Matthew Yglesias (August 30, 2007) - Fresh Talking Points (Foreign Policy)

I think you're wrong here. This is a perfectly plausible idea if one accepts that al Qaeda penetration in the region is not at saturation levels yet. So Iran takes over, which leads to substantially more Sunni support for al Qaeda, and it continues its expansion.

Posted by jhupp | August 30, 2007 2:27 PM

obviously whatever they said was more nuanced than that. probably something along the lines of:

"al qaeda in Iraq will regain ground in the Sunni areas while Iran will dominate the Shiite areas, most of Baghdad and the oil producing Shiite south."

Posted by Nathan | August 30, 2007 2:28 PM

Obviously al Queda and Iran are in league with objectively pro-Defeat hippy Democrat Prius owners.

Posted by ed | August 30, 2007 2:29 PM

there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave

Change "if we leave" to "if we invade" and I'm sold.

Posted by Bill | August 30, 2007 2:30 PM

when i read the quote i wondered what representative porter's position is on attacking iran. i mean, some iraqi oil is already not reaching the world oil market because of the violence there. even if porter were right and a u.s. pullout unleashed further violence there, it's not clear that it would cause a major shortage of oil supplies, at least not one much beyond what it's already adjusted to.

on the other hand, an attack against iraq would result in the disruption of a whole different oil stream (plus if the straits of hormuz are mined, the oil streams of most of the gulf countries). that's the only scenario that would plausibly result in a huge spike in gas prices. if he's so concerned about gas prices, maybe someone should ask him about the prospect of attacking iran.

Posted by upyernoz | August 30, 2007 2:31 PM

Also, I think that "to a person" their assessment is probably wrong, but not self-contradicting.

Posted by jhupp | August 30, 2007 2:31 PM

They left out all this other bad stuff:
(Exodus 7:14-25) rivers and other water sources turned to blood ('Dam')
(Exodus 7:26-8:11) reptiles (commonly believed to be frogs) ('Tsfardeia')
(Exodus 8:12-15) lice or gnats ('Kinim')
(Exodus 8:16-28) Either flies, wild animals or beetles ('Arov')
(Exodus 9:1-7) disease on livestock ('Dever')
(Exodus 9:8-12) unhealable boils ('Shkhin')
(Exodus 9:13-35) hail mixed with fire ('Barad')
(Exodus 10:1-20) locusts ('Arbeh')
(Exodus 10:21-29) darkness ('Choshech')
(Exodus 11:1-12:36) death of the firstborn ('Makat Bechorot')
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need to be a little more thorough if you're going to politic for continuing a war. A raincoat might forestall the unhealable boils.

Posted by steve duncan | August 30, 2007 2:35 PM

Not to mention dogs and cats living together.

I'm not sure what Iran is going to do to Iraq's oil production that will result in massive price spikes. Didn't production shut down completely during the U.S. invasion?

Posted by Gabriel | August 30, 2007 2:40 PM

Gabriel:

Saudia Arabia and Kuwait released extra supplies during the invasion to make up for it. they can't do that long-term.

Posted by Nathan | August 30, 2007 2:42 PM

Not to mention dogs and cats living together.

But they did mention Iran and al Qaeda taking over a country together--doesn't that count?

Posted by rea | August 30, 2007 2:45 PM

"but one really has to wonder how Iran and al-Qaeda are supposed to simultaneously seize control of Iraq."

A second's thought would lead one to realize he meant Iran taking over the shiite areas and al-qaida taking over the sunni areas.

Posted by Dave | August 30, 2007 2:51 PM

1) In Matthew's earlier post on Petraeus's PhD thesis, I noted that in Petraeus's 1987 thesis --on the lessons of the Vietnam War for the US Army -- Petraeus had failed to recognize-- much less examine-- the strategy used by North Vietnam to win that war.

2) As shown by the fact that a text scan of his thesis showed no mention of Sun Tzu -- the Chinese strategist from 400 BC from whom Mae Tse Tung plagarized his principles of insurgency.

3) In my comment, I noted the possibility that Petraeus may have gotten smarter since 1987.

4) Unfortunately, that seems only partially true. I'm still reading Petraeus' NEW Field Manual on Counterinsurgency
--available at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf .

5) But a text scan of that Manual also shows no mention of Sun Tzu. Although it does cite Mae Tse Tung's watered-down "On Guerrilla Warfare".

Unfortunately for Petraeus, Mao only picked up part of Sun Tzu -- because Mae's Communist mindset firmly rejected the Taoist philosophy which unlaid Sun Tzu and which gave it much of its power.

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 3:03 PM

We got this far in the comments and no one has mentioned the Corruption of the Purity of Essence of our Precious Bodily Fluids?

Posted by Tyro | August 30, 2007 3:04 PM

A second's thought would lead one to realize he meant Iran taking over the shiite areas and al-qaida taking over the sunni areas. - Dave

Which would never have been a concern if we hadn't have invaded ... or at least we didn't invade Iraq without actually having enough troops to secure the place, plans in place to make sure utilities, etc., were provided until a new government could be set up, etc.

For war supporters to say "but if we leave now, all hell will break loose" is a little like pissing in the wind and then complaining about the rain.

Posted by DAS | August 30, 2007 3:05 PM

6) I see that Petraeus was also smart enough to ask the Marines to help him -- a Marine commander was his partner -- so that may help.

7) James Fallows emotional response to Matthew Yglesias's critique of Petraeus' thesis is hilarious. (See http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/in_defense_of_petraeusasauthor.php ).

8) Lt. Colonel John A. Nagl explains WHY the Field Manual had to be created FROM SCRATCH recently:

"The story of how the Army found itself less than ready to fight an insurgency goes back to the Army’s unwillingness to internalize and build upon the lessons of Vietnam. "

9) Nagl goes on the quote Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General Jack Keane re why Iraq has been such a problem:
"“We put an Army on the battlefield that I had been a part of for 37 years. It doesn’t have any doctrine, nor was it educated and trained, to deal with an insurgency . . . After the Vietnam War, we purged ourselves of everything that had to do with irregular warfare or insurgency, because it had to do with how we lost that war. In hindsight, that was a bad decision.”
Ref: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519foreword.html

10) But the US ARMY paid out money to send PETRAEUS to Princeton TO STUDY THAT VERY ISSUE.

If the Army failed to grasp the lessons of Vietnam, maybe it was because Senior Army leaders read 1987 PETRAEUS's THESIS and concluded that there were NO lessons to be learned.

Or at least none less vague than
"store beer in a cool dark place" and "you can sometimes find loose change under seat cushions".

11) So maybe Petraeus is finally getting around to doing what he should have done 20 years ago.

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 3:06 PM

To quote Wash in "Serenity": "Do we care? Are we caring about that?"

Let's stop worrying about every Republican "talking point" - which are content free in any case - and start thinking about how to prepare for:

1) Thousands of US troops dead, and scores of thousands wounded.
2) Cost of the war soaring from $10-12 billion PER MONTH to $20-30 billion PER MONTH.
3) Gas prices at $10-20/gallon (with no Iraqi OR Iranian oil getting to market.)
4) The Chinese dumping the US dollar, leading to an economic collapse in the US (on top of higher oil prices._
5) Hundreds of thousands or millions of dead Iraqi and Iranian civilians.
6) Massive terrorism IN the US.

All of which will occur WHEN - not IF - Bush attacks Iran.

People are still fixated on Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald's latest column is correct - Iraq is a fait accompli - it's over. We'll be in Iraq until well past 2009. Nothing is going to get better there because there is nobody who can force Bush to stop.

The problem is Iran now. And people like Josh Marshall - with his "all Republican sex scandals all the time" approach - are STILL in denial about just how bad that is going to be.

Attacking Iran is THE biggest problem the US public is going to face for the next ten years! It will DWARF Iraq as an issue!

So why isn't it "all Iran all the time" on these sites?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 30, 2007 3:10 PM

Ah, nothing like specious talking points. They never get around to the question "isn't that going to happen anyway" because they have a pretty good idea that the answer is "yes".

That's probably why the Dems are so skittish- a lost war is going to be associated with whatever was being done when it was lost, making it really easy for the Republicans to blame the pullout for something that would have almost certainly happened anyway.

And yes, Richard is right. This is about Iran. Yet, Richard is also wrong: it's going to be the promise of winning Iraq that will pull the US into Iran. Why do you think they're using the "Iran is supplying the terrists" argument nowadays, instead of the WMD one? It isn't because Iran won't have a nuke for a decade, it's because they're planning to sell victory in Iran as a necessary condition for victory in Iraq.

Posted by Demosthenes | August 30, 2007 3:27 PM

1) It's too bad Petraeus has obviously never read Lao Tzu's Tao-te-Ching -- the Taoist philosophy classic from the time of Sun Tzu. Because one clause in it clearly explains how the Bush White House works:

"In order to contract,
It is necessary first to expand
In order to weaken,
It is necessary first to strengthen
In order to destroy,
It is necessary first to promote."

2) Or:
"When knowledge and wisdom appeared
There emerged great hypocrisy
When the six family relationships are not in
harmony
There will be the advocacy of filial piety and deep love to children

When a country is in disorder
There will be praise of loyal ministers."

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 3:28 PM

This isn't anything new, though it's been largely ignored. Bush and company have for some time been alternating between claiming that our main enemy is Al Qaida in Iraq and that Iran is responsible for most of the attacks on our troops in Iraq. I've yet to see anyone in the media pointing out the incompatibility of the claims.

It's much like the way the administration connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11 in people's minds. As long as people are willing to accept White House propaganda that treats anyone Muslim we don't like as one big undifferentiated brownish mass of Islamic terrorists, we're in for a repeat of 2002-03.

Posted by KCinDC | August 30, 2007 3:42 PM

What he means is old testament, real wrath of god type stuff.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sf308tjArGw

Posted by MikeJ | August 30, 2007 3:55 PM

"Josh focused on the oddity of Petraeus and Crocker suddenly becoming commodity market analysts"

It's a good point, but did either of these men actually say "gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon", or is Porter being a little sloppy here?

FWIW, I don't think Iranian control of southern Iraq would raise gas prices appreciably. The wild card for gas prices in this scenario would be if this led to a naval conflict in the Persian Gulf, threatening the flow of oil from there. But even that's not a major concern, since it isn't in Iran's interest to strangle exports of its most important export commodity, and, in any case, the U.S. Navy could clear the sea lanes and suppress any Iranian trouble-making in short order.

The tricky thing here is that Iran does benefit from fears about this sort of thing, to the extent that this drives up oil prices. It wouldn't benefit so much from an actual crisis, if the crisis dramatically reduced the amount of oil it could export. Better to keep the status quo than have a 30% spike in oil prices paired with a 60% drop in exports.

one really has to wonder how Iran and al-Qaeda are supposed to simultaneously seize control of Iraq.

Presumably, Iran could seize control of the southern, Shia-dominated, oil-producing part of Iraq, and Al Qaeda could seize control of the Sunni heartland. Given that the population of neighbor Saudi Arabia's oil-producing region is largely Shia, this raises some interesting possibilities.

Posted by Fred | August 30, 2007 4:59 PM

one really has to wonder how Iran and al-Qaeda are supposed to simultaneously seize control of Iraq...

I imagine it being a bit like that scene in the Peter Jackson "King Kong" in which the giant gorilla leaps into the arms of a dinosaur and they start kickboxing each other as they tumble into an abyss.

Posted by Patience | August 30, 2007 5:05 PM

Iraq produces something like 2-3% of the world's oil supply. Getting oil prices to 8 or 9 nine dollars would be one hell of a magic trick. You really don't need to be an oil analyst to figure that out.

Posted by Archit Shah | August 30, 2007 5:52 PM

"it's because they're planning to sell victory in Iran as a necessary condition for victory in Iraq."

Oh, you're right about that, no doubt.

"But even that's not a major concern, since it isn't in Iran's interest to strangle exports of its most important export commodity, and, in any case, the U.S. Navy could clear the sea lanes and suppress any Iranian trouble-making in short order."

Fred is likely wrong here. I know the US Navy CLAIMS it can keep the sea lanes open, but if ONE US ship or oil tanker goes down - or is even HIT ONCE - no oil tanker captain is going to risk taking his ship through the Straits except possibly under direct US Naval escort.

And the Iranians can use "swarm tactics" that the US Navy has not faced before. ANY Naval defense system can be overwhelmed by enough attacks launched simultaneously. All those anti-missile and other weapons systems have limits as to what they can handle at once.

Besides which, if the attack plan indicated by the recent study of the Pentagon's plans is correct, the US intends to destroy Iran's ability to export oil in any event by destroying much of Iran's economic infrastructure preparatory to "regime change."

In fact, if Greg Palast is correct, the attack on Iraq was intended to take Iraqi oil OFF the market and place it under foreign control. An attack on Iran might very well be motivated in the same way.

Who would benefit most from high oil prices? The Iranians - or the oil companies?

It's like Marlon Brando said once in a movie where he was playing an oil company CEO. His associate talks about how the "Arabs" won't like something. Brando replies, "We ARE 'the Arabs.'"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 30, 2007 7:33 PM

"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

He forgot "dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"

Posted by DonkeyKong | August 30, 2007 8:11 PM

If sending American soldiers to their death and injury under false pretences and through lying to the public is not High Crimes and Misdemeanors, then what is?

Bush’s insularity and messianic narcissism seems to have created a bubble of invincibility. They continue to manipulate the facts as if they have total immunity for their consequences.

Impeach him and bring him back to reality.

Posted by kie | August 30, 2007 8:28 PM

The $9 thing is absurd. There is no quantitative way to predict such a price. One can predict a soaring price under various scenarios but to name a specific price is silly. If an absolute shortfall would develop in the market for any reason and a spike happened there is no way to tell where it would stop.

In the unlikely event that Iraqi production would stop totally they still at best are now producing only 3% of total world output so it isn't like it would be a disaster on a huge scale. A much larger threat to world oil supplies i the possibility of a US attack on Iran. Not only because they produce twice as much as Iraq but because of possible spillover effects in the region.

Has Petraeus told the White House about $9 oil in case of an attack on Iran? Of course not but you can be sure others have. Then too it's unlikely Petraeus said any such thing. Crocker, I have no clue. I wonder if Petraeus understands that after he has been used and used up he will be thrown onto the scrap heap.

Posted by rapier | August 30, 2007 9:07 PM

I, too, am baffled by the $8 or $9 a gallon of gas claim. What exactly is the scenario that would bring this about? This seems like pure fear mongering -- surprise, surprise.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | August 30, 2007 10:35 PM

R.S. Hack:

"I know the US Navy CLAIMS it can keep the sea lanes open, but if ONE US ship or oil tanker goes down - or is even HIT ONCE - no oil tanker captain is going to risk taking his ship through the Straits except possibly under direct US Naval escort."

The U.S. Navy went through this with Iran in the late '80's, remember? The world didn't end.

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 1:37 AM

The US Navy never went through war with Iran. It went through a period of tension and cat-and-mouse with Iranian speedboats. An actual all-out war would probably be a different story. In the '80s it was sufficient to reflag tankers with US flags to dissuade Iranian attack. Once they're at war with us, that kind of deterrent value disappears.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 2:10 AM

Once they're at war with us, that kind of deterrent value disappears.

So will their speedboats.

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 3:17 AM

--Mmmyes. The US Navy's record against a speedboat-using adversary isn't exactly stellar. Let's go to the Big Board! Carol?
--Yes, thanks, Richard. The score at the moment is Speedboats 1, US Navy 0.
(applause)

Posted by ajay | August 31, 2007 5:14 AM

Dave, seconded by Fred: "A second's thought would lead one to realize he meant Iran taking over the shiite areas and al-qaida taking over the sunni areas."
How is that compatible with genocide (obviously, of Sunnis by Shia)? The Shia would start with al-Qaeda.

Posted by James Wimberley | August 31, 2007 5:33 AM

Here is what the US Navy claims:

The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a fleet of fast patrol boats in the 43-kilometer straits. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic programs, leads the effort.

At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.

"This marks the implementation of Iran's swarm program, where dozens of armed speed boats attack much larger naval vessels from all sides," an official said.

In 2005, IRGC developed its swarm doctrine following Teheran's assessment that the United States was considering an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Officials said the swarm doctrine was designed to exploit the slow pace of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers in the shallow waters of the Gulf.

"Iran still states that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will employ swarming tactics in a conflict,'' U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage said.

IRGC swarming tactics envision a group of more than 100 speedboats attacking a target, such as a Western naval vessel or a commercial oil tanker. They said 20 or more speedboats would strike from each direction, making defense extremely difficult.

The Navy, with at least two carrier groups in the Gulf, has been developing counter-measures to an Iranian swarm attack. These include using minesweepers, unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor Iranian speedboats and the deployment of weapons that could blast Iranian speedboats at standoff range. Such exercises have been conducted over the past few months.

"We have devised various tactics and other ways of coping," U.S. commander Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said. "You just don't get 1,000 or 500 or even 20 of anything under way and tightly orchestrated over a large body of water to create a specific effect at a specific time and specific place. They have their own challenges.''

In other words, the US Navy THINKS they can cope.

Good luck with that. Like I said, you only need one good hit in the right place. It's unlikely the US will place one of our carriers close enough to Iran to be subject to such an attack. But a tanker - or a US minesweeper?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 31, 2007 5:40 AM

And notice the headline on the report: not "genocide predicted" but "gas at $9 predicted". Must get our priorities straight.

Posted by James Wimberley | August 31, 2007 6:03 AM

You gullible people seem to be overlooking several things:

1) Your silly Hyperventilating about gas being at $9/gal is hilarious -- Middle East gasoline is already at $38 DOLLAR!! per Gallon. You just don't realize it. That's because Bush/Cheney only charge you $3+ at the pump -- and take the
other $35 out of your income tax for "DEFENSE" --aka Military Operations in the the Middle East.

