Hulver's site || War With Iran Is Very Unlikley

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

War With Iran Is Very Unlikley

By wiredog (Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:02:47 AM EST) (all tags)

A bit of sanity, from The Telegraph, listing some reasons why the US won't go to war with Iran.

Some snippets, Items in [], italic, and bold mine.

Iran is a large country containing 75 million people [3 times the population of Iraq], in possession of a large and competent army. We don't have the men, we don't have the machines and we don't have the money to stage an invasion. ...
even if we were to contemplate a more limited military strike - the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, for example - there are some pretty serious obstacles to overcome. The most serious is the fact that we don't know where all Iran's nuclear facilities are located, which is not a minor problem if we are contemplating their destruction. ...
This is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, and he is already fighting an unpopular war. More to the point, his credibility on intelligence matters was damaged - perhaps the better word is "eviscerated" - by the Iraq intelligence debacle, so no one is likely to believe his claims about Iranian nuclear prowess or Iranian anything, whatever the evidence. ... [Iran] is a sovereign state which has relatively normal relations with America's allies, not to mention China and Russia.

I have noticed that people in Europe seem much more convinced that the US is intending some sort of immediate war with Iran than people in the US are. Possibly because people in the US are more aware of USian political realities than the Europeans are. The only way the US would attack Iran would be if Iran first attacked the US, and in such a way that there was little or no doubt they did. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident couldn't be successfully hyped into a war these days.

< Today I walked through fire and didn't get burnt | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Share this entry

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter

Poll

Votes: 0
Results	\|	Other Polls

Related Links

- The Telegraph
- wiredog's Diary

Comment Controls

War With Iran Is Very Unlikley | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

No offense, but I don't trust that spoiled, by georgeha (4.00 / 3) #1 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:11:45 AM EST

petulant dry drunk. I have no reason to believe he won't order some sort of strike, regardless of who tells him he can't.

The only saving note is that no one in Iran tried to kill his daddy.

That's pretty much my thinking by Herring

(4.00 / 1) #8 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:23:57 AM EST

The premise of the article is

It would be very, very stupid to attack Iran
Therefore Bush wont do it.

I don't see that 2 follows 1 at all. For instance, it would be very stupid to disband the Iraqi army without disarming them and leave the weapons dumps unguarded.

Actually, the most convincing argument against 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the people involved are far too incompetent. Unless it was Mossad ...

[ Parent ]

: I share this opinion by theboz (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:55:48 AM EST

It was incredibly stupid to attack Iraq too, but Bush did it anyway. While I don't think we are headed to war with Iran right away, I do think that those extra couple of aircraft carriers aren't in the Persian Gulf just to enjoy the weather. It is very possible that Bush would be stupid enough to push us into a war with Iran.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

I was thinking by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #2 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:54:47 AM EST

He's putting himself into a position where we'll capture some iRanian guy in iRaq - claiming he's aiding the terra-ists, then iRAn will react in some aggressive fashion which will allow him to start bombing the snot out of them from the aircraft carriers parked over there. Remember, this is the guy who painted a US plane to look like it was a UN plane in an attempt to goad Saddam into striking first.

That said - I have to believe, as think-headed as he is, even Bush knows war with iRAn would be a disaster of large scale proportion at this time. Unless he can somehow get iSrael to do the dirty work. In fact that's probably a better bet than my first scenario.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

get Israel to do the dirty work by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:02:47 AM EST

They've been trying to get us to do it.

Another, more interesting, possibility is this: Neither Israel no Saudi Arabia is in favor of a nuclear Iran. Neither, alone, can do much about it. Both, together, can.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Saudi Arabia??? by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:12:50 AM EST

Do they even have an army??? We went into kUwait in 90 to save their arse, I can't imagine they would be able to do jack agianst iRan, unless you're talking about them doing the funding and iSrael doing the bombing. That might be feasible.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

They have some quality UKian fighter planes by Herring

(4.00 / 2) #7 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:20:52 AM EST

bought in a completely legal and above-board deal.

[ Parent ]

Of course, air superiority can make up for boots by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:27:27 AM EST

on the ground!

