American Military vs. Iran: Furthering the "Neue Welt Lebensraum Strategy"

[Dunvegan]

I'm not sure the US has a "conventional option" if the Bush Administration is seriously contemplating an Iranian invasion. And what are we doing thinking about invading Iran anyway? Is this our Administration's American oil bourse "Neue Welt Lebensraum Strategy?"

Invading Iran is, as understatement, a military mistake. However, the morality of invading a sovereign nation is no longer even a speed-bump in the vestigial conscience of the Bush Administration, leaving the only stopping point the devil of the DoD details.

Is all of this "sturm und drang/shock and awe" simply because of a Iranian uranium enrichment program? Or is there something else going on in New World Order-land? If so, it's a tragi-comic production at best.

This administration's only role on the world stage of late is comprised of suddenly flanking in and entering stage right, rattling sabers, upstaging the world cast via brinkmanship, and then tragically overstepping the floorboards to plummet with great clatter and horns deep into the orchestra pit.

This is the matinee farce that is our present military policy.

Concerning Iran, the current run-up to war administration play-acting begs the question: To what end and expectation?

That is, unless "unleashing Hell" in the Middle East is considered victory in the Pentagon these days.

Let's look at the options in a US invasion of Iran.

1. We don't/can't/won't have the overpowering boots on the sand required to invade Iran.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, in 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts). They may have about 1,000 tanks to meet ground forces with (British-made Chieftains and American-made M-60s, with a few captured Russian tanks rounding up the number.)

Iran would hit us with everything they have if we breach their borders via land by divisions of soldiers, as one would expect when a sovereign country is invaded. With Iran that could include throwing their fledgling biological and/or robust chemical weapons stockpiles at US ground forces. Most likely, if using WMD, the Iranians would employ (as they have against Iraq in their border wars) the highly persistent nerve agent VX.

2. We can't take control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran could be counted on to unleash on the US fleet the Soviet-made "battleship killer" Sunburn missiles that the US fleet (presently) has no (that's zero) defense against.

In all likelihood, the US would lose many ships trying to surge into the Strait of Hormuz. And lose the battle of Hormuz as well as a critical shipping route for Middle East oil.

3. The "air war" is the only likely option.

The US could try an air war. But the SecDef is more insane that already thought if he thinks (in any conventional sense) an Iranian invasion is "winnable." We can bomb the underground nuclear reactor installations such as Bushier, et. al., but...as in our drive for Baghdad in Iraq...what then? How would an aerial war lead to any kind of victory for any rational end?

The Iranian missile arsenal is hefty. They have a rather full-spectrum panoply of missiles from which to choose: Air-to-Surface, Air-to-Air, Surface-to-Surface, and Surface-to-Air.



This puts Israel in the very jeopardy they currently raise concerns about.

If the Iranians actually have, can launch, and successfully control the North Korean Taepo Dong 2 missile, they conceptually have missile reach to Europe and the UK.

Also expect that a US/UK Iranian invasion will most likely open the door for Iran to conduct suicide bomber operations in the US and in England. If we invade their home "over there" they can and most probably will bring the war home to us "over here."

Shall we ask a more primary question at this point: Just how did the US become a juggernaut of blitzkrieg diplomacy? Just how did we come to the this "Neue Welt Lebensraum Strategy", a foreign expansion, oil acquisition, and invasion-as-security philosophy? I'll have to supose that Donald Rumsfeld hasn't read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

Lebensraum expansionism didn't work for Germany in 1939 to revive their economic malaise and satisfy their hunger for empire, and it's not going to work for America at the dawn of the 21st century.

I can see why the US generals are clearing their throats a little loudly these days. I support them for the extraordinary measures involved in ranking former military officers stepping forward, and this includes the recent statements from Gen. Wesley Clark.

This is real courage in action. To not do so is becoming a clear "dereliction of duty."

We need to hook these administration clowns off the world stage.

[rodeodance]

1. yes, something else is going on: Bush is spreading Freedom/Democracy.

......Invading Iran is, as understatement, a military mistake. However, the morality of invading a sovereign nation is no longer even a speed-bump in the vestigial conscience of the Bush Administration, leaving the only stopping point the devil of the DoD details.

[itzamirakul]

14. Yes, there are "other things going on" as you wrote...

What I can't understand is why there are not hundreds of thousands of Americans out in the streets screaming their heads off about the possibility of invasion in Iran?

Why are people like you and me and the other posters here not mentally strong enough or brave enough, or whatever, to get such a public movement started?

We know what is going on and yet we are neither members of the armed forces fighting in Iraq nor are we active protesters (on this coming problem in Iran). I often comfort myself by telling myself that I am "too old" to be involved, but plenty of people over seventy still live active lives and play leadership roles...so I have no excuse.

I wonder what excuses some of the rest of the posters have here for not being more actively involved as public protesters?

I have been informed that there will be a major march against the war in Iraq on April 29, in New York City. Are there any other marches being planned anywhere here in America on that day? Wonder how come I haven't read any posts about this coming protest here at DU?

[Dunvegan]

21. I filmed our last anti-Iraq/anti-Iran war protest here in San Francisco.

That was on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq (and my birthday): March 18th.

Many, many "No War In Iran!" signs there.

[itzamirakul]

23. That's great to hear!

I'm glad that I asked my tortured questions, otherwise I would have never known about your participation and activism.

As for me, I am planning on taking part in the NYC March on April 29th.

I just heard Danny Schecter of www.mediachannel.org on C-Span discussing his new book, "News Media Lies: Media Complicity and the Iraq War." During the talk he mentioned a demonstration that his organization planned and carried out a few weeks ago here in NYC (and in other cities as well)against bias in the media. He mentioned the relatively poor turnout for the event. But, he said, he had not, at the time, heard that over 157,000 emails had gone out to the media complaining about the bias.

Email blitzes are good...they beat nothing, but as the recent immigration demonstations have reminded us, nothing works as well as seeing hundreds of thousands of protesters out on the streets.

[HereSince1628]

2. The pro-democracy forces inside Iran will rise up and overthrow

the crazy islamofascists in Tehran. They will welcome a US attack as liberation and assist us in every possible way. Their children will throw flowers in the streets as a triumphant Condi Rice, accompanied by the Lizzy Cheney, the American liaison officer to the Iranian pro-democracy underground, take a parade lap.

What makes you think these crazy neocons learned anything from the disaster in Iraq that would forestall any of this?

The only lesson I've heard them suggest is that the Iraq operation should have started even bigger. And I believe that is one of the plans on the table. To prevent Iranian military retaliation there must be a massive pre-emptive and prolonged campaign that takes down the entire Iranian military machine. In their craziness they conceive a 2006 version of what Japan attempted to do to American forces across the Pacific in early Dec 1941.

[Dunvegan]

3. Excellent analogy...the Bush Administration wants to "Pearl Harbor" Iran.

What's that phrase about "history," "not learning," and "repeating mistakes?"

[saigon68]

18. as a triumphant Condi Rice takes a parade lap.

LOL

She is the penultimate Ass-Clown

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I equate this proposed military maneuver to that of Hitler's Operation

Barbarossa wherein his goal was to have a war on two fronts: western Europe and Russia simultaneously with expected and guaranteed victories within a short period of time due to the theoretical superiority of the German military and its equipment.

Hitler's generals were skeptical to say the least. Some of them were veterans of World War I and understood the limitations inherent with the Russia terrain if not the deadly climate of its winters, if not the will of the populace. Plus the generals were irked by taking their marchings orders from a lowly corporal (Hitler) with no formal military education and training as they had. But they had no choice in the matter and planned Operation Barbarossa accordingly, with disastrous results.

There is the theory that Hitler MIGHT HAVE succeeded in his conquest of the "free world" had he not surrendered to his hubris and/or insanity and attacked Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

[Dunvegan]

9. Yes, many Wehrmacht generals of WWI Germany resisted Hitler.

So, he just went around any of the old guard and installed his own loyalists in the military and carried on with the apocalypse.

True, Hitler's "uber-extension" did cause the collapse of his military superiority, but it usually does for empire, it's a great leveler, whether it's Caeser's Rome, Napoleon's Army, the Germans in WWII, or the present "Coalition Army."

[ShortnFiery]

5. Simply put, our Executive Branch has gone INSANE ... we must

reel their warmongering a**es back to reality vice the delusions of an American Empire. :grr: :nuke:

[Oversea Visitor]

6. What is very clear

is that bush going to destroy the US with this move.

I dont think he even consider the reaction of all the countries in this world.

[MADem]

7. A colonel on CNN said we're already there

Working with dissidents? Acquiring targets?

Check this out (via Buzzflash): http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114504674614060703

There's a link within to a bit of video.

[Dunvegan]

11. The rumors of behind the lines activities have been circulating for months

...but former U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner seems to have confirmed the action.

[MADem]

12. Well, I never doubted that it was going on

The Israelis have had HUMINT assets there for years and years, back to the Shah days. The Russkies, too.

And remember those two Brit fellas in thobes and WIGS, prancing around southern shi'a Iraq (Basra, I believe) in a car packed with weapons and explosives, who were busted out of jail by their fellow Brits in a tank? You have to wonder where those weapons were headed--it's an easy jaunt over the border from there.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. You have overlooked the other glaring deficiency in Rummy's

non-plan. Iraq: there would need to be a secure base to launch attacks from and the US forces aren't in control of Iraq yet, the entire assault would be sabotaged from base to front line from the start.

Imagine D-Day if French suicide bombers were attacking troops trying to fight inland from the beachhead.

PNACers are being wilfully incompetent if they think any attack on Iran is anything but a lunatic idea.

A few things they should have learned are; when not to launch an attack, how to heed military advice, when widening a conflict is insane.

They should know all these things because of the sole responsibility they bear for the situation in Iraq. It's their fault and they can't shift the blame onto anyone else, especially not the military, they were jamming the military's subordination to civil power down the throats of the pentagon since day 1.

[Dunvegan]

10. Thank you...you point out a critical strategic blunder.

The lack of a stable launch theatre is death from "jump street" for our forces.

Not to mention war with Iran gives the Shiite majority in Iraq reason for full reaction in Iraq against American and UK troops.

[TheBaldyMan]

13. apparently the UK forces have the opinion that the whole of the

south could be taken with a handful of mullahs on trucks with loudspeakers in the back. The entire idea of an attack on Iran is insane, it would endanger the troops and the people of Iraq.

[pyro858]

15. Notice it's deja vu with the media

Our wonderful media is pimping war with iran just like they did iraq. Give them a year and americans will be screaming for blood. disgusting!

[acmejack]

16. Iran controls Russia's access to a warm water port

Just as point of interest, the US Navy has always been quite observant of this particular feature of Iran's geography...

[Dunvegan]

17. Geography IS destiny.

But that could hold true for the Coalition as well. The straits could become a killing grounds for the majority of both US and UK active forces, Navy as well as ground forces.

[HereSince1628]

19. Yes and hence the Greatest Game's field of play is

Turkey, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan.

Sort of makes one wonder how global warming will influence the future geopolitics of Russia.

[Dunvegan]

20. Global warming...joker in the deck, all right.

Which is why I support candidates and statesmen (like Al Gore) who won't just let the issues rest...because there's nothing that isn't directly influenced by global warming.

Hunger, housing, the global and domestic economy, weather and disaster planning, war, energy and oil...nothing much important falls outside the purview and reach of global warming.

[TheBaldyMan]

22. aren't you thinking of Turkey. btw since the break-up of the

Soviet Union, Ukraine has a stranglehold on the Black Sea fleet.

The geographic importance of Iran according to Russia is that it would allow land access to the Persian Gulf area.