Deja Vu- my prediction on Iran war

[n2doc]

Back in the fall of 2002, I was talking to my wife and some friends and our general consensus was that if the repukes took back control of the Senate then we were going to attack Iraq. That sure ended up being true. So I will make a prediction: if for whatever reason the repuke losses in the upcoming election are minimal, if they retain control of the house and senate, we will be going to war in Iran in the spring. I don't think they will try it before the election as it could produce an uncontrollable backlash among the voters (my cynical side says 'probably not', my hopefully side says 'time for revolution'). But if they can, by whatever means, maintain power there is little doubt in my mind that they will go for it. FWIW.

[Lerkfish]

1. think earlier.

recess war in october, right before elections.

[n2doc]

2. Not unless they panic

My feeling is that starting a war right now, without some kind of major provocation, would be a political (and many other way) disasater. Better to use the RW MSM, Dibold, and voter disenfanchisement techniques that they know work so well now, then do the dirty work later. agan, just my opinion. We will see soon enough, I fear.

[MiniMe]

8. They can create a major provocation, they did with Iraq

And I thought W lived by that old Texas saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me once, you can't get fooled again".

[HereSince1628]

7. I've pondered this and now more or less agree with you on the possibility

Initially I thought Bush might want to make sure his rubber-stamp Congress is back in place. But, it seems likely that Bush recognizes a diminishing chance of that happening.

Consequently, IF he is going to attack Iran, and feels he needs a rubberstamp for either pre-emptive or subsequent absolution. So I think if it happens it will be BEFORE this Congress expires and the investigations completely hamstring his administration. That would mean he has until January to lose his rubber stamp.

And just as a note, IF he chooses to attack, it would most likely be nights from now until January that are New Moons. The Air Force is gonna want the sky to be as dark as possible to have all technological advantage.

[Bucky]

3. Whatever action we take w/Iran, it won't be a war.

To have a war, you need to have troops. Between gear ups, recuperation, and deployment, the mess in Iraq and the degenerating situation in Afghanistan consumes about 70-80% of our ground fighting strength. The rest is needed in Japan and South Korea as deterrent to that other problem Bush has ignored and screwed up on. There won't be a war with Iran.

That said, we still have air and sea power virtually unused. That's the only danger. But any remote strikes against Iran would be the most predictable disaster in history. I know we like to talk about how stupid they are, but no one is that stupid.

The game plan is to scare people into voting for them, not fight an actual war.

[Blackhatjack]

5. You Make a Rationale Argument...Which Does Not Apply To Bush

There are many rationale reasons to adopt the approach you laid out, but that just does not matter to Bush/Cheney NeoCons. They believe they are destined to pull this off, and if they start it then other countries allied with us will be pulled into it and help carry the load.

I hope you are right. I fear you are wrong. Nobody knows for sure, since you cannot predict the actions of a a group or individual that ignores reality and acts on the basis of some kind of providential destiny.

[Bucky]

12. It's not about rationality. It's about self preservation.

Iraq didn't bother Bush because it was a pushover mission. We can issue all the knee jerk "they are evil/stupid/irrational" insults we like--the fact is that before they can start a war, they'll have to answer the question "What can the Iranians do in response?" (they accuratly predicted what the Iraqis and Talibanis would do, by the way) as well as "Attack? With what troops?"

[leesa]

14. They don't have to answer that question. They didn't with Iraq.

I think Dubya may very well bomb Iran because he is at risk of being jailed for war crimes and possibly treason and possibly even murder if the truth of 9-11 ever spills out.

I think they think they can just bomb and run away. It won't work but then they wil use mini-nukes...they've been dying to try them out. I think they have written off the troops trapped in Iraq, because after bombing Iran, they will be destroyed by Iran and Iraqi supporters of Iran.

These are not rational people. They don't care except to save their own necks at this point.

[Bucky]

15. Actually yes, they did ask it about Iraq. They aren't cartoon monsters...

They're real life monsters, granted. But they're best understood if you look at facts instead of rhetoric. The invasion and conquest of Iraq, while somewhat understaffed, was well planned and almost flawlessly executed. They can plan wars plenty good--particularly against ill equipped and mostly devastated enemies.

They can't plan an occupation worth a shit, but that's a different story. Bush went against the two weakest regimes in the middle east and our military took them down in a matter of weeks in each case. Iran is not weak and the Bushies know this. They won't go after a tough enemy; bullies never do. There is zero chance of an invasion of Iran and less than an onionskin-thin chance of any bombing of Iran.

While it's emotionally validating to say "these are not rational people", the claim is simply not true. They're not smart people, obviously, and they're not ethical people and they don't mind throwing away a few lives here and there if it advances their cause. But bombing Iran will unquestionably hurt them politically. Scaring people about Iran helps them--and so they hype and bluster and bluff. But the reason they haven't attacked Iran up until now has nothing to do with the 06 elections and everything to do with their sense of self persenvation and a fear over what Iran would certainly do retaliation.

All they have and can do is run a piss poor bluff. Don't fall for it; it only feeds them.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Sorry, but you are misinformed on at least two points ....

You posted "The invasion and conquest of Iraq, while somewhat understaffed, was well planned and almost flawlessly executed." Reality is that analysis of the operation shows it was woefully undermanned, not well planned and not flawlessly executed.

In fact, because the plan depended on a "race to Baghdad" many of the force vehicles outran their supply lines, and were sitting ducks for hours until the supply lines caught up. As fighting resistance was easily put down, the US violated a basic principle of securing arms and munitions "as you go", and in fact once Baghdad was taken and we retraced our steps to amunition dumps we passed by on the way, huge amounts of munitions had been stolen and carried away --and many believe today they are a large part of the IEDs blowing up our troops an civilians during the postwar occupation. We had so little force on the ground that we were not able to prevent looting, and our decision to immediately disband the Army just created a well trained fighting force with no jobs to lead an insurgency against the US. And it quickly became apparent that the US could not protect the Iraqi civilian population, so that is where they have attacked to turn opinion against us and provide protection for their own fighters within the population.

You posted: "Actually yes, they did ask it about Iraq."

Well actually, they asked "their" sources in the Pentagon --specifically the Office of Special Plans, which was feeding unreliable information as the basis for going to war. There was opposition in the Pentagon Brass, but they were cut off from receiving and providing information that countered that of the OSP. THe OSP and other NeoCons predicted that the fight would be short, we would be welcomed by the people in the streets, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire endeavor(remember Wolfowitz and his testimony before Congress?).

Now that the same NeoCons are inhabiting a new "Iranian Directorate"(just another OSP), we can expect the same kind of information and planning out of that group.

I do not consider any of this decisionmaking and planning to be rationale. Rather it is based on a false belief that they are somehow destined to carry out this plan, which by the way has been sitting on the shelf for years having been hatched by the PNAC.

[lonestarnot]

10. If he could figure out how to round up troops on a couple

of dark nights in the next 45 days, we would have an Iranian face down. This will be his only deterant, and not anything ANY voter would do or say including his own base.

[4bucksagallon]

4. Well my prediction for what it is worth.

That the US will give Israel the nod to take on Iran with massive air strikes just like they took out the nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Without boots on the ground I don't know how we will ever know if it was effective or not. If the US wants to attack it will need to reinstate the draft and you know the chickenhawks don't even want to talk about that.

[Blackhatjack]

6. I see a different scenario....

...the US will launch massive airstrikes, Israel will be attacked and immediately launch its own airstrikes. This unifies the rest of the muslim world against the US and Israel. The Bushco NeoCons are positioning troops on the border and inside Iran to verify the airstrike results. The NeoCons think they can send troops into Iran to stop them from crossing into Iraq and joining up with Shiites there to attack our 130,000 troops on the ground. This thinking proves wrong, US troops in Iraq are pinned down, US naval vessels are attacked and the Strait of Hormuz closes to oil traffic. Oil pipelines are blown up. Venezuela cuts off oil exports to the US, and the price of oil goes straight up. Syria and other Mideastern countries join up with Iran's counterattack on US forces, and direct attacks against US putative "allies" Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. The whole situation spins out of control, and there is no counterweight to stop the fighting - since the Muslims view it as a "holy war." And Russia and China sit this one out as the US finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. China however becomes the US biggest competitor for oil available on the world market, and warns the US not to interfere or they will use their creditor status with us to hammer the US economy by demanding payment, and moving investment out of the US. Russia makes a fortune as the only reliable oil exporter at unheard of prices.

Nothing good can come from the US using military force against Iran. It has been "gamed" over and over again, and Bush has been told this. No other explantion for taking military action other than Bush believes he has been "destined" to carry this out.

[HereSince1628]

9. Any attack will be on more than the nuclear industry targets.

The US will want to eliminate all air defenses and also strip Iran of its retaliatory capacity. That means hundreds of targets, and lots of dead Iranians.

Once the US commits an attack of that scale, there isn't much reason to not try to eliminate political targets as well.

[lonestarnot]

11. I am ruling this out because Iraq is an overly stirred pot from

"insurgents" (yak) Al Qaida, Taliban whomever, for strategic positioning of such a massive sortie undertaking, but I'm no military planner.

[Blackhatjack]

13. Biggest Fear Among Military Planners is You Can't Avoid Regional War

There just is no way to avoid a regional conflict once Iran is attacked. Syria and Hezbollah will act immediately, and Israel will be attacked. Israel responds. Other muslim countries immediately rally to Iran's side, and those countries with large Shiite populations and non-Shiite Leaders are likely to experience overthrow of their governments.

If that happened, Pakistan would be at the top of the list. Then your radical Shiites are in charge of a country that ALREADY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. India would go to its highest alert and the danger of an unintended nuclear confrontation would be high.

War "gamers" look for any possible scenario that would meet the objectives without incurring unacceptable losses. There are none with Iran, and Bush has been told this. So we are not going into this unaware of the possible consequences. THere will be no credible claims that "we could never have imagined that happening."