[ Parent ]

Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:31:49 AM EST

We proved that in VietNam!

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: and in Iraq! by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:39:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Some good USian ones, too. by wiredog

(1.00 / 1) #13 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:29:38 AM EST

F-15s.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: they're buying by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:27:35 PM EST

ground combat vehicles as well.

[ Parent ]

The Saudis just have to by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:29:14 AM EST

refuel the Israeli attack aircraft.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

What can the Saudis do? by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:14:04 AM EST

besides hire lots of mercenaries? They're Sunnis and have a crappy army.

[ Parent ]

They have airfields close to Iran by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:27:30 AM EST

The Israelis will need to refuel on the way to Iran.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Free fuel for the Zionists... by theboz (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:01:28 AM EST

I'm sure the home of al Qaeda would be more than happy to help out the Israelis...not. If the Saudi government worked with Israel, I have a feeling there would be a revolution in Saudi Arabia.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

Saudi is Sunni by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:12:46 AM EST

Iran is Shia. A nuclear Shia state could result in Sunni states forming unlikely (and very temporary) alliances with Israel.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: If only it were that simple . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:55:35 AM EST

. . . just because they are in jail, doesn't mean they're not there.

[ Parent ]
: There are very few things... by theboz (2.00 / 0) #44 Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:26:54 PM EST

...that Sunni and Shiite can agree on. Hating Israel is one of them.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

No Israeli plane will land on Saudi soil by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:24 PM EST

However, I'm sure Israeli pilots are carrier-qualified by now, and you know we'd have no qualms about letting them use our boats, ACT OF WAR OR NOT.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

In fact, belay that last comment. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:19:05 PM EST

Too many mouths to keep shut on a carrier.

No, it'll be via aerial re-fueling, and in 20 years, some former Senior Airman will testify before a Congressional Committee that he re-fueled a flight of Israeli F-16s over the Persian Gulf in the Spring of 2007 and it'll be too damned late for any of us to do anything about it.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

: The Israelis still have to get there by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #41 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:52:00 AM EST

And the Saudis could "not notice" the Israelis refueling over the peninsula.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

I'll put my money . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:11:21 AM EST

. . . where my mouth is. War between Iran and the US within 2, 3 years (that's right - not necessarily Bush at the helm when it happens). That includes air strikes in retaliation of an "incident". Care to wager?

The US has already mapped out a lot of the strategic defences, actually, since they've been planning it for years.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=2359
http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/2007/02/report-bush-all-set-to-attack-iran.html

Always follow the troops and arms. They tell the story . . .

planning it for years by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:32:59 AM EST

Don't let the existence of plans mislead you into believing the plans will be acted on. William Arkin (hardly a right winger) pointed out that militaries plan for all sorts of contingencies. There are plans for invading Canada and Mexico. A Venezuela War Plan is probably on the books.

The US has current plans for full-scale nuclear wars with Russia and China, and assets in place ot carry out those plans.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

I know I won't persuade you . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:35:25 AM EST

. . . but maybe someone with a hell of a lot more knowledge and first hand experience will:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/021507Roberts2.shtml

[ Parent ]

: Sorry, but by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:21:14 AM EST

Someone who refers to the "Bush Regime" has about as much credibility as someone who thought Clinton should be impeached over a blowjob.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Not to defend these morons by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:34:57 AM EST

But they pretty much have to have a plan in place - for worst case scenarios, even if they have no intention of using it. I'll bet they have a plan in place to invade Canada too.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Well, the statement was made that . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:42:12 AM EST

. . . the US hasn't mapped out where all the nuclear fascilities are, etc. I believe that to be false, is all . . .

Yeah, contingencies are prepared for everything - but when troop are moving toward the area, regular fly-overs are being conducted by spy planes, and inflammatory rhetoric is increasing, it points to one thing.

Yeah, the US has a plan to invade Canada in case of civil unrest here (what a joke that is). No troop movements here, though, so I'm not worried.

I can guarantee every Iranian is.

