No Blank Check on Iran

The Iraq Study Group recommended that the Bush Administration engage Iran. Instead, the Administration chose to threaten it.

In recent weeks President Bush attacked Iran in a speech announcing his escalation in Iraq, deployed a second naval battleship to the Persian Gulf and ordered the raid of an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, along with the arrests of six Iranians. The current march to war sounds eerily familiar.

Now members of Congress have launched their own pre-emptive strike on the Administration, introducing legislation requiring the President to gain Congressional approval for any attack on Iran. The effort is spearheaded by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who's emerged as a leading critic of the war in Iraq and a harsh opponent of confrontation with Iran. Jones has assembled a diverse coalition of lawmakers, ranging from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats, who believe it's time to teach the Administration a lesson in government 101.

"Our constitution states that--while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars--only Congress has the power to authorize war," Jones said at a press conference today. "It's time for Congress to meet its Constitutional responsibility...This legislation makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such a use of force [against Iran]."

Such a basic expression of the separation of powers should be obvious. But with the Bush Administration, one never knows. So H.J. Res 14 spells it out. "This resolution says a strong message that Congress won't stand idly by and it won't get railroaded into another war that will only make America and the world less safe," said Rep. Marty Meehan. "A lot of people in Congress are fearful that this war will expand," added Rep. Ron Paul. Containing an expansion of the war, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, is "the most important issue this Congress will face aside from Iraq."

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was in boot camp when Congress approved the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that led to the war in Vietnam. Today he sees another possible war predicated on "ignorance, arrogance and dogma."

A fellow Purple Heart recipient, Senator Chuck Hagel, recently grilled Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about whether the Administration was planning to push the war in Iraq into Iran's borders. Hagel sees echoes of Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia. "Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary," Hagel told Rice, "and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the President is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

Moments earlier, Senator Joe Biden asked Rice: "Do you believe the President has the constitutional authority to pursue across the border into Iraq (sic/Iran) or Syria, the networks in those countries?"

Rice responded that the President's constitutional authority was "broad as commander in chief."

After trusting the president on Iraq, the new Congress might be inclined to disagree.

Comments (54)

1. I read about the '03 Iranian overtures months ago, before the Eisenhower Strike Group sailed to the Straits of Hormuz.

   (Wonder why that nasty ol' liberal media didn't report on it...)

   Posted by drhammer at 01/18/2007 @ 2:30pm

2. and that liberal media (read: imus) just had donald trump on the other day, and he said, "yeah, i think we should just bomb them."

   Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2007 @ 2:33pm

3. Don't think Bush and the Admin are that stupid or that arrogant to think they can "get away" with an attack on Iran or Syria.

   It'd be the final,but apparently titanium-reinforced straw that breaks the camel's back and would finally push Pelosi and Reid to a de-fund move...possibly even HSUB and John Nichols' impeachment.....and Biden telegraphed that to Rice.

   Of course it also guts the conspiracy theorists, Scott Ritter, and Seymour Hersh....hehe!

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 2:39pm

4. "So, Madame Secretary,"

   "Madame MushroomCloud" would be a more fitting address to this hopelessly out-of-her-depth, lying conservaClown (much like her "husband") who is not getting any and never should have vacated her sinecure pushing paperclips as a university administrator.

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/18/2007 @ 2:43pm

5. Of course it also guts the conspiracy theorists, Scott Ritter, and Seymour Hersh....hehe!

   Posted by MASK 01/18/2007

   What, exactly, qualifies Ritter and Hersh as conspiracy theorists?

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/18/2007 @ 2:45pm

6. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/18/2007 @ 2:45pm

   Well, for ONE thing, in February of 2005, Mr. Ritter said that we would invade Iran....

   in JUNE of 2005.

   As Maxwell Smart would say "Missed it by thaaaaaaat much!"

   Mr Hersh too, been predicting the "inevitable attack on Iran" before the election....during the election...and within months after the election!

   When it DOESN'T happen, no doubt their apologists (and themselves of course) will use the tried-and-true prognosticators' excuse of ..."Well, it WOULD have happened, if I hadn't exposed it!!!"

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 2:55pm

7. And, speaking of Iran, it would appear that in 2003, Iran offered to do everything that Washington demands today, and the offer was rebuffed by the White House with "we don't talk to evil".

   Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007 @ 2:22pm

   Because the objective of the Bush administration, israel's amen corner in Congress, and their israeli "uncles" is continued war to achieve total domination. Good luck getting a sold out Congress to question it. Look at the deal that israel turned it's back on:

   The main points of the understandings are as follows:

   An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed.

   As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years.

   At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval.

   Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret.

   The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor.

   According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran.

   ```````````````````

   The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request.

   http://www.tinyurl.com/39amfl

   What else could the Assad government do other than kiss the israeli's boots?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 2:58pm

8. Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 2:55pm

   Assuming that what you have said is accurate and putting aside the admin.'s obvious hostility toward Iran: how does making a wrong prediction in its specifics collapse into being a "conspiracy theorist" (your original assertion)?

   Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/18/2007 @ 3:02pm

9. Don't think Bush and the Admin are that stupid or that arrogant to think they can "get away" with an attack on Iran or Syria.... Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 2:39pm

   Stupid or arrogant? What is stupid or arrogant when you're on a mission from God?

   Posted by nathanhale at 01/18/2007 @ 3:22pm

10. Just because it hasn't happened within a certain timetable doesn't mean it won't.

    Posted by Tricksterbird at 01/18/2007 @ 3:25pm

11. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/18/2007 @ 3:02pm

    Well, GLENN, technically with...

    "Of course it also guts the conspiracy theorists, Scott Ritter, and Seymour Hersh....hehe!"

    I DIDN'T label either Mr Ritter or Mr Hersh conspiracy theorists, merely included them in the group of people that believe Bush will invade Iran.

    If I had said "Of course it also guts the conspiracy theorists LIKE Scott Ritter, and Seymour Hersh....hehe!"...maybe.

    But Mr.s Ritter and Hersh have been making a name for themselves with their "inside knowledge" and no doubt (as I said) when 2009 or the withdrawal from Iraq or whatever comes, they will not say "I was wrong", but likely palm it off as "It was exposed by me and they couldn't do it" or some similar ego-saving measure.

    Reason I'm pretty sure in PREDICTING that is...both men are on the Left of the political spectrum and....

    liberals NEVER admit they were wrong.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 3:26pm

12. Just because it hasn't happened within a certain timetable doesn't mean it won't.

    Posted by TRICKSTERBIRD 01/18/2007 @ 3:25pm

    See?

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 3:26pm

13. MASK,

    Don't know about Hersh, who has done splendid work, as in THE PRICE OF POWER ... but for, the sake of accuracy, Ritter was in the Marines before he was in UNSCOM, participated in 1991 Gulf War and long identified himself as a Republican.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 01/18/2007 @ 3:29pm

14. Posted by GLENN LEMON 01/18/2007 @ 3:29pm

    See, always curious about these "I was a Republican my whole life before Bush" guys....David Brock, Arianna, Scott.

    So because of Iraq, they now...favor higher taxes, more social spending, cutting defense, affirmative action, etc, etc, etc?!?!?!?

    BTW, GLENN, why does Scott being a Marine and serving in the Gulf War "exclude" him from being on the Left?!?!?!? Sounds like you're buying into the RIGHT's idea that liberals can't be soldiers or serve in wars honorabley?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 3:38pm

15. Iran can be defeated without ever having an American boot set foot in the sand.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 3:58pm

16. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 3:58pm

    Okay, JOHN, I'll bite....how?

    (Oh, and why couldn't we have done the same thing with Iraq???)

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:01pm

17. Iran can be defeated without ever having an American boot set foot in the sand.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person

    nonsense. the US cannot prevail in IRAQ with 140,000 pairs of boots on the ground. Iran is a bigger country, with a far larger population and a military that has not been degraded the way Saddam's was.

    winning a war has to do with the postwar conditions. the US may be able to blitzkrieg their way into Iran, but what then? all those young people there, chafing at the mullah rule, will turn into patriots once invaded, and we will have much bigger problems than now.

    it's all lunacy to think all problems can be solved with military force.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 4:15pm

18. They import all oil products that are refined..IOW, they do not refine their oil. They import things such as cooking oils, gasolines..food stuffs and most importantly, they have water issues.

    My father in laws best friend was on water and oil projects there and said they rely heavily on desalination plants and imports, plus, their economy has stalled out due to their policies...they threaten to disrupt the oil flow through the ME, but if we had to, we could selectively take out the Iranian oil terminals and shut down their pipelines, then they have a good chance of drying up fast.

    These are just observations , but I think this is a case where a blockade of imports and a blockade of oil exports would completely turn the table on Iran.. I have read,(in the Economist) awhile back that Iran has a huge cash crunch and they spend their oil revenues as fast as they get them...we would not want to drive the poipulation into the hands of the mullahs who are not all that popular and the population in general is young and pro west...we need to let THE IRANIANS do their dirty work themselves, if they are so inclined and provide invisible help...one could sabatage the country from the out side...

    I would also whisper loud enough for all to hear, that if we, the US, has a huge terrorist attack(nuke or bio), that with in 24 hrs...Terhan disappears as an example, and that the next Caliphate, if he arrives, will not be ruling from Iran...that otta rattled the nuts...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

19. From Berman's post:

    Now members of Congress have launched their own pre-emptive strike on the Administration, introducing legislation requiring the President to gain Congressional approval for any attack on Iran. The effort is spearheaded by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who's emerged as a leading critic of the war in Iraq and a harsh opponent of confrontation with Iran. Jones has assembled a diverse coalition of lawmakers, ranging from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats . . .

    It will be interesting but probably not surprising to see which Democrats DON'T support this legislation.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 4:23pm

20. again, the thread has been hijacked by two morons: mask and maasch

    so typical. maasch actually said we could defeat iran without even touching iranian soil. oh gee, how insightful, how wise, how......retarded. here is the sheer, breathtaking lunacy of the conservative "movement" in perfect, phraseological encapsulation.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

21. JR,

    Thats correct...an no one is entertaining American troops into Iran ..I don't believ e there is a need to do so...precisely because of the young hating the mullahs...time is on the west side there and the Armijihad is already in trouble...the Iranians do not want to dance with the US in anyway...it would set them back eons and they know it..

    I remember what Nixon told the Russians...ignore what is said about me in public, but watch what I do...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

22. I would also whisper loud enough for all to hear, that if we, the US, has a huge terrorist attack(nuke or bio), that with in 24 hrs...Terhan disappears as an example, and that the next Caliphate, if he arrives, will not be ruling from Iran...that otta rattled the nuts...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

    this saber rattling is shameful, and does you no credit. your overheated rhetoric brings the pres of Iran to mind. see what you have become?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 4:25pm

23. Iran can be defeated without ever having an American boot set foot in the sand.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 3:58pm

    Would you like to elaborate how this will be accomplished or are you just babbling?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 4:25pm

24. I would block Iran and Syria at the Iraqi borders, tho, seal off Iraq if possible..better use of US troops and technology there, IMO.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

25. "this saber rattling is shameful, and does you no credit. your overheated rhetoric brings the pres of Iran to mind. see what you have become?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 4:25pm | ignore "

    You miss understand...this is mentioned to Armijihad and the mullahs behind him...never in public...never.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:28pm

26. here is the maaschian mind, in less than 1 paragraph:

    al qaeda bombs twin towers

    perpetrators are dead; their supporters unassailable

    so....invade and occupy afghanistan

    fail

    so...invade and occupy iraq

    fail

    so...invade and occupy iran

    Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2007 @ 4:29pm

27. At any case, Iran has more internal problems of an everyday nature than military....we will never invade..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:29pm

28. I would also whisper loud enough for all to hear, that if we, the US, has a huge terrorist attack(nuke or bio), that with in 24 hrs...Terhan disappears as an example, and that the next Caliphate, if he arrives, will not be ruling from Iran...that otta rattled the nuts...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

    MAASCH, you are simply an emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped child with homicidal ideations. A real basket case.

    You are the core constituency of the Republican Party. Americans are insane if they ever again give government power to a political party that consists of people like you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 4:30pm

29. the conservative mind is not worth paying any attention to. they have been repeatedly wrong, about everything, for so long, that it's time they just STFU. we're sick of you, guys. you had your time. now STFU.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2007 @ 4:30pm

30. Enough talking to the Charles Manson element.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 4:31pm

31. FROMREDSHITFORBRAINS,

    I would tell the Iranian leaders that you know a secret way to kill all the jews and all they have to do is follow you into the desert in Afganistan and you will show them, then the country is empty. We win. You are an anti-Israel clown....and a kook..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:32pm

32. You miss understand.. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person

    not true, I haven't been in drag for years.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 4:35pm

33. And take Darla with you.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 4:36pm

34. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

    A blockade of Iranian oil also hurts Europe and Japan....diplomatically a non-starter.

    Eventually we WILL get into a "M.A.D." (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario with them. Since they know they've got us and the Europeans over a barrel or just p-whipped, they can build as many nukes as they want. Then the ONLY option will be a "Nuke goes off in New York, we vaporize Teheran" threat.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:36pm

35. At any case, Iran has more internal problems of an everyday nature than military....we will never invade..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

    the problem is not so much an invasion of Iran, but rather airstrikes against that country. they will be only for domestic political considerations. still, there won't be any $50 barrel of oil after that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 4:37pm

36. Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

    God, is she STILL pissed over the fact that LIBERALS don't care for Barack Obama more than I do?!?!?!? (See Adam Howard's latest)

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:37pm

37. Hey gringos,

    All we hear about these days is troops this, troops that, threats here, threats there, more weapons for you, less for them. How about more medicine for your elderly, better role models for your youth, less narcotics on your streets, fewer guns in your schools, more teachers in classrooms, more technology for enhancing your nation instead of all that which goes towards destroying others. That the army advertises more than any university is tragic, but more tragic is the current to drive people into learning to destroy instead of construct. At the end of the day, what exactly are you teaching the world? Hmmmmm. Just ask Ethiopia and you'll see.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/18/2007 @ 5:07pm

38. Excellent post, Chimi.

    And Darla's summation of the Maaschian mind was stunningly astute. Got Maaschy so mad he started cursing Birdy again and throwing around the "kook" label...

    This place is sick, sick, fun sometimes.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/18/2007 @ 5:25pm

39. ND,

    Come,come now...Birdshit and the Darla loon are fun...besides, nothing here is capable of getting me mad...its to unreal by that point..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 5:28pm

40. " cursing Birdy again"

    ????

    Birdshit is the curse...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 5:29pm

41. Zero is correct....FRB is babbling..always does...and Zero understands it all.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 5:45pm

42. Below is a link to a 2005 article discussing the clandestine work of the Bush administration in coordination with an Iranian group listed by our government as a terrorist organization. I first became acquainted with this relationship while reading Scott Ritter, who makes a convincing argument for a potential conflict with Iran based on the rabid war posturing of Bush and his neo-fanatics.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050126-iran-game.htm

    To collect badly needed intelligence on the ground about Iran's alleged nuclear program, the United States is depending heavily on Israeli-trained teams of Kurds in northern Iraq and on U.S.-trained teams of former Iranian exiles in the south to gather the intelligence needed for possible strikes against Iran's 13 or more suspected nuclear sites, according to serving and retired U.S. intelligence officials.

    Both groups are doing cross border incursions into Iran, some in conjunction with U.S. Special Forces, these sources said.

    They claimed the Kurds operating from Kurdistan, in areas they control. The second group, working from the south, is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, operating from southern Iraq, these sources said.

    The use of the MEK for U.S.-intelligence-gathering missions strikes some former U.S. intelligence officials as bizarre. The State Department's annual publication, "Patterns of Global Terrorism," lists them as a terrorist organization.

    According to the State Department report, the MEK were allies with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in fighting Iran and, in addition, "assisted Saddam in "suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime."

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/18/2007 @ 5:45pm

43. This terrorist group, Mujahedeen-e Khalq, actually felt comfortable enough to give a press conference in Washington D.C.

    I know, these thugs may be terrorists, but they are OUR terrorists.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/18/2007 @ 5:53pm

44. This terrorist group, Mujahedeen-e Khalq, actually felt comfortable enough to give a press conference in Washington D.C.

    I know, these thugs may be terrorists, but they are OUR terrorists.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/18/2007 @ 5:53pm

    They're also Manson-style nutcases. They worship their female leader, Maryam Rajavi, like a mother-God and let her decide who marries whom, when they're not being ordered to immolate themselves in a Paris street. You see, America wants to end the oppression of women by Islam, where the parents sometimes make marriage decisions. What a trainload of fertilizer.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 6:08pm

45. FRB: He's just babbling.

    Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007 @ 5:31pm

    If he didn't leak through other people's posts I wouldn't know he existed and wouldn't be able to care less. Why doesn't he take the cute teddy bear in military fatigues he got at the Republican convention and find a nice quiet place to take a nappy nap instead of making a pitiful fool of himself every day? Maybe he's trying to be bad because he needs someone to spank him.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 6:19pm

46. Hey gringos,

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/18/2007 @ 5:07pm

    Again, why do I bet CHIMI has blonde hair and blue eyes...like the suburban boys who turn their hats around sideways and say "Wassup, my n****a!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 6:52pm

47. " cursing Birdy again"

    ????

    Birdshit is the curse...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 5:29pm

    No, John. Have a gander at your words from less than an hour before:

    FROMREDSHITFORBRAINS,

    I would tell the Iranian leaders that you know a secret way to kill all the jews...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:32pm

    (and you wonder why so many people here think you drink to excess)

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/18/2007 @ 8:57pm

48. Again, why do I bet CHIMI has blonde hair and blue eyes...like the suburban boys who turn their hats around sideways and say "Wassup, my n****a!"

    Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 6:52pm

    Chimi lives in a place far more dangerous for a blond-haired, blue-eyed American expatriate than your city streets or mine would be for the average citizen, Mask. I believe that. I really don't think Chimi has ever lied about that.

    And think, just think of how hilarious it would be if folks here gave their impressions of you. Hee-hee. Ho-ho. Ha-ha. Ha.

    Hey, incidentally, have you ever seen that episode of South Park where the boys confine themselves to their rooms for over a month in order to defeat the World of Warcraft player who's been team-killing every other player in the game world?

    The offender is a big, fat, unshaven dork with glasses, cheezy poof crumbs all over the nasty gut hanging halfay out of his dirty t-shirt (and over his wildly straining belt); he's got a wrist brace on to fight off carpal tunnel syndrome from spending all day home alone in his apartment, at his computer, playing World of Warcraft. The guy doesn't even seem aware that he's otherwise lifeless and that everybody who even remotely knows him thinks he's a jerk.

    Have you seen that episode?

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/18/2007 @ 9:45pm

49. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/18/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Love the "Park"...especially when they hit on the PC, smarmy, and SMUG (as in "Smug Alert" episode) liberals.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 9:49pm

50. The US plays a very dangerous game, exploiting and utilizing these murderous fanatics, all over the world.

    Yes, we saw how that backfired on 9/11. The terrorist we used against The Soviets in Afghanistan turned on his handlers...

    I'm reminded of a Jerry Jeff Walker tune:

    "Pissin' in the wind,

    bettin' on a losing friend

    Makin' the same mistakes,

    we swear we'll never make again"

    Posted by Balrog at 01/18/2007 @ 10:11pm

51. Love the "Park"...especially when they hit on the PC, smarmy, and SMUG (as in "Smug Alert" episode) liberals.

    Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 9:49pm

    Yeah, you love just about anything that denigrates liberals.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/19/2007 @ 11:43am

52. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

    They import all oil products that are refined..IOW, they do not refine their oil. They import things such as cooking oils, gasolines..food stuffs and most importantly, they have water issues.

    My father in laws best friend was on water and oil projects there and said they rely heavily on desalination plants and imports, plus, their economy has stalled out due to their policies...they threaten to disrupt the oil flow through the ME, but if we had to, we could selectively take out the Iranian oil terminals and shut down their pipelines, then they have a good chance of drying up fast.

    These are just observations , but I think this is a case where a blockade of imports and a blockade of oil exports would completely turn the table on Iran.. I have read,(in the Economist) awhile back that Iran has a huge cash crunch and they spend their oil revenues as fast as they get them...we would not want to drive the poipulation into the hands of the mullahs who are not all that popular and the population in general is young and pro west...we need to let THE IRANIANS do their dirty work themselves, if they are so inclined and provide invisible help...one could sabatage the country from the out side...

    Oh John, you really shouldn't try to develop strategy, you don't have the head for it.

    There are some aspects of the situation you have right (Iran does import some refined petroleum products and certainly has a water problem) but to say that they don't refine their oil is silly and counter-factual. In fact, their real problem is simply that domestic consumption is growing faster than domestic production which is threatening their export sector and consequently the flow of foreign exchange. Try this report [researchandmarkets.com] compiled by Prime Vistas Research and Consulting on the current state of the Iranian oil industry for a proper picture. The critical element isn't even one of their refining capacity in any case, but of who their export customers are. With the recent deals, they are now a major exporter to both China and India (as well as a major gas exporter to China in the near future) and are thus largely untouchable when it comes to their oil capacities. The implications of striking Iranian oil facilities are very serious indeed, since neither China or India are likely to look favorably on any interruption of the flow of oil and have enough political and economic clout to hit back at us if we do. Just imagine a quick dump of U.S. dollars by Chinese banks in favor of Euros or Yen and you can see exactly why this is a silly strategic move.

    As far as the idea that we could cause internal disruptions amoung Iranian youth by any overt action, forget it. While many young people are tacitly favorable to Americans and the West in general, that does not translate into support for U.S. actions against their own country. Any attempt to strong-arm Iran in this kind of blunt manner will only lead to reinforcing the radicals like Ahmedinejad and the mullahs. Iranians are highly patriotic people with a long national heritage (unlike Iraqis, they are not an artificial state and have a fair amount of ethnic homogeneity.) Threaten them too much and you'll have the classic "rally 'round the flag" response we know so well from our own history. While I agree that the youth movements in Iran will probably lead to an eventual sidelining of the mullahs and a more open society, that is not something we can bring about by direct action. I must be internally generated as well as internally conducted.

    This is one of the reasons that you are certainly right that "boots on the ground" would be a terrible idea, though I'm not so sanguine that BushCo will see it that way. That is one of your rational assessments, and BushCo has shown themselves impervious to exactly that kind of rationality.

    I would also whisper loud enough for all to hear, that if we, the US, has a huge terrorist attack(nuke or bio), that with in 24 hrs...Terhan disappears as an example, and that the next Caliphate, if he arrives, will not be ruling from Iran...that otta rattled the nuts...

    This little piece of strategic madness I saved for special attention. There are a number of problems with this idea and I'll take them in order:

    1) It assumes that the Iranians are actually capable of producing a nuke (or will be soon.) Yet every piece of reliable evidence says that they will not be able to produce a nuke any time soon (best estimates put it at ten years at the soonest, assuming they can overcome their recent problems with enrichment centrifuge cascades.) The IAEA, while still being very active in pursuing Iran's possibly undeclared work, has made clear that the Iranians are not diverting material in anything like the amounts necessary to produce nukes by plutonium seperation and they do not yet have the capacity for uranium enrichment to weapons-grade levels (they have only once even managed reactor-grade material, which is only about 4% enriched, vs. the 90%+ required for weapons-grade material.) Take a look at the vast store of data the IAEA has on this matter here [iaea.org].

    2) Even if the Iranians somehow acquired a nuke (or a few nukes) the likelyhood that they would allow these out of strictly controlled hands is virtually nil. The risks would simply be too great and the likelyhood that any loose nuke could be traced back to them (if they produced it) would be far too great. Governments simply do not develop such weapons to hand them over to others, given the costs involved and the dangers they represent even to those who make them.

    3) The probability that we could know within 24 hours of a nuclear explosion anything about what the bomb was composed of or where it might have been made is nil. It takes fairly sophisticated analysis of fallout, radiation signatures, and a host of other evidence to have any chance of knowing where a nuke came from (and thus who might have used it) unless we actually see it being delivered (an ICBM, for instance, would naturally reveal its point of origin.) That is not a circumstance that is likely to exist in any terrorist use of a nuke.

    4) The one certainty that we know about threats to employ nuclear weapons is that they produce a strong desire in those threatened to acquire nukes of their own. The Soviets became much more interested in nukes after Truman used them as a bargaining chip at the Potsdam Conference and they saw U.S. nuke production as a threat. The India/Pakistan nuclear arms race was predicated on the idea that either couldn't afford to allow the other to develop nukes first because both believed the other would use that threat to strong-arm a settlement of outstanding issues. Threatening Iran with nukes only makes them want nukes themselves to push back.

    5) The reaction of the world to a terrorist nuke would be, quite naturally, shock and a general push to track down and punish those responsible (including any state that might be involved.) But the reaction to a knee-jerk reaction strike by the U.S. would be even worse, since they would have a clear target for that shock, especially if it was later shown that our counter-strike was incorrect. It would be an ultimately self-defeating act and make us the ultimate international pariah. Imagine the entire world community cooperating against the U.S., trade embargoes (including oil), economic and banking sanctions, no diplomatic relations, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The U.S. cannot use our nuclear weapons power without ironclad proof or an obvious attacker or we risk far more harm than even a single nuclear attack could produce.

    The whole plan is madness, John. We cannot go to war with Iran in any way, with or without boots on the ground. The implications for our own national interests are simply too dangerous, too damaging. This is why you have even conservative Republicans coming out of the woodwork to oppose any move by BushCo toward war with Iran. They know the dangers and just how bad it could get for the U.S. if we pursued such a strategically idiotic course. We can get Iran to behave in the short term by careful and clever diplomacy and let the long term evolution of their system make them into a potential friend rather than a threat. That is good strategy and serve our interest far better than aggressive posturing and threats of raining nuclear fire from the skys.

    Posted by Stwriley at 01/19/2007 @ 11:51am

53. Posted by STWRILEY 01/19/2007 @ 11:51am | ignore this person

    reasoned and articulate. you are a beacon in the darkness of juvenile ad hominem attacks.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2007 @ 12:13pm

54. Posted by STWRILEY 01/19/2007 @ 11:51am

    STW, just curious....what do you think "the international community" would do to Iran, if they DID discover that they had given a nuke to a terrorist organization and that terrorist organization had nuked....

    Tel Aviv?

    Specifically. Total sanctions? UN/NATO/Coalition invasion? Strongly-worded letter? (take all considerations into account)

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2007 @ 4:15pm