 years. Seems to me we heard warnings about the oil supply before Desert Storm. Has the occupation been going on so long that the world has forgotten shock and awe? Do you think the Iranians are going to let that happen to them? If they keep playing chicken with their nuclear program, it could.
July 19, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who is going to call us off?" Being the only Superpower there's no nation with the military to do so, I agree there. But there's 3 other loops that COULD do so now. Whether they WILL is another issue.
1) US $ held by others.... The oil exporters - as well as China - sit on unbelievably large piles of US $. They can pick their moment to pull the plug. Yeah, they'd lose some... But at some point in time, they could find that their other interests are large enough that they want to play the card. That card's in their hands, there's no debate about that. When or if they play it... that's open.
2) Oil, and the damage it can do to the US and global economy. If Iran did NOT militarily hit the US, but it "made it a wasteland," I very much suspect a whole set of spigots would get turned down. And the world would look on in horror at what the US had done - as well as the economic damage they'd be absorbing. Because then we'd be seeing, for sure, shit nobody's seen since the 30's. This is a big bomb - finance & the economy. The rest of the world knows what it can do, because US financial interests have done it to them. So, oil, leading to $ again.
3) American public opinion can beat the US military. So it would all depend on how they were prepped before the bombing, and whether there happened to be an election coming up when they could sweep the house clean. It'd be Fox & the Republican dirty tricks squads against.... American good sense. I'm betting on the latter to show up, sooner or later. In numbers.
So... one of those 3. But not any conventional army, no.
July 19, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you keep missing the point that I'm only talking about what we can do in response to a military attack by Iran, provoked or unprovoked? You know this is where I usually get disgusted and call you stupid. But I won't. I would if we were talking politics. And that's why I don't talk politics anymore. As I told your friend. We bombed Iraq at will for over 10 years. Nobody cares what we do to countries like Iran and Iraq. It's not worth it to cross us.
July 19, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nobody cares what we do to countries like Iran and Iraq. It's not worth it to cross us."
Nobody cares. Guess that's why we're so popular around the world, especially in the Middle East where they are to simply sort through the rubble. Your last line? Not only does it depend on your meaning of "worth it", but also sounds alot like something George would say.
Wound up underneath, forgot to check the box. Might have an opinion, but not much affinity for detail.
July 20, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just telling you the truth. Radical Shiism is okay with radical Shiites. The rest of the world, not so much. Personally, I vacation in the Caribbean, so I could care less if the French think America sucks, much less what the Russians or those great promoters of human rights the Chinese think. Arabs? Don't we have as many Arab allies as Iran does?
July 20, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No disagreement on your 1st part. Yes, the US CAN do precisely what you said - waste Iran - provoked or unprovoked. So don't get disgusted. (Yet. Gimme time.)
I also agree that 10 years ago nobody cared & it wasn't "worth it to cross the US." I just think your last phrase contains something interesting - and more to the question raised by Gasket. And maybe also something that's changed. 10 or even 5 years ago, anybody that was gonna cross the US had to do it stealthily. You gave a good example - Iran.
In the life of an Empire (or even just the Last Superpower Standing), everybody weighs this shit out, daily, cause they have to. And sooner or later, SOMEBODY decides to cross the Empire. If they're smart, they do it without tackling it militarily. But $$$? That's an interesting weapon. Which has brought down more than a few Empires. And there are now more than a few nations out there who have a whole lot of $ weapons.
Ok. Feel free to be disgusted now. Yep, I was extrapolating out from the pure battlefield stuff. But that's because I don't think anyone believes there's a serious question of potential military dominance in the MidEast - the US wins. The only thing that could - in my mind- hold Cheney & co back on Iran seems to me to be the force of something outside the battlefield.
July 20, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never thought I'd say it, but quinn is right.
Iran will not attack us unless we attack them first. And then how does one separate the battlefield from the economic field? Why would anyone else in the world want to? The Great Game was played in this region by the West and they remember. Empire is expensive to maintain; the very lesson we are learning, painfully. The Iranians have been having a Mossadegh related reaction to the West for a long time. In fact, it feels like it may be reaching a peak. The ruling council is composed of hardheaded pragmatists and won't let Ahmadinejad's ferocious vocabulary and philosophical idiocy drive policy. Besides, they don't have a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Above all, let's not forget that.
July 20, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez Cricket! "Never?" Lemme see, that's 388 assertions and wild-ass comments to date, and so far.... I got ONE right?
I gotta get a new hat.
July 20, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, quinn. That was extraordinarily harsh. I have agreed with you before. This may be one of those areas I agree with you more than not. No need to take it so hard, Quinn. I may have thought you have been right, but saying it is another matter. j/k
A nice shirt may help more. Animated tubing will help a lot more. j/k ;-)
July 20, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No animation. Just my opinion.
July 20, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me. That was my point. There will be no war with Iran, because Iran cannot attack us, even if we bomb their nuclear facilities. Maybe you guys should stick to politics. World events doesn't seem to be your bag.
July 20, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scott Ritter recently laid out how Iran will retaliate militarily. Your version sounds too clean to me. Do you think it'll be so one-sided? Among other factors, Ritter remembers Hezbollah's display of strength in Lebanon in 2006:
Ritter was impressed by Iran's recent missile tests. He believes the Pentagon was impressed as well and now has a clearer understanding of our military limitations in the ME. Do you disagree with that assessment?
July 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I do. I believe the US Military has the means to rapidly eliminate Iran's capability for a massive bombardment of anything. Ritter seems to be envisioning some kind of last gasp eruption of fury from Iran, unleashing hell on our bases and allies as we systematically dismantle Iran's military capability. My view is that would only worsen Iran's position. Not only would they be a country without an army, navy, air force, missile and air defense system, they would be a hated country without those assets, completely at the mercy of their Sunni neighbors. The scenario Ritter imagines would be one that lifted all restraints from the US military. If Iran began to attack our bases and allies with missiles, our military would be free to respond in any way they chose. The juggernaut would throw off its chains and America would go to war, something the world has not seen in over 60 years. Iran is far too crafty to bring that down on themselves.
July 20, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got it. Thanks, Billy. You surely know I appreciate your staying on-topic. :-)
July 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just remembered Ritter is the guy who egged the US on about enforcing the UN resolutions, then predicted we would be defeated in battle and never take Baghdad. Apparently, I have a higher opinion of the capability of the US military than he does. He is handicapped by his experience in Military Intelligence probably. :)
July 20, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, in my comment upthread, I should have said Iran can't afford to attack us. Obviously, they have the capability to attack us, but that would be playing into our hand.
July 20, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ that we "took" Baghdad.
July 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, we completely routed and destroyed the Iraqi army very quickly. I know it's hard to remember that we had control of Baghdad and other cities for quite a while. We had plenty of time to leave if Bush hadn't been stupid.
July 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is undoubtedly already making preparations to attack. The first strike will be from Israel. Right before all hell breaks loose.
July 20, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
ReadytoBlowaGasket or anyone who might help:
would you please improve my skill in using html for links in these comments area? RTBAG uses it nicely above, and I can't find where to see how to do it here (and I've looked ...) thanks.
i.e., giving a link another name (shorter too) in this space (no buttons available as in reader blog posts) (and search didn't quite get it for me)
July 19, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to in the body of a post, where you can use a button after highlighting some text, here in the comments you have to use real html. Wikipedia has a page of html phrases for common uses.
The URL---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_element#Links_and_anchors
July 19, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, Tom, I'll check it out (I had peeked around there some, but missed what I needed) ...
July 19, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks from me as well, Tom.
July 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't hyperlink in the comments. At least I've never seen anyone do it. Blogs yes. Comments no.
July 19, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except gasket, of course.
July 19, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gives with that, anyway? Gasket own this shop?
July 19, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superior intellect. Like Khan.