[ Parent ]

Right by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:53:12 AM EST

I think the plan right now is to try to put heavy pressure on Iran. We want them to think we'll squash them like a bug if they don't do our bidding. I have to believe they want some change to come from within - like maybe if the citizens get scared enough they'll overthrow the government like we tried (and failed) to get the iRaqians to do in the 90's.

Really the one good thing about the failure in iRaq is that it should make those boneheads think long and hard before going after another country in the region. Especially one that actually has a real military.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: Well, I think any war with Iran . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #28 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:40:58 AM EST

. . . will be a pretty "clean" war like Iraq I - almost entirely a bombing campaign. The americans have been trying to get the Iranian military to "turn on their radar" so that they can better plot strategic lanes of travel, but so far they have been cagey and haven't taken the bait.
No, the troops are there to protect america's new investments . . . see:
http://www.al-ghad.org/2007/02/14/exclusive-the-official-draft-of-the-oil-and-gas-law-of-the-iraq-republic-15-jan-2007/

[ Parent ]

I can guarantee every Iranian is. by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #27 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:23:46 AM EST

Probably the point behind much of what the administration is doing. "Talk with Condi, or we'll zap you" seems to be what they're up to.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Oh, please... by ammoniacal (4.00 / 2) #9 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:24:51 AM EST

We'll bomb them before 2008, letting bunker-busters fall on any detectable Iranian source of ionising radiation, including university research facilities.

You know we can do this.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.

Just because we can by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:33:40 AM EST

Doesn't mean we will. Hell, we can do it to Canada and Mexico if we want to.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

So what's all this talk .. . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:47:26 AM EST

. . . about bombing Canada?!?

Jeesh, all the US would have to do is make pot legal in Canuckistan, and the day afterward roll right through the open border . . .

[ Parent ]

It's the same thing as pointing out, by wiredog

(2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:58:27 AM EST

to a conspiracy theorist, that "this is the same government that runs the postal service".

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: Well, now you're just trolling . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:08:09 AM EST

. . . by conflating arguments and using dismissive phrases like "conspiracy theorist".
I'm still taking bets . . .

[ Parent ]

Sure we can by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:02 AM EST

But if we do, how do we keep Iran out of Iraq with only 150k troops on the ground?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

The same way we've kept N. Korea out of S. Korea by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:01:34 PM EST

Giant Nucular Fucking Umbarella.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Huh by ucblockhead

(2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:30:15 PM EST

And here I thought we had to fight the Korean War to do that.

In any case, do you seriously think we would nuke Iran over a conventional attack?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

LISTEN TO THE DECIDER by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:42:35 PM EST

We are responsible for this fledgling Iraqi democracy, and by ~~God~~Allah, we'll defend it by whatever means necessary.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

: "whatever means necessary" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #43 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 05:32:20 AM EST

I think you mean "by whatever means don't involve raising taxes, instituting a draft or otherwise requiring any sacrifice whatsoever by anyone not in uniform".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

We're still fighting it. by wiredog

(4.00 / 1) #42 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 03:53:02 AM EST

Technically the Korean War never ended. There's just a "temporary" cease fire...

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

It's unfortunate by ucblockhead

(4.00 / 1) #32 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:59:45 AM EST

What is sad about the whole situation is that we simply don't have the resources to go to war with Iran. We can bomb them, sure, but this would simply remove all restraint on the part of the Iranians. Today, they have to worry about international disapproval when aiding the insurgents. (Which is why they are limiting their support to arms and/or money.) If we attack them, that vanishes, and we'd see actual Iranian forces operating in Iraq. Given the number of forces we have, this would be a disaster.

So any threats we make are essentially empty. The Iranians know this, which is why they are ignoring our sad attempts to bluff.

It's a pity. If we had a few hundred thousand troops in reserve and weren't trying to prop up shaky regimes on either side of Iran, it'd be an entirely different matter. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd be in a much better position to actually bully Iran out of the nuclear arms race.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

: Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:49:51 AM EST

Reason #12,493 why Bush's "war on Terra" has made the world a more dangerous place.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

War With Iran Is Very Unlikley | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback