We were wondering how long this would take. From the Guardian:
The west’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear
activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran
could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end
of the year.A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the
dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials
also indicated that London would back Washington’s efforts to impose
a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran’s compliance with
international demands.
So now the concern that triggers action is not nuclear weapons but
nuclear technology. Obviously the previous talking points weren’t
working for them. A five to ten-year window doesn’t sound scary
enough, does it?
A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could
take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it
might gain the technical knowhow within months. “By the end of the
year is a … realistic period,” said the official. “It would be
really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the
technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon.”Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to
10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while
conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the
level of Iran’s technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened
the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
“Roll over Tony. Now, sit and beg. Good boy.”
Britain maintains that military action to destroy Iran’s
suspect facilities is not under discussion. But the Bush
administration, backed by Israel, has refused to rule out the use of
force.
This is not about convincing the UN. This is about convincing the US
public. Same pattern as Iraq: when the mild propaganda doesn’t work,
ramp it up and make the threat sound more imminent. It’s the same
channel as well as far as I recall.
I can’t believe that the US administration is insane enough to want
to go to war in Iran but I can’t avoid the parallels between the
build-up to Iraq and now.
Crossposted from European Tribune
is where Cheney and all the other old liers spewed their venom recently. I have little doubt they want to bomb the fuck out of Iran and kill loads of women, children and innocent men. They really are that insane.
And did the US media pick up on them all ranting from an AIPAC podium when AIPAC has been recently found to be spying on the US?
As I said all along, we will be hearing of the Iran threat all year long. Can you spell election?
No, I disagree. The threat of attacking Iran doesn’t play well with the public. The actual attack will. That’s what they are thinking, I believe. It’s not the threat of attacking it’s the danger that Iran posses, that they hope to whip up public opinion about.
In any case they feel they really do need to attack Iran and get rid of the leadership that they inadvertently put in power when they got rid of the SHah (carter’s work) who they put in power to get rid of the democratically elected government they didn’t like either.
See the United States doesn’t like anybody. That’s the problem. Even the people they put in power.
I really believe they are going to attack Iran by Air. I hope to God they are not thinking about sending in ground troops to take over a small regiion that borders Iraq that has lots of oil and that’s populated by people who Iran is having ethnic problems with.
The attack will only play well with the public if it’s successful. Iran has fairly modern air defenses, and it’s not like they haven’t planned for the possibility of an attack by the US or worse, a competent opponent like Israel.
At a minimum, an air attack will probably only delay the Iranian nuclear program, will further inflame world opinion against the US, and will effectively justify Tehran’s alleged desire for nukes: they will need them to defend against unprovoked attacks.
At worst, they will counterattack across the border into Iraq and engage our barely functioning army. There, too, they will have full justification, because a US attack would be, after all, an act of war. It is, in fact, almost inconceivable that they would not counterattack.
Taking a bad situation and turning it into an unmitigated disaster will not sell well with the public.
Here’s the deal….here’s how I think it works. It is understood by both parties, the US and Iran that if the US attacks IRan that Iran should not counter attack, only defend. If they defend only…. the only harm that will come to them will be the destruction of the nuclear program and lots of other military sites or centers. That’s the understanding.
If IRan counterattacks then the US will attack the government itself and the economic centers and do everything it can to destroy the ability of IRan to function.That’s a no win postion for Iran.
That’s the way countries agree on how they will go to war. Both threaten each other with the annihilation for the public, but both agree privately to limit the war itself….or they leave it open ended….undecided.
Iran knows that if it counterattacks it will gain nothing. So I think the US will bomb by air and IRan will not try to counterattack, only defend.However they will make it look as though they have counter attacked for face saving purposes. It will be very limited, the counterattack. If they do counterattack full tilt, then everything spins out of control until such a time as they rein themselves in.
This war will be very short. And I think Bush is gambling that he can make it look as though he has won, protected the US from the threat of a nuclear IRan….all this going into the elections. This will be one his last opportunities to be a “great president” or whatever they call them.
There’s two problems with that theory. One is that the current leadership in Iran is perfectly okay with a little mass martyrdom, as this same faction demonstrated during the war with Iraq. The second is that Iran is capable of defeating us in the field, and the immense prestige that would go with defeating the United States makes the lopsided kill ratio worth it.
I don’t think it’s a theory. I think it’s a fact. It’s the only way you can go to war. It’s always done like this.
Iran cannot defeat the United States in the field. That would take years to do. And it’s not possible. You can only fight the US in a guerilla type war, not on a “battlefied”.
In any case the US has the capacity to blow up Iran by Air, much of it’s infrastructure, destroy it economically. The US doesn’t want to do that and IRan doesn’t want that….so they are in agreement that the US should simply wipe out it’s nuclear facilities. Of course destroying Iran economically is bad for the US economy and world economy. What happens is….as the war begins, the US bombs the nuclear sites, if Iran counter attacks in a way that the US percieves as outside of their agreement (could be a non verbal agreement) then they bomb something of economic interest and both sides play this tit for tat game and the rules become more clearly established.
The US is betting that Iran will not counter attack in a way that will grossly embarass the United States. Iran may cut off oil, certainly but it will only be temporary. This is intended to be a short attack. The US will end it saying….See….we just wanted to stop the nuclear program….we don’t want to take over the country.
Iran is not interested in Martyrdom. That’s non-sense. Tha’ts western propoganda about how Arabazoids think. The Iranians want to survive as people, as a government and in order to do that they are going to have to let the US bomb thier nuclear facitlites and some military ones.
How do you figure Israel into all of this? How does their direct involvement in air attacks change the situation?
That’s an interesting question. You would think that the U.S. would not want them to do anything, just let the U.S. do it. But I guess the plan is to get the United Nations to issue sanctions and then the US would put together another coalition. It seems that Europe France and Germany are ready to support the bombing of Iran. They are more behind the US than ever for this adventure. So maybe Israel would be included this time as part of the coalition….is that possible? That Israel would show itself to be part of the world community or some such non sense by sending a bomber or two? certainly they could bomb clandestinely.
The world is not going to end because the US bombs Iran. But’s it’s just another bad move in my opinion and a unnescessary one. I am sure this could have been resolved diplomatically.
But I think that Bush is absolutely committed to this course and they will try to make it work politically by making it short, abrupt and get it over with quickly, claiming success. This “Victory” will carry the Republicans in the polls they think. If it does it will make the Democrats even more bellicose.
How can a woman….Hilliary run against a war veteran John McCain? She has to be more militant than he is. She has to look “stronger”.
I don’t think she will run. It’s just not possible.
Thanks for the answer. I remember seeing somewhere that Israel is nearly adamant about being included in the airstrikes provided the US and Britain lead the way.
No good can come from any of this.
The mass wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war were definitely not propaganda, and the Iranians had no trouble coming up with volunteers.
And yes, the US is capable of inflicting great harm with its air power, but it is currently incapable of waging a land war. I doubt even Rumsfeld is dumb enough to send ground troops over the border, so it would be incumbent upon the Iranians to make that move and force the US into ground combat.
The US Army is such an inviting target right now that I have a hard time imagining the Iranians resisting, especially since the absence of a real response by Iran would almost certainly provoke popular uprisings against the Iranian government. Tehran certainly isn’t going to start a shooting war, but they really have no choice but to pursue one if it’s forced upon them.
I also question whether the US is in a position to sustain an air campaign. Iran has a formidable array of ASMs in the Gulf area, and disabling the carriers would make it much harder for the US to rely on air power or to provide air support for its broken army. Even if Iran is unable to inflict significant losses on the US Navy, the inevitable uprisings in Iraq, at least partly spurred on by the Iranian special forces already waiting in the cities, will divert air power from the ostensible front.
Iran is definitely interested in its own survival, but the calculations of the leadership in Tehran may — and in fact do — differ from those being used by western foes and observers. Given that they are willing to push the nuclear issue to the brink of war in the first place, it is plain that they view nuclear deterrence as the only long-term means of resisting American aggression and it is also clear that they view the US as the chief threat to their survival. If backed into a corner, Iran is not likely to lie down and take it the way we have become accustomed to with the failed states and petty dictatorships we have carelessly pelted with cruise missiles in the past.
The idea that “it’s always done like this” is nonsense. Arrangements for the orderly conduct of limited warfare dissolve the second one side perceives its survival as being at stake. Faced with an enemy like the US under Bush, who is himself acting more and more like a cornered animal, the Iranian government would have to be stocked from floor to ceiling with fools not to see that their survival is very much at stake.
I don’t think it will be “all year long” Steven. In January, the Administration did a poll at the end of January to see how the public felt about using nukes against Iran.
The Iranian New Year is on March 20th, at which time Iran plans to open their new commodity market, called a “bourse”. They will be trading oil and gas for Euro’s instead of Petrol Dollars. Last month Syria also converted all of its foreign transactions to Euro’s
This is bad for the value of the dollar. Do you think Cheney/Rumsfeld/Idiot in Chief believe a nuclear war might distract the public from their gross failures, constitutional and criminal transgressions, and abysmal poll numbers?
Jérôme’s take on the Iranian bourse: he’s not impressed by that theory.
I think Jerome is right. The Bourse theory has taken on a bit of an urban legend quality.
I accept Jerome’s well reasoned explanation-Really trust him especially after the GasProm situation.
I am easy to scare because my knowledge of financial markets is minuscule.
I’m not suggesting that BushCo. is happy about the Bourse, only that it is a mosquito bite, and not sufficient incentive to warrant a war.
I think the real prize is a re-opening of the Iranian market to oil services companies. Same thing we did in Libya. We pretended they had a WMD program so that they could promise to dismantle it in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. Then we went in to compete for contracts.
Bolton and Cheney want to find a way to lift the sanctions, ultimately. Same thing that happened in Iraq.
I honestly hope you are right. Cheney is absolutely insane as is his twin clone Rumsfeld.
Lebanese Hariri was killed in Mid February last year. Since the latter part of 2004 Syria had been working to set up bidding and arrangements with foreign companies for development of their oil and gas fields, and excluded the USA. By March of 2005 Syria was actively negotiating with other countries again excluding USA. By Mid August last year some foreign countries were selected. I often wondered who paid Hossam Taher Hossam to pull a “curveball” with the UN and blame Hariri’s killing on Syria.
As to Iran making deals with Washington, I think that is highly unlikely. Muslims in general no longer trust this Administration any more then we here at BT do. Iranians are a proud people and our wonderful Idiot in Chief is now trying to force India to back out of their deal with Iran. Proud ancient cultures do not take well to being “bullied” and I believe there will be blow back and resistance.
I also believe Iran’s threat about “killing fields” if this Administration bombs them. Iran has a well trained army, and high unemployed numbers of young people for future recruits. Right now our troops are “sitting ducks” in a turkey shoot (Iraq’s civil war). Iran’s military can literally decimate many of our young people, if our government is crazy enough to bomb them.
Guess living in a Fascist state since the NSA shenanigans is making me even more paranoid and certainly absolutely ZERO trust in our government.
I think you nailed two crucial points about Iran that everyone seems to miss when they are busy underestimating Iran and overestimating our own crumbling military. First, Iran has a surplus of young people with nothing to do right now but turn their anger inward. And second, the Iranians are fiercely proud. Just because it might be more prudent in the long run to let Bush boost his poll numbers at their expense doesn’t mean they will.
Folks seem to forget that the Iranian government has broad popular support. And Iranian dissidents aren’t raging street mobs and terror cells; they’re more like western political activists — a loyal opposition. Moreover, the Iranian nuclear program has broad support even among members of the opposition. The Iranian people will not take an attack lying down, and if the government does not counterattack, they will replace the government with one that will.
This is not a war we should start.
Weirdly, I have to agree with Jerome for once on that one. I don’t think it’s quite as cut and dried as he suggests for the simple reason that I think he has failed to take into account the role China is probably playing behind the scenes, but it’s not the apocalypse that sinks the dollar that everyone seems to be expecting.
On the other hand, Jerome is always predicting the imminent demise of the world as we know it, so while I always enjoy his explanations of how various abstruse parts of the economic system work, I’ve come to take his predictions with a dump truck full of salt.
Without really understanding the ins and out of the financial markets, I will trust Jerome on this. Basically it IS the “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it” syndrome. What is adding to the confusion is that a few months ago there was news that Venezuela had made the necessary modifications to their economy to change to the Euro, and we get 15-17% of our oil from them (and damn it I can’t find the link). With the recent elections, Bolivia is “making noise” about doing the same for their natural gas.
Wasn’t trying to scare monger, only concerned. It is overwhelming the amount of hatred toward America that this Administration has engendered.
If we assumed this was all true. If we bought into the idea that pre-emptive war was justifiable. If we bought into the certainty that the U.S. has the divine right to tell all other countries what they may or may not have or do. Even if … What realistic course of military action is there? We are not paying for the war(s) we have, recruitment is down, our troops are lacking equipment and care. I can’t believe Britain is will to bear the major burdens of this one. And what Israeli in his or her right mind would seek out a shooting war with Iran?
They will bomb the relevant facilities, or what they believe to be the relevant facilities. If they think they have to, they will use tactical nukes. I’m not kidding. These are crazy people.
Scary people indeed. They are suiting up. Read this chilling piece below
Is anyone asking a “What if” the entire region is engulfed?
It came to me in the shower as environmentally friendly amounts of warm water trickled over me. I know how the US can deal with Iran and sort out the problems in Iraq at the same time!
It’s easy:
Now, the nay-sayers will tell you that it would require boundless optimism to believe that such a plan would work. The “experts” will tell you they don’t have enough troops or hardware to carry out the plan. . I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed. But belief will get you through: you re-make the world by imagining it. Believe it hard enough and it will happen.
Am I the only one who noticed the headline said “Iraq” rather than “Iran”? Don’t want to give any lurking State Department employees a potential cover for the President (“Iraq has weapons! Even the liberal blogs admit it!!!”).
Best correct it shortly…and get ready for Condi’s next “mushroom cloud” reference…
I saw it also, with the identical thought.
it’s a reference to the British claim about Iraq. No one is saying that Iran can build a bomb in the next two days, but they are hyping their capablities.
I admit it is a little confusing.
It is confusing: I can’t work out whether it’s 2003 or 2006.
I got the connection immediately and I’m only half-awake.
Who changed the title? It’s not an error.
title looks fine to me. Did you change it back?
I didn’t touch it.
Yes. I didn’t think you had since you clearly understood the point (even if plays better on ET than here).
Iraq, Iran it doesn’t matter to these insane monsters. They want to rule the Middle East. That has been their goal for thirty years or more. They want the oil. It is now and always has been the goal. Can the American People be that stupid to buy this bunch of Bullshit again?
Can the American People be that stupid to buy this bunch of Bullshit again?
If no one stands up to the Bush/Rove propaganda machine and calls bullshit loudly and often, I’m afraid they will buy it. Without a competing narrative forcefully expounded in the media, fear will always win out.
This article requires a paid subscription to Atlantic Magazine, but is one of those rare times when it’s cheap at twice the price. The article is The Point of No Return by William Langewiesche. Below his quote from Mark Hibbs:
Also go read the legal analysis by Daniel Joyner on Iran/IAEA, via JURIST.
This is just warmongering and should, in my opinion, be seen as such.
You mean the stuff in the story?
No, the 48 hour time frame.
That was meant to say
“Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours” someone “fixed” it.
Yes, I know, I saw Iran instead of Iraq a slip of the eye I am afraid.
No, no. You were right. Someone had changed it.
The stuff in the story have some striking similarities of what happened in Iraq. The mantras of urgency are surely echoing the mantras of urgency before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even so there are some differences between the situation prior to the Iraqi invasion and the Iranian situation unfolding at the moment.
There was no conclusive evidence of Iraq ever having a fully operational nuclear facility ready to enrich uranium. The Saddam regime had the ambitions of becoming a nuclear power and did what they could to make it happen but had a long way to go. The IAEA and indeed the Iranian regime, have verified that they now have the capability and the intent to enrich uranium themselves and thus the evidence is there plain to see beyond any reasonable doubt.
Given the quality of propaganda we are getting from our press, none of us should grant any legitimacy to what they say, That goes double for our double-talking junta. Maybe they’ll get Colin Powell to go to the U.N. again.