July 19, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hereafter, "wrathofgasket."
July 20, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Lots of people put hyperlinks in comments all the time.
Here's a hyperlink to your profile page. Here's a hyperlink to TPM home page.
Like Tom Wright said, you just use html code for a hyperlink in comments. The same for italics or bold or blockquote.
It's easier to just paste a copy of the url from your address bar, that comes through as a live link in comments without code.
I often do a hyperlink in comments instead of pasting an url if the url is very long, because a long url screws up some of the page views depending on the browser used and size of computer screen. But there's no need for anyone to have to do a word link if they have a relatively short url. It will come through as a live link without code.
July 20, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about linking to another comment in the thread? If you're using Firefox, you just right-click on the "Permalink" link at the bottom of the comment and select "Copy Link Location". Then paste it into your comment:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/countdown-to-confrontation-wit.php#comment-2973477
Or do the fancy (and unnecessarily tedious) a href thing.
Sorta cool but why bother
It's just basic html.
July 20, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I forgot to mention--if you're using Internet Exploder, just switch to Firefox. *:o)
July 20, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
`The talks included France, Britain, China, Russia, Germany, and the U.S. Who knew!`
I thought everyone knew. There's been plenty of coverage surely that William Burns was joining the talks. It's been portrayed for days as Bush et al following Obama's policy and how would McCain's campaign deal with that?
Even Fox has covered it (with that repulsive Bolton saying its disastrous)
July 19, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Busted! (Just kidding.) NPR, for one, has barely covered it before today. I listen to All Things Considered while I make dinner, and no mention all week. I never listen in the morning, so I missed a 59-second mention on Morning Edition Wednesday, and a 4-minute story on Friday (I did a search on the NPR website). Guess I need to start watching FOX.
Otherwise, I've been immersed in Fannie & Freddie, Charlie Rangel, and New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's fascinating interviews with Amy Goodman and Terry Gross.
July 20, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW at the end of the two weeks, if Iran has not come to the party, the threat isn't of war. Is there seriously anyone out there who believes the US can sustain *three* wars at once? And do you seriously believe that Bush & McCain would believe this election could possibly be won if they tried to launch a third one now?
The threat is heightened economic sanctions.
July 19, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is not what sane people believe ...
and maybe BushCo/McCain are making plans for not winning ... how much damage can they inflict on those who will have to deal with it ... have they done anything to make the next admin's job easier?
July 19, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That made me laugh out loud. I laughed because it's so true.
It's been the lesson from Day 1 of this administration, which many Republicans admit as well. Lincoln Chafee tells a story about how Dick Cheney met with 5 moderate Republicans the day after the Supreme Court installed Bush into the White House in 2000. Cheney laid out an aggressive foreign policy agenda, the exact opposite of the "humble" foreign policy Bush had campaigned on. Chafee says he was floored by that meeting, and he's pretty sane for a Republican.
July 19, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try to make you laugh again if you'll just clue me to your link trick here in the comments: renaming a url string ... I'm making some mistake when I try to follow the wiki code line ... maybe you could write it out in English sentences since using the code gets tricky too ... puhleeeze!
July 19, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One might argue that we've been in a confrontation with Iran since at least 1979. I believe the official story is the Burns was there to observe and listen rather than to negotiate anything. I think you're right about Burns's attendance upping the ante. And it could as easily be an indication we're about to start playing rougher as it could be an indication that we're getting ready to talk.
July 19, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT article today was full of double-moves that I found hard to read. The US said they'd push for sanctions in Sept.... but Iran had two weeks to accept the "freeze-for-freeze offer; the US showed up today, but not last month when Britain wanted them, as that was when they presented the "incentives"; the US wanted to be seen, but not to be seen "negotiating"; making one statement, but not agreeing with the negotiating strategy; etc. My only guess is that there's this positioning, and then there's Israel's moves - and that the US may well be positioning itself today with an eye to how it will look if something happens there.
July 19, 200