2) The idea that an Iranian swarm of speedboats can seriously challenge the US in the Persian Gulf is ridiculous. Air Force B-52s can turn the entire Iranian coastline into a pile of ashes. Anybody been to Diego Garcia lately? Ever hear of "Rolling Thunder"?

Plus Spectre gunships and F15 Tomcats mop up anything's that's on the water. Put 4 Tomcats in a line and have them strafe the water. Result: Fish chum

Posted by Don Williams | August 31, 2007 9:12 AM

There is one serious threat the Iranians might mount, but I won't talk about it for now.

Posted by Don Williams | August 31, 2007 9:16 AM

In the '80s it was sufficient to reflag tankers with US flags to dissuade Iranian attack. Once they're at war with us, that kind of deterrent value disappears.

In the 1980's Iran also didn't have the arsenal of portable anti-ship missiles it has now.

IIRC, the last time the US wargamed a confrontation with Iran over the straights of Hormuz, the "Iran" team won handily using the "missile swarm" tactics described above.
The game was replayed with new rules specifically forbidding those tactics - allowing the US-team to win and the Navy to report that they had everything under control.

Posted by r4d20 | August 31, 2007 10:22 AM

In the '80s it was sufficient to reflag tankers with US flags to dissuade Iranian attack. - brooksfoe

In the '80s we were arming Iran (ever hear of Iran/Contra) ... in fact, many of the same people rumbling about war with Iran were involved or supported the aforementioned covert operation.

Interestingly, many of these same people pushed the war with Iraq, which greatly strengthened Iran's position by removing a counter-weight on Iran.

So I wonder what the real agenda is, don't y'all?

Posted by DAS | August 31, 2007 10:29 AM

"In other words, the US Navy THINKS they can cope."

If, under President Hack's command, we can wipe out Israel's military in a week, it shouldn't take us much longer to wipe out Iran's piss-ant Navy.

Posted by Juan | August 31, 2007 10:31 AM

The swarms would be useless against a carrier group.

Iran now internally manufactures a powerful, long-range, land mobile-launcher-based, anti-ship missile, the C-802 (Noor). It is considered to be one of the best there is. It is a reverse-engineered Chinese missile with N. Korean designed upgrades.

Posted by Njorl | August 31, 2007 10:44 AM

Re Njorl's comment "Iran now internally manufactures a powerful, long-range, land mobile-launcher-based, anti-ship missile, the C-802 (Noor). "
----------
Yep. My concern is that Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark lost a F117 stealth fighter in Kosevo in Feb 1999. A stupid ass incident -- nothing in Kosevo affected US national interest . (That AMB pipeline south of Kosevo was just to let Halliburton grab a cut of Russian shipments of Caspian Sea oil. )

The F117 should NEVER have been put at risk in that theater. It was, it crashed, and the debris was hauled away by the Serbs before it could be bombed. Given to God knows who --probably the Iranians got some. So their reverse engineering may go beyond Chinese missiles.

The Phalanx systems is an impressive radar-guided close-in defense. See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

But the operative word there is "radar-guided". The one thing worst than Iranian Noors are stealth Iranian Noors.

Posted by Don Williams | August 31, 2007 1:21 PM

Of course, if US Ships are sunk/sailors die in the Persian Gulf because Bill Clinton/Wesley Clark screwed the pooch back in 1999, I would think that would also sink Hillary's campaign.

After all , her whole "competence" scam is based upon being the docile, long-suffering housewife of an allegedly competent President. Who was Commander-in-Chief --or at least whenever he could pull his eyes off Monica Lewinsky's thong.

Posted by Don Williams | August 31, 2007 1:25 PM

It's awe-inspiring to think of Republicans blaming so many wars on Bill Clinton. If Republican presidents ruled continuously for 1000 year GOPReich, they'd still start off each state of the union speech blaming Bill Clinton for anything which went wrong.

Posted by Barry | August 31, 2007 4:01 PM

Correction: When I was talking about making fish chum above, I should have said "put 4 F18 SuperHornets on Line" instead of the Tomcats.
The F18s have the M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon and
have largely replaced the Tomcats in the past few years.

Posted by Don Williams | August 31, 2007 4:04 PM

"It's awe-inspiring to think of Republicans blaming so many wars on Bill Clinton."

By "Republicans" you are referring to Don Williams? I don't know what his party affiliation is, but you may have noticed he's a little out on the fringe in most of his views, no? Probably not the best proxy for "Republicans".

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 4:26 PM

Re "Probably not the best proxy for "Republicans". "
---------
Thanks for the compliment, Fred.

Don "Not a Republican Proxy" Williams

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 1:43 PM

Fresh Talking Points

Comments (47)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories