Iran
 

I know that this will rapidly become a political post & find its way to Barf but it is a must read . . . imho . . . if you want a real What if? on an Israeli attack on Iran here is the doc to read. Written by Cordesman (who I have met in hifi btw) who is truly an expert on the Middle East muddle.

Iran: The waiting option

A very good assessment imho.

Ian

I was sitting on, a beach just south of Eilat, Israel on a Sunday afternoon in 1981..

We were having a nice BBQ... a bunch of us who were working on COE/IDF project up in the Negev..

Then you could hear "that" sound that F16s and F15s make.. as they got into formation over our heads and headed out.. across the Gulf of Eilat....

I remember vividly that my friends and I were kind of confused and WTF that a Squadron of Israeli fighters just lit off across the Gulf of Eilat.

We knew that Jordan and Saudi Arabia a few minutes away on that course...

The next day we heard on VOA or something about the strikes on the Iraqi reactors....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...akLocation.gif

The map is a little misleading as when I was there the Sinai was occupied by Israel.. where I was was just south of Eilat when the squadron passed overhead

Ian, A good read! Thanks for posting it in OT first.

Iran will not stop until it has Nukes.... I think they want to bully the region, a better ??? is whether they will use them knowing annihillation would be its fate... they are crazy bastages

It's deja vu. It's like reading the words of Neville Chamberlain, who said, "We will resolve our differences through consultation. We will have peace in our time."

_

+1 A rather sobering analysis. Far to many people seem to believe some kind of magical "surgical strike" can destroy the Iranian nuclear program.

everyone else around Iran has nukes. If you were Iran, wouldn't you want them, too?

Plus I'd be pissed off about stuxnet, having my scientists killed and car bombs. Plus we put up the Shah and totally effed with them.

Iranians aren't crazy. Just some of their leaders. Just like us.

Who gets to decide who is allowed to have nuclear power?

Good thing Israel never signed that nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Otherwise they'd be getting sanctioned, too! Right?!

A bunch of crazies in the region, then we mess with their political situation on a non-stop basis. Israel has US by the pelotas.

There is no easy solution outside of us getting out of the region and back away from Israel...then, it can be their mess.

I did not like that article. why outline Iran's choices like we're their parents? How about outlining OUR choices? How about we just stop messing with everyone in that part of the world?
sounds good to me!

Because if Obama says anything remotely like that he will lose the election. Like you said in your first sentence.

Uncanny timing, as I am in DC right now taking care of some Iranian passport matters so that I can go in May if it's peaceful.

The article fails to mention Putin and the Chinese, who have both committed to having Iran's back if Israel/US brings the heat. Obama's re-election will go up in smoke if we become the aggressor in this.

Lots of puffery from Bibi Netanyahu this past week, but he won't breathe in Iran's direction without a strong commitment from the US if he knows what's good for him. I don't think anything is going to happen before the presidential election.

Something else that the media has yet to touch on is how Syria plays into this whole situation. On the one hand you have the US and Al Qaeda's interests' aligned in his removal. The US for obvious humanitarian and political reasons, Al Qaeda's because they see an opportunity to grab another Sunni stronghold...especially one with such a perfect location. Then there are the interests of Israel and Iran, who both want him to stay. Israel because Assad is kind of like that ******* neighbor that nobody likes, but he keeps to himself and has never messed with you. To Israel, Bashar Assad is a known quantity that they have never had any problems with. For the Iranian regime, Assad is the lone Shiite ally in the west. Whether he stays or goes is going to be a big factor IMHO.

wow!

I never knew that was the same person - always thought it was 2 different people with the same name!

Yeah, Randy. AHC was a reviewer back in the 80's for either Stereophile or Absolute. I met him in that time frame. I have followed his Middle East analysis ever since. One smart dude.

Ian

Yeah, it's all very complicated. Yeah, if Iran is attacked there will be a large, international mess. Yeah, if Iran is not stopped the world will become an even more dangerous place.

If the attack comes from the US (unlikely), and especially if the attack comes from Israel, Iran will not be just partly wounded. They will be decisively clobbered.

To me, the biggest question is, "What happens if we do nothing?"

Say Iran ends up with a stockpile of nukes and missiles to transprt them to, I don't know, Israel. Do they do it? The kneejerk answer is, "Those crazy mofo's will do it in a second!"

But I doubt it. They must realize that would be suicide.

Do they flex their new-found muscles by disrupting the flow of oil? Again, I doubt it. That would be economic suicide.

Is it enough to simply be the big kahuna in the Middle East? To be the master of their own destiny? Perhaps.

We could just engage in a cold war until Iran becomes less of a threat. It has worked before.

The problem is Iran flat out support terrorism. They would love to give a nuke to a terriorist and have them bring it to New Your City and detonate it at the WTC memorial. They might go so far as to bring in the parts in diplomatic shipments right to the United Nations. Let the parts slip out the back door and right into NYC.

Sounds good to me too. The US has something close to 500 permanent bases on foreign soil while we need almost 2 trillion dollars worth of maintenance just to bring our own highways and bridges up to standard. I'm a lot more interested in the infrastructure, fire, and police protection I need for my home and my business than I am in supporting perpetual war in that part of the world. I chose to take care of our own country first.

From the CR Board:

tabs 03/06/2012 07:30 PM

So, are Mr Goldberg and Mr Ross trying to talk themselves, America and Israel into a war? That we might as well get used to the idea that war is the only option that remains in trying to thwart Iranian nuclear aspirations? The part of the Netanyahu AIPAC speech that no one has addressed is where he reads the Allied letter to the Jewish Congress in 1944. Pointedly where he reads the line that if the Allies bombed Auschwitz it might provoke the Germans to even greater atrocities. The point being that, wasn't the on going Holocaust an atrocity enough, how much worse could the Germans have made it? Further that by not bombing Auschwitz lives were unnecessarily lost by not disrupting German efforts. This was in affect throwing the gauntlet down in front of Obama by claiming that the political and moral laxity of the FDR administration in in not thwarting the German genocide of the Jews is being repeated by the Obama administration. For Iran is already committing acts of war against Israel and America and that matters will just get worse if the Iranians get nuclear capability.


In the final analysis no matter what the US or Israel might do or not do with regards to Iranian nuclear aspirations it is a no win proposition. It is going to be a very heavy cost for the WORLD (price of oil) to bear. The only hope is that the Iranians will acquiesce in some fashion, to stand down from their pursuit. The Iranians seemingly have no desire to accommodate America, Israel or the west in general on this matter. What Iran's ultimate aim is in pursuing a nuclear strategy is an unknown which causes a great deal of fear and trepidation in the West. Meanwhile behind all the smoke and mirrors the Iranians keep on plodding along to what ever end they have in mind.

The Fox

Sunday, November 20, 2011 7:29
PMFrom: "TABBY" <tabs52@ To: crose@

All is not as it seems in the byzantine world of Iranian politics. Positions of power and titles have little meaning in this world. It maybe stating the obvious that Mr Larijani is one of the small group of men that do wield true power in Iran. There were several give aways during the interview that denoted such power and they were his use of the word "We" in describing a national policy decision. and when he described his loss of his seat in parliament and that he "could serve elsewhere." This meant that his loss of his seat in parliament didn't decrease his power by one iota, he just changed job descriptions. If one wanted to effect Iranian policy one would call Mr Larijani.

Further during the interview Mr Larijani was not shy about contradicting Mr Rose, which left Mr Rose stuttering and grasping for words at times. This denotes a man who is secure within himself about the power that he wields. This lack of deference on the part of Mr Larijani might be a statement that Iran is denoting weakness in American power and is now asserting there own power. .

With regards to the Iranian power structure the US tends to bark up a tree thinking that they have the fox cornered when in fact the fox is hiding up another tree all together. One might also add much to the Iranian delight. Therefore one has long thought that President Ahmadinejad is merely an administrator, so that the true leaders of Iran are not bothered with keeping the lights on nor the garbage picked up. Also that President Ahmadinejad's outrageous rhetoric is in reality meaningless deflection of attention much as a magician performs to accomplish his illusions.. It is only when the western hierarchical bureaucratic structure figures this out that a real discussion with Iran can begin.


TABS