Freedom's Just Another Word for Let's Bomb Iran

Last week, Daniel Drezner and I were wondering what ever happened to the PR rollout for bombing Iran. Don Van Natta reports for The New York Times on Freedom’s Watch, who's Iraq-related ads have already made a stir: "the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy." Sounds fun.

This, incidentally, seems to be one of the main reasons why widespread predictions of Republican disaffection with the Iraq War haven't come true. A bit contrary to what most people thought, a significant segment of the Republican donor class seems to be composed of big-time war enthusiasts. Many of the GOP members of congress who made some gestures toward distancing themselves from the war are now facing primary challenges, and with outfits like Freedom's Watch springing up everyone knows money could be made available for more.

Comments

One of your best post titles ever.

Posted by glasnost | September 29, 2007 6:12 PM

big time war enthusiasts = big time war profiteers. these people need to be scrutinized, the source of their wealth pinpointed and well aired to the public. given the weight of public opinion, there is no reason at this stage that money alone, especially "interested" money, should guarantee any degree of influence over foreign policy.

Posted by retrench | September 29, 2007 6:24 PM

Yesterday, in a somewhat related thread, a commenter styling himself "patriot" claimed that the policies of the neocons might lead to the worldwide deaths of hundreds of millions, and another commenter called "JonF" expressed ridicule at this suggestion.

JonF is a fool. A civilizational war between a nuclear-armed America controlled by the neocons and a billion-plus Muslims could certainly result in that sort of body-count, especially when we consider the resulting global depression and disruption of trade in energy and food supplies.

Over the last couple of years, many of America's most senior and highly regarded international security analysts---some of whom are personal friends of mine---have repeatedly warned of exactly this sort of possible calamity, with the suggested date-phrase "June 1914" being quite indicative.

In fact, in some respects our current situation is rather more perilous. We should remember that in 1914 all the European Great Powers were led by completely rational governments and most of these even actively sought to maintain the peace. But by contrast, the neocons pulling the strings in the Cheney/Bush administration appear to be both highly irrational and are also strongly seeking the outbreak of war.

However, as I've previously noted, it also seems fairly likely that if this quite unfortunate scenario does indeed come to pass, then at some stage the American public will grow sufficiently disenchanted with the negative consequences of the resulting situation that we will then use a small portion of our remaining ICBM arsenal to completely exterminate the population of Israel. And such a harsh action would certainly lead to "interesting" changes in the subsequent situation of the surviving worldwide population of Jews, both in the United States and elsewhere...

So far so good. But what's strange to me is that traditional Judaism---unlike Christianity or Islam---does not really contain the notion of an afterlife. Therefore, it's a little hard to see exactly why all these excitable Jewish-activist neocons are so eager to set America and the world down this particular trajectory. Very, very peculiar indeed.

I suppose these Jewish neocons must be just as crazy and as stupid as they appear to be...

Posted by RKU | September 29, 2007 6:31 PM

okay, it's time to start moderating the comments. If you want them to be vaguely readable, I mean.

Posted by a | September 29, 2007 7:31 PM

okay, it's time to start moderating the comments. If you want them to be vaguely readable, I mean.

Posted by a | September 29, 2007 7:32 PM

Re: JonF is a fool.

Gee, thanks for your courteous speech. You are a gem among posters.

Now as to serious matters, I find all this "Iran war" as hysteria as ludicrous as the NeoCons paranoia about terrorism. There will be no Iran War for the following reasons:
1. We do not have the troops for it and no matter how malevolent you think Bush and Cheney are, they do not have supernatural powers; they cannot sow dragon's teeth and have warriors pop out of the ground. Oh true, they could drop a few bombs, but that would be effectless, and would treated by the warmongering NeoCons as "Clintonism". The only way to effect regime change in Iran would be with a massive ground invasion, and WE DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS FOR THAT.
2. A war with Iranian would have disastrous consequences economically, and therefore the Big Money people are NOT in favor of it (contra Matt's weird assertion here).
3. A war with Iran would also have catastrophic political consequences for the GOP. Bush and Cheney will be gone soon and might not care, but the powers that be behind them most certainly do care and will not risk those consequences.

Now also, let's say I'm wrong as we do drop some bombs on Iran. Do you really think a billion Muslims will rise in war against us? Iran is far from popular in the Islamic world you know (the whole Shi'ite vs Sunni thing, among other causes). Moreover where were those billion Muslims when the Russians pounded Chechnya to rubble, when America invaded Iraq, when India grabbed Kashmir, and when Israel took over the West Bank?

Honestly, you bed-wetters on the left as every bit as bad as the NeoCons on the roght. Both of you want grand, planetary drama, casting yourself in starring roles as The Folk Who Saved The Earth. Isn't going to happen, honey. Grow up and get some adult concerns. Like how to bury the GOP in 2008, how to get universal healthcare, how to rescue the US economy, what to do about global warming, etc. etc. There's no shortage of work to be done. You don't need to dream about being supermen.

Re: We should remember that in 1914 all the European Great Powers were led by completely rational governments

Kaiser Wilhelm was not "rational". He was an arrogant, stubborn bully of little intelligence. In fact, of recent historical rulers he was the most similar to George W Bush. Also, the French, the Russians and The Serbians all had major chips on their shoulders. They were not dedicated to peace at all-- they were spoiling for a fight.
But any way it's not 1914 (1939, 1969 etc). It's 2007. Try living in the present and looking to the future.

Re: then at some stage the American public will grow sufficiently disenchanted with the negative consequences of the resulting situation that we will then use a small portion of our remaining ICBM arsenal to completely exterminate the population of Israel.

Are you posting from some alternate reality? Sure the hell doesn't describe this world. You might find some yahoos in the sticks eager to nuke Iran, but Israel? This gets more absurd by the minute

Posted by Jonf | September 29, 2007 7:34 PM

Re Jonf

The French, in fact, were eager to recover the lost provinces of Alsace and Loraine which they had lost in 1871.

Posted by SLC | September 29, 2007 8:48 PM

"... a significant segment of the Republican donor class seems to be composed of big-time war enthusiasts.

Like, for example, AIPAC? Funny, isn't that the same crowd that successfully pressured Pelosi into dropping a requirement for separate congressional authorization for war against Iran? See, that way an attack on Iran won't require any prior debate in Congress. Bush can just go ahead and do it. Neat, huh?

Never forget. 1 party state. The Republicratic party.

Posted by kafka | September 29, 2007 9:44 PM

A war with Iranian would have disastrous consequences economically, and therefore the Big Money people are NOT in favor of it (contra Matt's weird assertion here).

Evidence?

Posted by Williestyle | September 29, 2007 10:21 PM

Dick Cheney told his associates that they need only 40% of the US population to support a war with Iran to go ahead with it.

Well, he's got them, according to this poll by Rasmussen Reports.

1% View Holocaust as Myth, 1% See Iran and US as Allies
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070928/pl_rasmussen/iran20070928

Money quote:

"But, only 1% of voters believe that Iran is an ally of the United States. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% view that nation as an enemy. Forty-two percent (42%) say it's somewhere in between while 6% are not sure.

Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States. Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities along with 70% of unaffiliated voters and 45% of Democrats...

In March, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 40% believed the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Another 40% disagreed and say force should not be used

Earlier surveys found that 75% of Americans believe Iran is likely to develop nuclear capabilities in the near future."

In other words, the morons rule again in the United States. The entire country believes things that simply aren't even remotely true.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 30, 2007 2:04 AM

JonF, like the rest of the Iran war deniers, are basically on a par with Holocaust deniers. The cognitive dissonance is so great they simply can't reason any more (if they ever could.)

Nothing JonF said was true (leaving out any WWI historical references that are irrelevant.)

The US has the ability to initiate a war with Iran. No doubt about it. The US Air Force and Navy can pound Iran. The Checkmate group in the Pentagon, led by a former ISRAELI ARMY OFFICER, is planning just that.

What the US doesn't have is the ability to WIN such a war. JonF is actually correct that the US will have to do a major ground invasion. However, what he doesn't realize is that the intent is not to overthrow the Tehran regime, but simply to seize the Khuzestan oil fields - which are conveniently not far from the Iraq-Iran border.

The notion that Bush and Cheney care about whether we can "win" the war is laughable. They are utterly losing in Iraq - and they don't care. They don't care how many US troops get killed there. They don't care how many Iraqi civilians get killed there.

The only thing that matters to Bush and Cheney is that they sow chaos in the Middle East and that they thus manage to jack up the oil prices, and that it continues to COST MONEY to their war profiteering comrades to prosecute these losing wars.

MORE WAR MEANS MORE MONEY! It's that simple!

Not enough troops? No problem! Install a draft! You think the Democrats are going to refuse? They don't have the votes to stop the Iraq war - so they claim. So you think they're going to refuse to support the troops there by refusing to raise MORE troops to support them?

Dream on, morons.

The Democrats get the same campaign contributions and the same bribes from the defense industry constituents as the Republicans do. The Republicans just get more of them because they've been in power for the last six years. When Clinton was in power, the Dems got more.

Suckers and right wing nuts like JonF just don't get it. This is about money and power. War gives these assholes more of both. As long as there's zero threat to their own lives and holdings, this will go on indefinitely.

A war with Iran will indeed have catastrophic effects on the US economy - for those of us with no money. NOT for the war profiteers who actually run this country and who control the US Senate and House.

A war with Iran will NOT have any significant effect on the GOP because it will be supported by the Democrats - who have already proven this REPEATEDLY by the bills they have passed on Iran.

What part of that don't you idiots comprehend?

I repeat - the war on Iran is a DONE DEAL. Just like Iraq was a done deal long before 9/11 even occurred.

Get a clue.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 30, 2007 2:17 AM

Jonf suffers from an excess of rationality and, possibly, a misidentification of Bush/Cheney's goals.

Iran is not doable, granted. But then neither was Iraq. Have they gotten any smarter since?

Also, Jonf is assuming that Bush/Cheney would go into Iran with the object of winning. That's what most of us would do, but.... What if they got the US entangled there just to sh*t in the punch bowl for the next president, who is pretty surely not going to be a Republican? I wouldn't even put it past them to make under the table deals with the Iranians either to blacken the Dems. That's what Reagan did, after all.

Posted by sunsin | September 30, 2007 3:20 AM

Not enough troops? No problem! Install a draft!

Do you have any idea, really, just how long it takes to turn a horde of draftees into an army? and how many experienced troops you would need to train them?

Posted by sunsin | September 30, 2007 3:34 AM

As I've been saying for years: Follow the money.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 30, 2007 3:48 AM

Attacking Iran would be a disaster. Why, without Iranian oil energy prices would shoot through the roof! Who could possibly benefit from that?

Posted by idlemind | September 30, 2007 4:11 AM

How long it takes to convert draftees into usable troops really isn't relevant to the issue. That it will be done is simply unquestioned.

Reality does exist. The US military will be stretched to the breaking point very early in the Iran war - at least once it becomes a ground war.

At that point it will be obvious that the military needs to be expanded. It may be that the current plans to enlarge the military 0 which certain Democratic contenders support - will be tried first.

But it will soon become obvious that if the war is not to be stopped - and it won't be for the reasons I've cited - then the Army needs a LOT more troops.

A draft will be the ONLY option - and therefore it will happen.

How bad things will get for the US military before that happens is simply not a concern for Bush and Cheney, just as how bad things are in Irag and Afghanistan is not a concern for them.

Whenever you try to think rationally about Bush and Cheney, just remember: these are WAR CRIMINALS and WAR PROFITEERS. Nothing - repeat, NOTHING - else matters to them.

Yes, we will have a draft. And all it will mean is that even more US citizens will die in Iraq and Iran - and possibly elsewhere in the Middle East. I wouldn't be surprised to see the US drawn into the Lebanon-Syria-Israel three-way fight as well as Iraq and Iran.

And the US and Israel will still lose these wars.

And probably even more troops will be drafted to fight in Afghanistan as that war becomes more obviously lost - and then in Pakistan when the Pakistan government begins to look shaky enough to fall before the oncoming jihadist assault there.

You haven't seen anything yet. The US is headed for the greatest military disaster in its history. Both the US and Israel will be decisively defeated by 4th Generation Warfare. It may take ten or fifteen years - but it will happen.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 30, 2007 7:00 AM

This is about money and power. War gives these assholes more of both. ... A war with Iran will NOT have any significant effect on the GOP because it will be supported by the Democrats ... I repeat - the war on Iran is a DONE DEAL.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack

Strongly agree. In fact, I would go a little further and propose that this is their (winning) strategy for holding the White House in 2008.

These assholes are not leaving office without (a) using bogus data and crooked military generals to persuade the American public that we are fighting AQI and "winning" in Iraq and (b) engaging Iran to "protect our troops."

To calculate against this nearly sure thing, HRC is already on board with both. (Thus, the war is no longer an issue that cuts in dems' favor in 2008.)

But HRC's defensive strategy is almost sure to backfire because this country will not be ready to put a woman in charge of a greatly expanded war on terror. If the election turns on terror -- which is now virtually a done deal -- dems lose.

Sadly, it appears that Obama is falling into the same defensive, calculating posture and trap, squandering the opportunity and legacy of a lifetime.

Posted by Econobuzz | September 30, 2007 9:01 AM

This talk about using ground troops in Iran is totally ridiculous. The ground troops don't exist. The chances of instituting a draft to supply sufficient personnel are slim and none and slim is on the bus headed out of town. The way to handle the situation in Iran is very simple. To quote the late Curtis LeMay, make a parking lot out of it.

Posted by SLC | September 30, 2007 9:36 AM

"The ground troops don't exist"

There aren't enough US ground troops, no doubt, unless we abandon Iraq like we abandoned Afghanistan...and there's no great reason to think that wouldn't happen.

Nevertheless, It is entirely possible that Israel would provide the bulk of the ground troops.

Posted by Arr-squared | September 30, 2007 9:51 AM

SLC,

are you really suggesting to completely destroy Iran with nuclear weapons, and kill, say, 10-20 million people in the process? That's probably what it would take. Do you consider that a proportionate response to the suspicion that they are developing an atomic bomb?

Posted by Norway | September 30, 2007 10:31 AM

Get every pfennig, franc, dinar, shekel, loonie, drachma, talent, peso, yen, penny, kroner, rupee, pound, ruble, yuan you can. And put it into oil.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Re Norway

If the US and Britain had had nuclear weapons in 1944, would Mr. Norway have suggested that they not be used in lieu of the Normandy invasion? Although, clearly, Iran is not remotely the global threat that Germany was, they are equally clearly a regional threat, particularly to the oil supplies from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. An Iran with a nuclear capability would be in a position to blackmail the other oil producing countries in the Middle East into cutting off oil exports. By the way, the term "atomic bomb" is inaccurate. Nuclear fission/fusion involves interactions between atomic nuclei, not between atoms.

Posted by SLC | September 30, 2007 10:45 AM

Yeah, let me say that if preventive genocide becomes a fashionable plan by the US, then let the US be destroyed, along with my family and everyone I love, because we obviously wouldn't be a nation worthy of the survival that said "parking lot" genocides were argued to assist.

Posted by El_Cid | September 30, 2007 10:54 AM

SLC,

You answer your own question: "clearly, Iran is not remotely the global threat that Germany was". Are we (meaning the West) supposed to commit a nuclear holocaust to defend our oil supplies? How does that make us better that the Nazis?

The obvious answer is that we can live with a nuclear Iran. All the US needs to do is extend their nuclear umbrella to the relevant countries in the region - Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc - and make clear to the Iranians that if they try to use their weapons, they, and the Persian nation, will be completely and utterly destroyed for all time. I.e., deter them the same way we deterred the Soviets. As for giving a weapon to terrorists - you make abundantly clear they will be held responsible for a nuclear explosion in a Western city.

We lived with Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Il with nuclear weapons, and we can live with an Iranian bomb too. If you want to worry, worry about the much more unstable regime in Pakistan, or all the "lost" nukes in the Russian arsenal. The Iranian regime has no wish to commit suicide, and should be relatively easy to deal with.

Posted by Norway | September 30, 2007 11:13 AM

It is a highly dubious preposition that "an Iran with nuclear capability" would and could blackmail Arab oil producers into joining an oil embargo.

Iran with relatively modern capability in ground-to-sea missiles could just stop the traffic out of Persian Gulf. They probably can do it right now. Economically, it is MAD, while they would definitely loose more than we.

In other words, conventional weapons can give Iran means to retaliate for any attack against their soil, nukes do not change the equation, and attacking them is insane in the absence of dire necessity. Unless you want to join The Worldwide Bicyclist Conspiracy that wants people abandon their devices using internal combustion engines.

The latter do not have deep pockets. So what explains big donations for Freedom Forum?

Some people, including many people with a lots of money, have a degree of paranoia concerning the security of Israel. What is puzzling is that more conventional donors of GOP seem to have taken a hike, so the former group may well be very influential within GOP.

SLC: "atomic bomb" is inacurate. And "blackmail" is inaccurate, because it does not have to involve mail, and "gasoline" is inacurate because it is a liquid, etc. Terminology exists, and the meaning is established by custom, not by accuracy. With a similar degree of half-brainness, SLC compares "Normandy in 1944", i.e. a situation when a bloody war exists, with the current situation in which there is no war, and even hardly a major controversy.

A major genocide as a precautionary measure. Or, from "never again" to "again and again".

Posted by piotr | September 30, 2007 11:17 AM

An Iran with a nuclear capability would be in a position to blackmail the other oil producing countries in the Middle East into cutting off oil exports.

No it wouldn't. You can't drink oil. If you have it in your country, you will want to sell it for money. Nuclear weapons don't change this fact. What's Iran going to do? Tell Saudi Arabia not to sell its oil or Iran'll drop the bomb? That is simply not going to happen.
The paranoia and hysteria one finds amongst the war party is really distressing.

By the way, the term "atomic bomb" is inaccurate.

How is this germane?

Posted by WillieStyle | September 30, 2007 11:23 AM

Richard is correct that many in the Democratic leadership whore just as strongly for rich men as do the Republicans. There is some difference in donors but Big Oil and the Israel Lobby see eye to eye on how to deal with the Islamic world.

I thought I had already settled the issue of how Iran will be attacked. As i noted, Haim Saban gave the US Air Force its Air Tasking Order in an interview with Haaretz a few months ago:

"Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water."
Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

As I recall, the US government killed about 600,000 children in Iraq with that approach -- and the help of waterborne diseases like Cholera.
One of the reasons Bin Laden gave for declaring war on the USA --although the US News Media still hasn't got around to mentioning that even now --6 years after Sept 11.

And for you naive children who say Haim Saban does not command the US Air Force, I say that billionaire Haim does not,of course, bother with trival details. Instead , he spends his great wealth to buy the major Spanish Language TV network in the USA so that he can use the Hispanic swing vote in California, Texas, and Florida to coronate Hillary. As Commander-in-Chief, SHE will pass the orders to the US Air Force.

Posted by Don Williams | September 30, 2007 11:33 AM

Assuming, of course, that Bush doesn't cut a deal with Haim and hand the orders to the Air FOrce before Hillary comes in.

As I've noted, that's the likely scenario. Bush is leaving office and has nothing to lose. Haim doesn't want Hillary going wobbly on him, so he would like her hand forced.

Plus it would be a lot easier to Hillary to wage war on Iran if it was handed to her as a fait accompli that she's trying to fix rather than if she's hugely unpopular because she started the war.

Posted by Don Williams | September 30, 2007 11:41 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams obsession with Hiam Saban is truly amazing. I guess that Mr. Saban is also responsible for the Administration inviting Syria to the "peace conference" to be held in Annapolis in November and forcing the Israeli Government to go along. If we are to believe Mr. Williams, Mr. Saban is the most powerful man in the world. Clearly, Mr. Williams is at least as insane as his sockpuppet Richard Steven Hack. By the way, how does the great patriot Don Williams feel about Mr. Hacks' declaration that he owes no allegiance to the USA, even while living in San Francisto?

Posted by SLC | September 30, 2007 12:05 PM

Haim Saban unleased on the United States one of the most destructive cultural malignancies we have ever faced: The Power Rangers.

Posted by El_Cid | September 30, 2007 12:37 PM

Re SLC's question "how does the great patriot Don Williams feel about Mr. Hacks' declaration that he owes no allegiance to the USA, even while living in San Francisto?"
----------
Actually, I am indifferent to Richard Hack. Because the last time I checked, it was not Richard's acts abroad which provoked a Sept 11 in which 3000 Americans died. Moreover, It was not Richard who lied to us about why that attack occurred -- it was the New York Times and our President.

It was not Richard who then lied us into an unnecessary war which killed 3700+ of our citizens -- and crippled thousands more for life.
Again, it was the New York Times and our President. Plus others.

It was not Richard who stole $4 Trillion from our Social Security/Medicare accounts. Yet, for some reason, Richard served time in the joint whereas the people who stole the $4 Trillion are walking around free.

So what's puzzling is why SLC thinks Richard is worth criticizing -- while SLC ignores the real criminals??

After all, Richard is unlikely to ever hold a gun to our head and demand our wallets. Whereas the Republican -- and Democratic -- Members of Congress do that every day.

Hillary's vote to approve the invasion of Iraq killed more of our children than a year's worth of armed robberies.

Posted by Don Williams | September 30, 2007 12:52 PM

DM: Why are you casting Magic Missile? There’s nothing to attack here.

Golstaff: I…I’m attacking the darkness!

Posted by Thunderlips | September 30, 2007 1:34 PM

The idea of the relationship between Iran and the other arab states usually just means: Iran and Saudi Arabia. Long ago, Saudi Arabia knew that it needed the nuclear card. This is why they practically financed Pakistan's nuclear program. In essence, they have the nuclear card. So it is utter nonsense to think that Iran is going to start rattling its missiles if it even builds missiles. So far, there really is no good reason to think Iran is going to make bombs. There is good reason to think they will have that capability, and strategically, for Iran, that might be the best situation unless the U.S. does truly get unbearable.

This is a nice summary of Saudi history from the Global security site:

"Saudi Arabia first opened a nuclear research center in the desert military complex at Al-Suleiyel, near Al-Kharj, in 1975. Saudi Arabia reportedly offered to pay for reconstruction of the Osirak-reactor, destructed by Israel on 06 June 1981. By at least 1985 Iraqi and Saudi military and nuclear experts were co-operating closely. Saudi nuclear scientists were sent to Baghdad for months of training.

In late June 1994 Muhammad Khilewi, the second-in-command of the Saudi mission to the United Nations, abandoned his UN post to join the opposition. After defecting, Mr. Khilewi, who was denied federal protection, went into hiding, fearing for his life. He has tried to distribute more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy.

Khilewi produced documents for the London Sunday Times that supported his charge that the Saudi government had paid up to five billion dollars from the Saudi treasury for Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Between 1985 and 1990, up to the time Saddam invaded Kuwait, the payments were made on condition that some of the bombs, should the project succeed, be transferred to the Saudi arsenal. Khilewi cache included transcripts of a secret desert meeting between Saudi and Iraqi military teams a year before the invasion of Kuwait. The transcrips depicts the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialised equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.

What Khilewi did not know was that the Fahd-Saddam nuclear project was also a closely held secret in Washington. According to a former high-ranking American diplomat, the CIA was fully apprised. The funding stopped only at the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991.

The defector's documents also showed that Riyadh had paid for Pakistan's bomb project and signed a pact that if Saudi Arabia were attacked with nuclear weapons, Pakistan would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arsenal."

Posted by roger | September 30, 2007 1:53 PM

Re: The US is headed for the greatest military disaster in its history. Both the US and Israel will be decisively defeated by 4th Generation Warfare.

If by fourth generation warfare you mean guerilla warfare (with some terrorism thrown in) there's really nothing new under the sun there. I tend to yawn when I hear these breathless theories about some big transformation in warfare. It's just some new music played on some very old instruments. Guerilla warfare goes far back into antiquity. And sometimes it's effective and sometimes it isn't. One thing about it though: it only works defensively (to get rid of an invader or occupier usually) Guerilla warfare does not work offensively at all, due to its very nature. As far as the long term fate of the Middle East I suspect that when our great-grandchildren are breathing their last the headlines will still be blaring on about troubles in that part of the world. Though I do agree the US's folly in thinking it could impose its own Pax Americana on the region is going to end up looking as hubristic as Napoleon setting up his brother as King of Spain does today. Right now the big winner of the current round looks like Iran.

Re: Iran is not doable, granted. But then neither was Iraq. Have they gotten any smarter since?

Iraq was "doable" in the sense that we had sufficient troops and logistical support and allies to invade the country, depose its leader and occupy its strong points. We do not have that today against Iran. We do have bombers and missiles but that's about it.

Re: ...right wing nuts like JonF

"Hack" is a very accurate name for the poster who came up with above. I make a very odd "rightwing" nut, since I have not voted for a Republican above the purely local level since 1994, and I support the usual litany of liberal causes (universal healthcare, check; gay rights, check; abortion rights, check; unions, check...) Indeed, part of my original post was to drop the grandiose poseur role and get busy defeating the damn GOP next year. A true "rightwing nut" would be gung-ho in favor of a war with Iran. It should be staringly obvious to anyone with the reading comprehsnion of a 3rd grader that I am not.

Re: JonF, like the rest of the Iran war deniers, are basically on a par with Holocaust deniers.

The Holocaust is a historical fact (note: my father in WWII was with a unit that liberated a concentration camp; I have first accounts of that horror). There is no war with Iran and hasn't been one yet (although I do think some of our posters are posting from an alternative reality where maybe there was/is one). So saying this is not going to happen is hardly "denial". It's simply prediction. You are free to disagree with it, but there is no moral opprobrium to making a prediction you disagree with-- unless like the Pope you consider yourself infallible and wish to damn all who dare doubt your Almighty Word.

Re: Not enough troops? No problem! Install a draft!

There will be no draft, for the obvious political reasons. The entire modus operandi of the Bush administration in this war has been to disturb the American people as little as possible. Hence, we were told to "go shopping" and not to worry our pretty heads about the stuff in parts distant because Big Daddy George and Uncle Dick were in charge.
I am really puzzled that people here seem to discount the political Machiavellianism of the GOP. They don't give a hoot in hell about the Middle East; it's all about domestic politics and winning elections. If they thought converting to Islam and sending their daughters to be bin Laden's houris would win elections here you'd see Bush's butt in the air five times a day, and Jenna in a veil following dutifully behind Osama.

Re: The French, in fact, were eager to recover the lost provinces of Alsace and Loraine which they had lost in 1871.

True, and that hardly refutes anything I posted. The French wanted Alsace-Lorraine back-- and revenge against Germany for their humiliating defeat in 1870 (a year stil in living memory in 1914).

Re: Jonf suffers from an excess of rationality

Um, isn't that a compliment? Better to be excessively rational (though one's love life may suffer) than excessively irrational.

Posted by JonF | September 30, 2007 2:49 PM

"Also, Jonf is assuming that Bush/Cheney would go into Iran with the object of winning. That's what most of us would do, but.... What if they got the US entangled there just to sh*t in the punch bowl for the next president, who is pretty surely not going to be a Republican? I wouldn't even put it past them to make under the table deals with the Iranians either to blacken the Dems. That's what Reagan did, after all.

Posted by sunsin | September 30, 2007 3:20 AM"

Nixon told the elder Bush that if instead of winning and ending the Iraq War, he had continued it, he would have been able to effectively wrap himself in the flag and defeat Clinton. For the GOP of today, American national security is trumped by making sure the GOP keeps on winning. Having a war in Iran go badly would hurt American pride, which theoretically would be further hurt if the Democrats proposed withdrawing from the war. If they go along with it, they'll just be Republican-lite and thus be defeated.

Posted by Reality Man | September 30, 2007 5:08 PM

"After all, Richard is unlikely to ever hold a gun to our head and demand our wallets."

Heh, don't be too sure...

Actually, I'm more likely to unleash some dreadful nanotech weapon and reduce you all to your chemical components...

Not any time soon, however - the tech just isn't there yet.

Ever see the "Supervillain for Open Source" ad? Here's the text of the ad:

"We were negotiating with the Pentagon. We had a blue screen of death. That was the last straw.

When you're holding the Moon for ransom, you value stability in an application. Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us.

It's compatible with our orbiting brain lasers.

I've got a Beowulf cluster of atomic supermen.

I have more friends now.

Genetically engineered cyber-goats. Henchmen with bad teeth. Gorgeous fembots with a penchant for evil.

I mean, Linux runs on anything.

I'm all about Open Source. Just changed my love life.

You've got to config it. And then you have to write some shell scripts. Update your RPMs. You have to partition your drives. And patch your kernel. Compile your binaries. Check your version dependencies. Probably do that once or twice.

It's just so easy. And so simple. I don't know why everyone doesn't run Linux.

Thank God they don't, or then they would all be supervillains, wouldn't they? Heh heh.

I'm Steve, and I'm a supervillain."

Now that's my kind of guy...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 5:59 AM

"Guerilla warfare does not work offensively at all, due to its very nature."

And this is relevant how? We are attacking Iran. Iran is not attacking the US. So guerrilla war is very definitely in the cards.

Also, if you'd bother to read William Lind and other 4th Gen War theorists, you'd know that it is to ordinary guerrilla war like machine guns are to flintlocks. It's conducted on a significantly different basis than "just" a "resistance" or "guerrilla" movement. It reflects the differences in today's world from yesterday's.

JonF declares that he's not a right wing nut. Unfortunately he has the same level of comprehension as a right wing nut. His level of denial as to the intentions of Bush and Cheney reach the same level of denial as all of the supporters of the Iraq war - the CURRENT supporters of the Iraq war.

He also confuses the GOP with the people behind Bush and Cheney. He thinks that all of this - apparently including the Iraq war - is all about simple politics. It's all about defeating the Democrats. Therefore the GOP will do...what? He doesn't say. Apparently he thinks that Bush and Cheney will just huff and puff and do nothing about Iran.

Unfortunately all the evidence is entirely against him there. All he has to support his fanciful notion that the war in Iran is not a done deal is the obvious fact that it would be a bad idea.

He still can't answer the fact that IRAQ was a bad idea. And it happened. And Afghanistan was a bad idea. And it happened. And Israel's attack on Lebanon was a bad idea. And it happened.

This of course is what was meant by "an excess of rationality." Someone with rationality wouldn't do what Bush and Cheney are going to do. Someone with rationality, however, would realize that Bush and Cheney do not do things out of rationality, but out of power lust and greed.

JonF is in denial. It's that simple. He can't handle the cognitive dissonance of how bad the Iran situation will be - so he dismisses it.

Gabriel Kolko just wrote a piece doing the exact same thing.

There are no shortage of people who just don't get it.

This is why that Administration official once tut-tutted the "reality-based contingent". And he was correct to do so. Because the so-called "reality-based contingent" just doesn't understand those who aren't part of that contingent. And the Administration official was correct that the "reality-based contingent" are just "reactors", while the neocons are the "actors".

Which means, of course, that the so-called "reality-based contingent" are in fact nothing of the kind. They're simply the mirror image of the neocons - people living in a fantasy world.

In any event, I'm perfectly happy to wait out the next three to 12 months and see what happens. Just like the deniers, it's not going to cost me anything to do that.

As soon as the first aircraft hit Iran, I expect all the deniers to be right here telling me I was right.

Sure they will.

OTOH, if there's no military attack on Iran by January 20, 2009, I'll be happy to say I was wrong.

Unless of course Hillary or whoever is making the State of the Union Speech is still talking it up.

But at least I'll have to admit that Bush and Cheney didn't start it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 6:19 AM

Re: For the GOP of today, American national security is trumped by making sure the GOP keeps on winning.

I agree, hands down. Except that continuing a war that the voters have turned against (let alone expanding it, with likely severe consequences for the world economy) is a recipe for electoral disaster. Now Bush and Cheney are done-- they have no more elections to win and so simply may not care. But I havet o believe the rest of the GOP does care very much what happens to them in 2008, 2010 and onward.

Re: And this is relevant how?

The usual rightwing trope about terrorism is that somehow terrorism will defeat the West-- not just in its offesnive attempts to impose its hegemony on the Middle East, but also at home. I have seriously seen rightwingerssuggest that terrorists will force everyone in the US and Europe to convert to Islam and enact Shari'a law.

Re: JonF is in denial. It's that simple. He can't handle the cognitive dissonance of how bad the Iran situation will be

Since we are arguing about future events that have not happenbed how can anyone be in "denial" (denial involving the past or present; how cannayone deny something that has not happened yet and, unlike, say, death, is not inevitable)? Assuming you are not the Oracle of Delphia or a Prophet of the Lord, your guesses are as good as mine. You accuse me of being in denial, while I accuse you of being paranoid, in the clinical sense of the term. Now, I don't enjoy flame wars, and if you would like to dialog with some minimal level of courtesy I will be happy to retract and apologize for any insults, and maybe we can explore our varying visions to mutual profit.

Re: OTOH, if there's no military attack on Iran by January 20, 2009, I'll be happy to say I was wrong.

Good. And I will also admit I am wrong if there is an attack. By the way, as a concession here, let me say thatI regard the most likely time for an attack-- a bombing raid at most since we lack the troops for anything else-- would be after the 2008 election (when presumably a Democrat--Hillary?-- will have won) and before the 2009 inauguration. Thus the electural damage would be limited (pushed off to 2010 at least) while Madam President would be handed a mess. I do think Bush and Cheney are capable of that sort of cynical wickedness, though whethger the Powers That Be behidn them would tolerate it is another matter.

Re: It's conducted on a significantly different basis than "just" a "resistance" or "guerrilla" movement. It reflects the differences in today's world from yesterday's.

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose, I'm afraid. Every time someone breathlessly carries on about how this or that "changes everything" I yawn. Nothing in the fundamental nature of war has really changed except the number of the victims. And really, apart from havcing much better technology and a more coherent ideology are the Iraqi insurgents really that diferent from the Spanish guerillas who opposed the Bonapartes? (I keep coming back to that because I think Napoleon in Spain is an extraordinarily good analogy for the US in Iraq.)

Posted by JonF | October 1, 2007 11:04 AM

"Now also, let's say I'm wrong as we do drop some bombs on Iran. Do you really think a billion Muslims will rise in war against us? "

You're rather sanguine about the consequences. In my opinion Iran is pretty supportive of the Maliki government in Iraq (and why wouldn't they be?) and their actions in Iraq are more in line with making sure the Shiites have long-term control there as opposed to simply attacking US forces. That could all change tomorrow if the US simply drops a few bombs on Iran.

Would Iran march its divisions to the border and invade Iraq? Of course not. Could they use their allies in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on US forces there instead of trying to keep Maliki in power? Could they sink a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz and shut down oil traffic out of there? Could they attack US interests elsewhere using cutouts and suicide agents? Would all this be without costs to the US?

All I'm saying is that Bush-Cheney give every sign of not thinking clearly about what could go wrong instead of what they would like to think would happen. They did it in invading Iraq and they're doing it thinking about dropping some bombs on Iran. Counting on them to be rational isn't rational.

Posted by SteveH | October 1, 2007 1:27 PM