War With Axis of Evil, Part 2
Who says the Bush administration never learns from its mistakes?
One of the main raps against the invasion of Iraq is the fact that significant WMDs were never found after the invasion. Well, for the war with Iran (and Syria, and as it turns out, North Korea), they're not making that mistake again. They're finding the WMDs first and going to war after.
The Times of London reports:
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2512380.ece
Israel's at war with Syria-- which means we're at war with Iran. The appeaser students who urged that their classmates not cause Ahmadinejad too much grief at his debutante ball at Columbia, because it will only play into the administration's drumbeat for war, are behind the times. And The Times.
* * *
POSTSCRIPT: The initial tenor of the comments, as well as the fact that folks raced to disrecommend this entry, suggest to me that people imagine me licking my lips at the prospect of bloodshed in Iraq and saluting our Commander in Chief for finally getting into the gory work.
This is not the case. I fear the possible outcomes of going to war with Iran-- but unlike kneejerk pacifists, I also fear the possible outcomes of NOT going to war to stop Iran. I recognize that we have a real enemy (who has, in many ways, been at war with us since 1979, and certainly is actively at war in Iraq right now) and we will probably need to do something. And that appearing, at least, to be willing to go to full-fledged war is an important weapon in itself.
Furthermore, I fear that going to war is the one thing that would help the evil regime there. So checkmating their activities outside Iran, as this episode in Syria seems to have done, is perhaps the best thing we can do in the short term to worry them without giving them a propaganda coup to rally their populace with.
Anyway, if you want a concise overview of the war with Iran as it's beginning to play out, read here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/the_buildup_to_a_usiran_war.html
Okay, let me get this straight- Israel attacks Syria (with American approval), but Syria is at fault because Israel says they have WMD (according to informed “well-placed” sources in Washington and Jerusalem)?
But wait, you said that N. Korea gave ‘em the nukes, right? So, aren’t we at war with No. Korea? Or Syria? I’m confused…Are we at war with Syria and No. Korea? Or, are we at war with the Muslims in Iran? I know, I know, they’re not really Arabs, but the Koreans aren’t Arabs either, not really. Okay, I get it. We’re not at war with the Koreans because they’re not Arabs. But we are at war with the Iranians because they’re kind of Arabs, right? Cool.
September 23, 2007 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does attacking Syria mean war with Iran?
"Tattaglia's a pimp, but not until this day did I know that it was Barzini all along."
September 23, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, instead of Syria as proxy for Iran, maybe we are a proxy for Israel?
"I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart."
September 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Iran considers Syria strategically vital.
It's this way. The United States can't risk a full scale war with Iran because its logistics supply lines run through the Persian Gulf, and can be put at risk. As long as the United States has that vulnerable supply line, Iran figures its safe.
Taking out Syria allows the United States to run a logistics supply line out the other way, from Iraq direct to the mediteranean. No more vulnerability.
Iranian strategists have concluded that an attack on Syria will inevitably result in an attack on Iran, or leave them in a strategically unacceptable position. It's the line that can't be crossed.
It's like Serbia and Russia in 1914, or France and Poland in 1939.
September 25, 2007 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear material is not a weapon, and quotes from anonymous "unnamed sources" are not evidence, let alone evidence justifying going to war. And what does any of this have to do with Iran? This actually sounds exactly like the same nonsense that preceded the Iraq war.
September 23, 2007 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
quotes from anonymous "unnamed sources" are not evidence, let alone evidence justifying going to war
Whaddaya talk? I'm sure both Dick and Dubya find that to be plenty of justification for going to war.
This actually sounds exactly like the same nonsense that preceded the Iraq war.
No, not exactly; but close enough for government work. Let the games begin.
September 23, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Informed sources? Any particular reason we should trust anonymous claims by unidentified parties? We don't know the identity of these parties, their agendas, or their veracity.
I seem to recall 'informed sources' and similar anonymous reports were behind a lot of the wmd bullshit that revolved around Iraq. In the end, none of it was credible.
And there are problems with this report. If you take the time to dig up a map we'll see that the attack in Syria was well inside Syrian territory. Deep, deep inside Syrian territory. Near the Iraqi/Turkish border.
So how do you get a commando raid out that far? It strikes me that it is well beyond the operational range of most military helicopters... perhaps 250 kilometers, maybe 300. Possibly, I suppose, they could leapfrog through turkish airspace and refuel in Turkey. But it does seem implausible.
And if the raid was successful, why bomb the facility later? Isn't that putting the cart under the horse.
I'm smelling a rat.
Again, this anonymous source is a puzzler. For instance, is the attack being referred to the aerial attack or the commando raid? Or are the two effectively simultaneous?
But if they are simultaneous, what exactly was the mysterious evidence that the material was nuclear related, as the anonymous sources say.
One thing that becomes clear, the American anonymous sources are worthless. All their information appears to be coming from Israel.
So, it's not two independent sources. It's one source(s), with the second channel of sources(s) dependent upon the first.
That and anonymity certainly goes towards the issue of credibility.
And how was this done?
I dunno. Lots of wind and smoke, not much of substance.
We know that there was an airstrike deep inside Syrian territory. We know that the Airstrike was probably at the operational limits of Israeli bombers because they abandoned fuel tanks and ammunition, and also made use of Turkish territory. We know that the airstrike was in a deep remote area near the Turkish/Iraqi borders.
The original explanation was weapons shipment.
Now we've got this big ass nuclear conspiracy thing? Coming from anonymous sources? And some complex soft shuffle with two separate sets of raids? Oh, and north korea is involved?
Mmm hmm. Okay, yeah, right.
Sounds like lame ass conspiracy theory to me.
September 25, 2007 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Possibly, I suppose, they could leapfrog through turkish airspace and refuel in Turkey. But it does seem implausible."
But, apparently, the case. Reports are they did go through Turkey.
"Informed sources? Any particular reason we should trust anonymous claims by unidentified parties? We don't know the identity of these parties, their agendas, or their veracity."
I'm sure that's how you looked at, say, a soldier's diary in The New Republic, too.
September 26, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cowardice is not a viable strategy for dealing with life, son.
Grow a set.
September 25, 2007 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I went and read the article by Robert Tracsinsky on the build up of the war with Iran. Here's a pretty typical sample of Trasinsky's reasoning:
Uh huh.
The rest of the article is all about the stuff that the United States is doing or trying in order to get the war on. Not a lot of discussion of anything that Iran is doing. Just a lot of stuff like this:
September 25, 2007 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you've removed the polemical stuff, what's interesting is what's left: details, neatly summed up, about what's happening.
Which, as you'll recall, was my point in pointing to it. You seem to have missed that in your rush to get back to your preconceptions...
September 26, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Such as? Can you maybe briefly list your top three most fearful outcomes.
September 26, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
London, New York, Washington.
October 15, 2007 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those cities are, indeed, fearful outcomes -- particularly Washington these days; but it's too late to prevent them.
October 15, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink