The elected president [Ahmadinejad] [won’t prioritize] relations with either Europe or United States. He is much more of a nationalist. He’s very committed to a strong Iran, protecting Iran’s interests around its borders. He’s very committed to nuclear energy, not necessarily nuclear bombs, but nuclear energy. All of these are going to basically heat up the tensions with United States.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Rumsfeld saying this is a completely illegitimate election … people were disqualified?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: [S]tatements like that actually helped the conservatives get elected.
One of the main conservative ministers actually thanked Bush for his disparaging comments about the elections, and I suspect in the second round, a lot of people [voted to] protest Bush’s and the administration’s disparaging statements.
After all, no elections are absolutely free in that everyone can run, but there were six candidates running, which last time I looked at the American elections is at least four more than we usually get. So there was a choice for the electorate, so to dismiss it as a sham for Iranians [is not just ignorant], it’s a very sort of imperialistic disparaging comment on the Iranian system.
And I think most Iranian patriots would have really been pissed off at what Washington was saying.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran in the near future, Professor Abrahamian? [Answer below … and it’s a must-read.]
And there’s, I think, — they already have basically blueprints about military strikes for the nuclear installations. They also have plans, what they call elite decapitation, which would be surgical strikes at ministries of the top people.
And that would be basically a sort of slippery slope they would start on. They would think that doing that that would prevent Iran developing the nuclear program, not taking into account that Iran also has its own cards it could play. If that was done, if any military action was implemented, I think that the Iranians would use the cards they have, which is in Afghanistan and Iraq, both areas, they have actually great advantages. They could unravel the already bad position the United States is in those countries, completely unravel it.
All they have to do is give the green light to Sadr in southern Iraq to have a Shia revolt. He has been itching to do that with a lot of help from his friends from across the border in Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Who?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Sadr. Sadr. That you would have a Shia revolt in the south on top of a Sunni revolt. And that would completely undermine the U.S. position there.
In Afghanistan, there is actually one of the old warlords who was against the Taliban, Hekmatyar, who the Iranians tried to encourage to support and work with the Karzai administration, but he refused to do that and went on his own into the mountains. And he would be quite eager to get Iranian help, if the Iranians decided to change policy in Iraq.
It’s often forgotten here that Iran has actually done everything it can so far to help United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And if there’s a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for them to cooperate with United States. They would do exactly what would be in their interests, which would be to destroy the U.S. position in those two countries.
You can watch, listen to or read the entire interview at Democracy Now!. The interview includes Norman Solomon, just back from Tehran.
Ervand Abrahamian is a Professor of Middle Eastern and Iranian history at Baruch College, City University of New York. He is the author of several books on Iran including “Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic” and “The Iranian Mojahedin.”
The Sadr factor is very interesting, as is the article. I am definitely going to check out some of Mr. Abrahamian’s essays.
Very interesting. But how strong is Iran’s influence on Sadr?
In any case, the stakes of the game being played by this administration are just mindboggling!
Let’s see – grabbing natural resources wherever possible – a war or two, no problem; offensive exploitation of the same resources – making a mockery of environmental programs, no sense of human heritage; massive transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to those already obscenely privileged; – BUT they’re also playing craps with our collective future by neglecting non-proliferation issues and pursuing aggressive policies towards Iran.
Read Sirocco’s thought-provoking diary over at European Tribune.
I forgot; – fuck Bolton, much of this is his responsibility. UN-Ambassador – what a joke!
Nor South, nor East, for that matter. That, coupled with their hubris, will be their downfall. I wish (hope) that we didn’t have to go down with them.
I’d say the Brits are probably looking desperately for a way to reduce their numbers in the region. Tony and friends ignored the advice – learned the hard, bloody way – given them by their generals and advisors. I’m sure that advice has come back to haunt them already, but the prospect of hostilities with Iran must be causing some sleepless nights.
I’m sure limited attacks – say, a few of those "elite decapitations" – would probably lead to just what Mr Abrahamian is suggesting. It’s an escalation from there which gives me the willies. Think missile attaks in the Gulf. Sunken tankers blocking shipping lanes. Shouting and tearing-up of grass in Saudi. The list goes on.
And the Brits realising there’s no way to withdraw from theatre. They’d have no choice but to send in more of their forces.
So a few so called surgical strikes of the kind that obliterate power stations and schools and leave the claimed targets untouched. That should guarantee total hatred worldwide for the Bush regime, and ensure Iraq really goes off.
Yes and as we sit around admiring our military dominance and ability to fuck anyone we miss the bigger picture. This aint going to come cheap and there aint no allies, and as the US economy tanks we realize we need all that Chinese money to stop the US going bankrupt. Oh dear we just bombed the fuck out of their biggest supplier of oil and they aint too happy with us.
In the WH briefings, or when Dick plans foreign policy with his business buddies (is that redundant?), when their lining up the pros and cons, i’ll bet you someone’s suggested that an attack on Iran would please the Sunnis somewhat.
