The coming war in Iran

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites) as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."
link
Alright, who wins the prize for predicting it first? I theorized on it with my friends, but never thought they'd actually try it. Where are they getting the resources to do this? Can they snooker their 51% into believing that Iran is a threat worthy of another war?
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Perhaps some of that information may be made available to Israel...

Didn't they attack and destroy a reactor in Iraq in the mid-1980s?
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Thanatoast said:
Can they snooker their 51% into believing that Iran is a threat worthy of another war?
who do they need to convince? the public? heck, that'd probably benefit the GOP in the mid-terms. congress? i don't see them growing a spine anytime soon.

when bush believes he has a mandate from both the public and from god, why should he have to pander to anyone's opinion anymore?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,028
PDX
Blue Velvet said:
Perhaps some of that information may be made available to Israel...

Didn't they attack and destroy a reactor in Iraq in the mid-1980s?
Indeed. If they don't know it already. Israel's security and intelligence services are no slouches.

Curiously, pre-revolutionary Iran and Israel had such deep and entrenched bureaucratic relations, that they probably persist to this day despite vehement denials by Iranian authorities. Iranians, being an "old" people are somewhat respect and are fascinated by Jews, as they are another "old" people.

Anyhow, I can't see the US getting involved in Iran militarily. We don't have the troop strength. It would be counter-productive to the WOT and create regional chaos not seen in the ME since I don't know when. Iran is also the most pro-American and democratic-leaning country in the ME, with the populace tired and jaded from the "revolution". We would futher galvanize Muslim opinion against the US and the West. We would be destroying one of the most sophisticated countries in the Region, a potential trading partner and strategic, if not ideological, ally. The US does not have the money and to even hope to come up with it, Bush would need to sacrifice his "signature" Domestic programs, such as SS overhaul and permanent tax-cuts. Congressional Republicans have already been chafing over the fiscal responsibility issue. If Bin Laden had written the script, it couldn't be any better for his interests.

I just don't see it. All I can guess is that this is all for bargaining power with Iran over various issues. In that sense it is somewhat logical, in that we may be able to bluff our way into getting concessions from the Iranian government that serve our interests. Our reckless nature in Iraq, much like that of Nixon in the late(r) stages of Vietnam, may somewhat impress/confuse Iran much like Nixon's actions did to China and the USSR. Furthermore, an actual assault on Iran would severely disrupt oil supply, leaving Saudi Arabia as the only ME major supplier, which would be under intense destabilizing pressures itself in the wake of further hostile intervention in the Region by a country charged with it's own security. Pakistan would likely get very nervous and is hardly a stable polity on a good day and it has nuclear capabilities. This in turn would concern India. Gas prices would skyrocket. Europe would be aghast. The Russians might take advantage of Iranian weakness/preoccupation to further and/or cement it's former strategically-located and/or oil rich caucasus satellites and control the future of the Caspian Sea oil reserves and pipeline revenue and infrastructure, which Iran now prevents. This is unlikely to assist US interests.

So it is imo, just a rattling of sabers, so to speak. We may attack the Administration for poor tactical/logistical choices in executing the Iraqi affair, of even of the viability of their apparent strategy with regards to the same. We may find their domestic policies foolish and selfish. We may laugh at Bush's gaffes. Yet I am not prepared to accept that a government full of professional FSO staff and experts, complicated geo-strategic goals, big domestic ideas full of potential political capital for the GOP and most of all, a hearty self-interest, would do something so monumentally stupid. This is qualitatively different from Iraq. No way.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,520
OBJECTIVE reality
Blue Velvet said:
Perhaps some of that information may be made available to Israel...

Didn't they attack and destroy a reactor in Iraq in the mid-1980s?
I don't know, that could easily trigger WW III.

I can't help but be appalled at the utter gall and stupidity that they might even be thinking about attacking Iran, when they're throwing everything they've got at Iraq and it's going to Hell in a handcart.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
I wouldn't expect Israel to even be tempted to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel's threat comes from Arab nations, or which Iran is not one. In fact the two countries for a long while had a common enemy in Iraq.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Iran or Syria, doesn't matter, how are the already thin armed forces going to handle this?

I'll just skip over the whole requirement for actual justification when it comes to starting a war anymore. As long as it benefits us we'll repeat any old excuse about WMDs/Terrorism/Evil Dictators/Fighting them there and not here/Spreading Freedom and Democracy that suits us on that particular day.

Draft?
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Xtremehkr said:
Iran or Syria, doesn't matter, how are the already thin armed forces going to handle this?
i assume it would be the forces currently in iraq. elections are soon, you know, and the iraq army is nearly ready, of course, so 'fore too long the iraqis will be able to handle their own affairs. mission accomplished and forging ahead to iran.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
zimv20 said:
i assume it would be the forces currently in iraq. elections are soon, you know, and the iraq army is nearly ready, of course, so 'fore too long the iraqis will be able to handle their own affairs. mission accomplished and forging ahead to iran.
That's being very optimistic, I think the Iraqi Army is doomed myself. We are still technically fighting a front in Iraq, would it be smart to open another front at this point?

Do you think Tony Blair would help this time? Do you think anyone would help this time?
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Xtremehkr said:
That's being very optimistic
from this report on seymour hersh's latest column
Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."
and in case anyone thinks iran is the last stop:
The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."
scared yet?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,028
PDX
Sayhey said:
yes.

If you want to see Hersh talk about this, there is a short clip on the BBC's website.
Thanks mate...brief, but succint.

I still stand by my original assertion that a stike or military intervention in Iran will not happen and that if anything, any tactical intelligence-gathering is to be used for leverage in bargaining with them.

Ideological zeal or not, this just will not fly politically imo.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
zimv20 said:
scared yet?
He's gone mad. He's tilting at windmills in a misguided effort to secure his legacy and spread freedom by way of high-grade explosives.

I can't even begin to conceive of the mind it would take to even consider this course of action. Invade everyone? Rummy and Dubya need to be locked in rubber rooms.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
I don't see any all-out assault on Iran this side of their launch of a missile against some other country.

We don't have the manpower to attack, win and occupy. It's just not there. Further, absent some initial, hostile action by Iran, I don't think enough of the public would be in support--and I think that's well known to the Administration. You don't go to war with a 10% support level.

I can believe there are some who think groups of sneaky-pete SpecOps people might be able to do some sort of good, but I've expected that since 9/11. I could approve, I guess, but there are beaucoup caveats and many problems with mission-selection. My negative view stems from doubt as to the wisdom of the selectors of those missions. Too much potential for "blowback".

'Rat
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
To be brutally honest, I also expected special operations in wake of 9-11. Certain people would just disappear. The CIA could take lessons on that little trick from the Mossad. What I didn't expect was the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the inflammation of passions against the US to such an extent that everything the US does in the world is greeted with suspicion if not fear, even by our friends.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Desertrat said:
You don't go to war with a 10% support level.
don't forget my prediction that overt action against iran would be precipitated by some kind of iranian nuclear (or chem, or bio) incident, greatly increasing the approval rating.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
'Osama has been spotted in Iran'!, coming to a right wing media outlet near you.

Atrocities and Genocide in Iran! they're leaders are inhuman and have no respect for Human Rights or the Geneva Convention.

Iran capable of launching an attack on the US in less than 45 minutes!

Iran believed to have purchased mobile weapons labs from Iraq!

Iranians say bad things about Bush Sr and hate christians. Want to make you into Muslims!

Iranians hate freedom! Your Freedom!

Iranians will welcome us with parades and flower petals when we liberate them!

Invading Iraq should never have had more than 10% support. It doesn't take that much.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
which begs the question, has iraq repelled the US invasion? and if not, are they on their way to doing so?
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
"...has iraq repelled the US invasion? and if not, are they on their way to doing so?"

Zim, at this point, I'd say no, and no. A year from now? I dunno.

The Sunni Triangle is a serious problem, sure. Even there, though, there is nowhere near majority hostility. The other 14 (?) provinces are not doing badly.

'Rat
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Under or unpopulated areas don't really count. No one wants to control empty desert before they control populated regions.

Let's focus on the regions that count and which ones we are having the most problems in. If we can't control the most important ones, the less important ones are even more vulnerable.