(Reposted with the link embedded so that the page doesn’t go too wide.)
Collision Course With Iran (none / 0)
Fox News Peddles Military Action Against Iran
This is how Neil Cavuto opened his show today (June 27, 2005): “Remember how much we fussed over this guy? [Video of Saddam Hussein shown while the banner at the bottom of the screen read: Forget Saddam?] Now what if I told you we might be facing a bigger threat from this guy? [Video of Iran’s President-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while the banner below read: A Bigger Threat?]
LINK.
The war drums are beating !!Boy bush needs a distraction, and a little more oil would come in handy.
by EtJ (hound@rkymount.com) on Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:40:20 PM PDT
[ Reply to This |
THANKS, how do you do that, to save you the time in the future.
On a brighter note, WHAT give’s ????? Current headline at the WP,
Blair’s Advisers Foresaw Risks, Problems on Iraq
QUOTE on FRONT PAGE: “Memos reveal that British officials believed the U.S. administration was committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal.
– Glenn Frankel “
LInk: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584_pf.html
Ooooooops did it again…. Let me know how to shorten the link.
< a href=”http://www.boomantribune.com“ >BooTrib < /a >
Remove the spaces — which I put in so you could see the tags — and it’ll work as a link.
You see the format:
An < A > opens the link tag; an < /A > ends the link tag.
The HREF defines the A tag as a reference to a link.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Opts in for the nuclear rods.
It’s a part of his plan
To power Iran.
Will they survive the “Democracy Gods”?
I spent a lot of time making this point over at that other blog, but was consistently pooh-poohed because of the culture of American military fetishism over there. Of course, it’s not just there, it’s in society at large, and it’s definitely in the minds of the neocons. There is an entirely delusional belief in, firstly, the power of military action to effect change, and secondly, in the vast military might of the United States.
I have news for the can-do crowd: We don’t have that much military might. I expect Democrats to be surprised by this, but not neocons. You’d think they’d remember the vast cuts in the military made by Clinton, but maybe they were too dazzled by Monica Lewinsky to notice. Those cuts were not a bad idea; with the Soviet menace gone, we no longer needed a huge military just to defend ourselves.
But we do need a huge military if we want to go starting wars in someone else’s back yard. It’s worth pointing out that military analysts during the Cold War actually expected a Soviet victory in Europe in less than two months of fighting. That’s why we had so many tactical nukes: so when the armies of NATO had been crushed in central Germany, we could hold the line against the Soviet juggernaut. The Soviets, if anyone recalls, had a much larger army than we did. It was, in fact, bigger than our army, our friends’ armies, and their dads’ armies put together.
Of course, that kind of outrageous military spending wasn’t sustainable, so when the Soviets collapsed, we cut back. The last hurrah of a giant American army was the first Gulf War. While we could have fielded a larger force in the current war than we did, we could not have matched the force that we sent in the first war. We simply don’t have the troops. Now, with our armed forces essentially broken, unable even to secure a single major city in Iraq, there is no way in hell we can fight an offensive war against a serious opponent.
The news may not have sunk in with Americans, but you may rest assured that the rest of the world, which has lived in fear of American power for over sixty years — and that would include our allies — have noticed. There isn’t quite open defiance yet, but that’s because everyone is waiting to see just how badly we’re going to injure ourselves, and also because our dwindling economic might can still cause major headaches, at least for now. It is not, however, because they fear our conventional military strength.
Iran is not a broken power like post-sanctions Iraq. It is not a minor bully like Syria. It is a major military power with a large and enthusiastic army and reasonably modern equipment and one hell of a lot of strategic depth. It’s not quite as powerful as France or Germany, but it’s close, and besides, the US couldn’t defeat France or Germany anyway. We can hurt Iran, and hurt them badly, but that’s true of any country. What we can’t do is win a war against them. Body counts would be much higher for the Iranian side than for ours. But it’s not the side with the lowest casualties that wins; it’s the side that runs out of fighting men last. That would be Iran.
I’ve long entertained the theory that the popular American conception of armed might is based on the movies. Anyone who has studied warfare, much less anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a participant in it, knows that John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis have about as much to do with real combat as the Death Star has to do with NASA. It’s not great that the public labors under that misconception, but it’s not disastrous by itself. That the neocon cabal currently running the war — all of them civilians — does believe this nonsense is disastrous.
What’s really frightening is that being handed an ugly, bloody rout by Iran might be the lesser of the available evils. Any measure of success against Iran, even the sort of “success” we’re enjoying in Iraq, might embolden the neocons to go after North Korea, a country that could decisively defeat a US invasion in a matter of days, nukes or not.
If someone lined up their military against our military and ours was smaller in numbers, it is shocking what our fire power and technology would make up for. I think about the aircraft that my husband currently flies, the Apache……in Afghanistan they had Apaches take so much small arms fire that when one landed one time the nose fell off of it – it had literally been shot off of the aircraft one bullet hole at a time – and that aircraft was still up and flying throughout the whole assault. The military really doesn’t have a job either for someone who is a high school drop out and who has a difficult time with organization…….well, at least we used to not a have job for such individuals. I guess anybody can hump a ruck, fire a weapon, and be a nice big meat target in Fallujah right now. I don’t see any wars though in our future that will be about firepower or military technology. Wars are about people these days. When people are hurt or angry or despair or any combo of those, and they band together in little groups and organize to undermine our occupation and retaliate for our killings, our soft underbelly is exposed……..we are mortal and the people behind the weaponry are no different from anybody else! They are made of blood and bone. Our military toys are very ineffective when it comes to mind control and controlling the actions of small organized groups. In fact, the more innocent people that our military toys kill (and that is a big number in Iraq) the greater the number of these small organized groups that are formed.
There’s no doubt that Iranian armor, which is mostly late-80’s Soviet hardware, would be decimated by the Americans within the first couple of days of fighting. Between carrier-borne air assaults and the Apaches that you mention, it doesn’t stand much of a chance.
Where the Iranians are state of the art is in their anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile arsenal. The US would still achieve and maintain air superiority, but the casualty rate would be much higher than what we’re accustomed to. The kind of unimpeded B-52 bombing runs we enjoyed in Afghanistan would not exist in Iran. The naval forces in the Persian Gulf, on the other hand, are highly vulnerable to ASM attack, and the Iranian missile sites are numerous and well-stocked. It is not inconceivable that we could lose a carrier for the first time since WW2.
From a purely military standpoint, these would be acceptable losses — though public opinion might think otherwise. It’s the infantry battles on the ground where the war would be won or lost, however, and Iran could fight us to a standstill there. It’s worth bearing in mind that the western flank of Iran consists of formidable mountains where the Iranians could trade men and space for quite a lot of time. And as noted elsewhere, Iranian influence in Iraq and Afghanistan could provoke uprisings and renewed guerilla assaults, denying the US anything approaching a single, well-defined front.
Finally, as with any invasion, the defender doesn’t have to win a single conventional battle. The NVA, after all, did not win a single, solitary engagement in the Vietnam War. All the defender has to do is keep fighting until either the will or the fighting capacity of the invader is broken. We are already close to both breaking points.
The awesome firepower of the American military is just that — awesome. But it is not enough by itself to win a war against a highly motivated, well-prepared, and competent enemy. It is undoubtedly enough to inflict grievous wounds on Iran, and it is enough for some severely lopside casualty figures. That said, Iran has already demonstrated its ability and willingness to absorb those casualties and keep fighting. Saddam Hussein hammered on Iran for eight long years, and the Iranians just kept coming and coming and coming, despite the state-of-the-art American and Soviet military hardware at his disposal. The Iranian body count was horrifically high, but the attrition rate never exceeded the replenishment rate, and Iran was victorious in the end.
We could defeat Iran, but it would require a draft, a firm commitment on the part of the American people, years of hard fighting, and tons of blood and treasure. I don’t see any of that happening. I do see the neocons making more of their half-assed plans based on a Hollywood conception of war with an enemy they are obviously underestimating. The tragedy is that it is not the neocons who will be paying the price for their misjudgments on Iran, any more than they are the ones paying the price for their misjudgments on Iraq.
The cynical person in me says this was their favored result all along. One cannot have a war with Iran unles one is faced with a committed, determine ideological foe.
The cynical person in me has been right far too often with this administration.
That’s basically what I’ve been saying all along (well, at least since Bush opened his big yap a couple of weeks ago . . .). Here’s what I posted the other day over at Eurotrib:
Ahmadinejad was mired in fourth place in the polls as recently as just a few weeks prior to the first round of the election, behind not only Rafsanjani but also the two “reform” candidates. Then Bush decided that he needed to sound off about the upcoming election. Iranians, feeling put off by this perceived interference, gave much more support to the candidate who was seen as most likely to annoy and frustrate Bush. They have now achieved that.
But what if this is exactly what the Dear Leader in the U.S. wanted? For several years now, Iran has been prominently featured as a member of the Axis of Evil. Well, Iraq has been dealt with, and now North Korea already has nukes. Many have been suggesting that Iran was to be the next target for Bush’s grand crusade. Problem is, there was no real support for this anywhere outside the hardcore wingnut neo-con community.
Now, however, Iran is going to be led (politically, at least) by a man who feels that his nation’s nuclear negotiators have made too many concessions. For Bush, this could not possibly be better — now he has a new leader to rail against, and can attempt to rally people with rhetoric about the dangers of an Iran with nuclear arms:
And if he times it properly, he can perhaps prevent a thumping by the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections.
I think I need to take off my tin-foil hat now, and return to the real world. But then, these are the folks who talked of inventing their own reality to which the rest of us are forced to react and study, while they move on to the next new reality.
they can close off the Hormuz Straits to oil tankers.
A lot more efficient weapon than any number of nuclear bombs.