Article

2005-01-12 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-01-12 1:27:34 PM|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 well, I guess I have crow to eat. I always thought Russia would be willing to work with the US to fight their own terrorist threat. Apparently, not.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 1:57:18 PM|| 2005-01-12 1:57:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Me too. Rats.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-01-12 2:08:36 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:08:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Wouldn't this land him in about the same category as the "esteemed" Khan?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-12 2:08:41 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:08:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't trust Putin despite Bush saying he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. Bush didn't say exactly what the nature of Putin's soul was that he saw. Putin sounds and acts too much like old USSR. He is former KGB (or equivalent). He is consolidating power in Russia and trying to do so in some of the former satellites by proxy or puppet.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 2:09:30 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:09:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Nice gear, if it really works. Also nice if the vaunted Syrian military can figure out the "on" button. If not, then Russia may have to supply "contractors" as well.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2005-01-12 2:33:52 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-01-12 2:33:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Sadly,not much has really changed since 9-11. Many,indeed most, of the "world players" think its still the 1970's and 1980's when Syria was a proxy for the old Soviet Union. Certainly Putin does.

Syria wants to buy advanced arms from Russia? Get 'em while their hot boys. You're gonna need 'em.

Posted by Mark Z. 2005-01-12 2:39:05 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:39:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Still hope he crushes the Chechens - Vlade the Impaler is still the lesser of two evils.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-01-12 2:39:13 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:39:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Oh..like these arms won't find their way to the Islamists. He's crazy.

Posted by anon 2005-01-12 2:54:18 PM|| 2005-01-12 2:54:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Of course this is via DEBKA. Perhaps he's really not crazy and this story won't pan out.

Posted by eLarson 2005-01-12 3:23:03 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-01-12 3:23:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I am strongly in favor of the US delivering advanced weapons to Syria -- especially JDAMs, Daisy Cutters, Tomahawks, MOABs, Hellfires, etc. All in favor say "Aye!"

Posted by Tibor 2005-01-12 3:42:30 PM|| 2005-01-12 3:42:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't trust Putin despite Bush saying he looked into his eyes and saw his soul.

Ever since I first saw Putin I always thought the guy looked a little shifty. It's always been said that a book is best not judged by its cover, but as far as I'm concerned, Putin doesn't inspire a lot of faith. Or trust, for that matter.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-12 3:56:53 PM|| 2005-01-12 3:56:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Syria supports secular Pal groups, Hezbollah, and less directly Hamas and Islamic Jihad. NONE of which target Russia, or support the Chechen rebels, so this hardly shows they wont work with us to fight their own terrorist threat, just as France will work with us against AQ. Which it does, BTW. However like France, Russia is trying to establish its own role as a great power against us. Especially when they see us as not respecting their sphere of influence (there are very good reasons we havent in Georgia and Ukraine, but thats another thing) It natural that they will take it out on Israel. Israel has no possibility, and (for the most part) no inclination, to reconcile with Russia against US interests, despite some opinion in Israel (reflected here) on a natural confluence of interests. Esp with Peres in the govt, and the Pal election, Sharon is more firmly aligned with Bush admin policy than ever.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-12 4:15:42 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:15:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Gee, with nuke technology to Iran and anti-GPS systems to Iraq, the funny thing is that y'all are again and again surprised at the fact that Putin is on the *side* of the Islamofascists, especially the Syria-Iran axis.

I keep on wondering whether if not for Bush's faith on what he saw in "Vladimir's" eyes (let's keep in mind Dubya keeps on referring to him with his first name), the whole conservative blogosphere would have stopped treating Putin with kidgloves a long time ago.

I always thought Russia would be willing to work with the US to fight their own terrorist threat

Russia's "own terrorist threat" has, if anything, been a blessing to Putin, as it let him consolidate his tyranny faster than he would otherwise have done. So I don't think he's really concerned about it. Why would he care about children dying in Beslan?

"Bush didn't say exactly what the nature of Putin's soul was that he saw."

Bush said: âI found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.â

Anyway, if Bush *had* specified further that he'd seen happy bunnies flolicking in green meadows, that would have been okay and you'd trust Putin regardless of the things he's done?

Follow the lemming.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 4:23:03 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 4:23:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Bush said: âI found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue."

That'll teach him for using the French method.

Aris-Your comment of today, in which you imply that everyone on this site is a devotee of Putin, and of the other day, in which you said that only TGA and LH have views which diverge from one monolithic Rantburg view, is incorrect.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-12 4:27:13 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:27:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Jules> "in which you imply that everyone on this site is a devotee of Putin"

In issues like Putin, just like with China, there's a bit more disagreement.

"in which you said that only TGA and LH have views which diverge from one monolithic Rantburg view, is incorrect."

Yeah, there's also Mike.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 4:31:03 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 4:31:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Well-your humor remains intact but not your discernment.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-12 4:34:06 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:34:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 ooh, did i get mentioned? And I wasnt even here. Thanks AK, though from time to time there is some diversity. It can be subtle, though. On Putin that is. On other things theres more diversity. In particular theres the division between an LGFish "hateIslam" viewpoint, and one closer to more mainstream neocon strategy. There are others who while supporting OIF, lean more traditional realpolitik than neocon. Etc, etc. If it was THAT monolithic I wouldnt stay here. I do think that we may have scared off some moderate voices, though (not that I have anyone in mind) and I wouldnt mind a tad fewer voices on the far right end, but this aint no LGF. Not that LGF isnt diverse in its own way, though the whole spectrum is rather farther over. There its not the HATE muslim crew thats the far right, Im afraid.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-12 4:35:28 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:35:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Syria's bought Russian and Soviet gear before haven't they? How effective was it? With the one exception of the SA-6 batteries I can't think of a single example.... Wait! the early wire guided ATGM slowed down the IDF for a couple of days.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-12 4:35:37 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:35:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Putin is on the *side* of the Islamofascists, especially the Syria-Iran axis.

well Putin distinguishes the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis from AQ. As do France, Germany and the UK, for that matter.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-12 4:37:35 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:37:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Informational question re UK, Germany, France & Russia-do these same powers all officially recognize political parties with suicide squad "wings" as legitimate political parties?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-12 4:44:10 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:44:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 It's true, Putin, like Chirac, had no qualms about working with the likes of Sadaam, with black market deals that allowed the spigots of money and oil to flow into Russia, and you are right that terrorist activity in his back yard had the side effect of allowing him to consolidate his power.

But just as Stalin saw beneifts to cooperating with Hitler, it should be even more clear that Iran and other Islamist states, once empowered, will likewise turn on Russia.

You make a good point LH - about the Pals -but looking at the macro picture, it would be just wrong to think that once these arms make their way into the terrorist network, that they wouldn't make their way back to the Chechen rebels or to Iran.

Putin is acting small and short term. Ultimately - a nuclear armed Iran will be his biggest threat....but he, like Chirac, seems far more interested in the short term gains/profits that he obtains by dealing with despots. In the long term, it will bite Russia much harder than it will bite us. I completely underestimated that he cared more for the short-term blackmarket riches than he did for the long term health of his country.

Posted by G5 2005-01-12 4:51:39 PM|| 2005-01-12 4:51:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 As the risk of lacking political correctness, Putty-Put is a rather vertically challenged male. Put him in a Napoleon suit and he is the spitting image.

The poor dear is also suffering from an inferiority complex. It doesn't surprise me that he consistently pisses on the leg of Uncle Sam.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-12 5:07:24 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:07:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Oh, and Putty's wife would stop a speeding locomotive at 500 yards.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-12 5:09:17 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:09:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Otherwise known as butt-ugly.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-12 5:10:04 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:10:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 When the Israeli prime minister informed [Putin] that the Law of Return forbids prosecution or extradition unless laws are broken, Putin was disbelieving. He later sneered to his aides that he had not known that the Law of Return applied to members of the Russian Christian Orthodox Church, a veiled reference to the Russian oligarchsâ hired personnel who relocated with them to Israel.

The Russian oligarchs have indeed committed many felonies, among them fraud, larceny, tax evasion, and probably homicide. Berezovsky is widely believed to have ordered the murder of at least two of his rivals during the early 1990s, and it's very likely that one or more of Khodorkovsky, Guzinsky and Fridman also ordered hits on rivals during the first phase of "primitive accumulation" of assets in the years immediately after Yeltsin's privatization law was passed in 1992.

It would be extremely unwise for Israel to give shelter or support to these thugs, regardless of their jewish "faith."

Posted by lex 2005-01-12 5:37:08 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:37:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The ability of "advanced" SAMs like the SA-10 to fully neutralize opposing airpower has been trumpeted for 50 years. Except for brief periods like the opening stage of the Yom Kippur war, it has never really panned out.

In the 1950s, the ability of the new missiles to take down hostile aircraft was so widely accepted that the British government issued a White Paper in 1957 effectively ending the development of combat aircraft. This was one of the worst technological blunders in history, and the British industry never really recovered. At the same time, the new air-to-air missiles were regarded even by acknowledged expert to be so effective that fighters could safely dispense with guns. This policy proved to be lethally mistaken and guns were hurriedly put back into fighters after the AAMs failed to perform as advertised in Vietnam and the Middle East.
The Royal Navy, like its US counterpart, also bought into the missile fever, and their case wasn't cured until British SAMs failed to protect the fleet during the Falklands war of 1982, despite the Argentine Air Force's complete lack of advanced counter-measures.

The SA-10 itself is a fairly old system, dating back to the 70s and is one of the few Soviet-era weapons that was an acknowledged copy of a western original, the US Navy's Standard shipboard SAM in this case (though there have been many changes since). It suffers from the same defect as all radar-guided SAMs, vulnerability to jamming and curve of the Earth limitations.

Left-wing anti-military activists, including many otherwise stone-ignorant rank and filers, have a seemingly paradoxical habit of championing the infallibility of missiles, billing them as a counter to western air and seapower. We saw this recently on Rantburg when a visiting lefty asserted that it was impossible for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities because Iran now had "advanced" Russian SAMs like the SA-10. Another example is a pro-doper student who recently told me that South American governments could no longer use aircraft against the cartels because the cartels now have shoulder-fired missiles themselves.
This requires an absurdly simplistic assumption about how, and how well, these systems work; but all military affairs must be reduced to simple terms when your self-image depends on maintaining the Hawkeye/Trapper John assumption of intellectual superiority.
Suffice to say, stories about Arab nations getting the latest Russian missiles have been a staple scare-tactic since 1955 and they have yet to put the IDF out of business.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-12 5:55:08 PM|| 2005-01-12 5:55:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 it would be nice to believe you, AC. I hope you are right. Come on, USA geeks. We depend on you!

Liberals: lower standards and proud of it

Posted by 2b 2005-01-12 6:03:48 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:03:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 AC got 'em SAM belt points for that post.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-12 6:43:01 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:43:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 If it is the SA-10 and if Putin follows standard Soviet/Russian export traditions, those particular missiles are not much of a threat to either Israel or the US. Standard export practice in the old days was for the Sovs to ship out "export version only" makes of their equipment : thanks to efforts in the early 1990s, we have functional units of those missiles in hand. -Thank you Ukraine and Poland :)-
If they are the updated versions, still not much of a threat to integrated AA countermessures like the US and Israel field.
The shoulder-fired are more worrisome since they are ideal for taking out jet airliners during takeoff or landings.

Posted by Glereger Ebbereling9243 2005-01-12 6:44:43 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:44:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 For obvious reasons I don't get fooled by Russia. I didn't comment too much when lex touted the new alliance US-Russia-India and was quick to cut the traditional transatlantic ties. Russia will never be an "ally" of the United States: It is way too big and despite its deep fall in the 90s it still considers itself a superpower. Russia is still able to wipe out the U.S. (same consequences apply as during the cold war).

But the most important thing: Russia has a lot more patience than the U.S. As you may know I have been involved in strategic NATO planning for a long time. There were two "schools". One school of thinking defended the view that the ultimate goal of the Soviet Union was to reach the Atlantic Ocean. I belonged to the other school that believed that the ultimate goal of the USSR was (and still is) to control... the Persian Gulf (with a weak, appeasing Western Europe that wouldn't have to be invaded).

I did bring up the subject in a meeting with Condi Rice in 1990 (she was involved in the 2+4 reunification talks in Germany).
She's of the Persian Gulf School.
Guess why she will be the next Secretary of State.

There are people who believe that we're in WW IV. No, I'm afraid we're still in the Cold War. Just the players are shifting places. In the future Iraq may be seen as one of those "proxy wars", in the line with Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the simmering African and Latin American conflict. Just the energy problem has become more virulent. And the stakes are higher this time. The U.S. must make decisive progress in Iraq this year.

The United States can't fight on all fronts. It's time to start with the obvious. Despite all those irritating policies coming from Paris, we need to renew and modernize the Transatlantic Union. I hope the upcoming Munich Security Conference (likely to be attended by Rumsfeld and Rice) and President Bush's visit in Europe (and Germany) will be important steps in the right direction. Don't listen too much to press coverage, you probably won't learn about what really is going on behind the scenes for years to come.

Russia has far more problems than most people imagine, its energy problems are bigger than you believe. Russia/China/Iran could develop into the biggest headache the West will face in the next years. Islamist terror, as dangerous as it may be, could just be a sideshow.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-12 6:54:38 PM|| 2005-01-12 6:54:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Thanks, TGA, that was interesting. Do you think the Bush administration actually has unrealistically optimistic expectations about Russia's potential as an ally? Or is the "Vlad is our friend" talk we've heard from time to time just lip service? My own guess would be that Bush & Co. aren't really fooling themselves about Putin, but that's just my guess.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-12 7:05:16 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:05:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Excellent TGA. I spent a lot of time asking myself recently about the seemingly irrational French, Russian, Chinese, Arab behavior of the past few years. Because deep down I knew it _wasn't_ irrational behavior. Another big energy crunch is coming. The US is especially vulnerable. The behavior of Russia, China, France, and the Islamists all make sense when you assume that they are all maneuvering to get the best possible position with regard to the US during and after the next energy shortage.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-01-12 7:34:41 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:34:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Agree. Thanks TGA. However, the Transatlantic union, as you call it, is mortally wounded. The French have simply sided with the enemy too many times. They cannot be an ally. They cannot be trusted. They yearn for our defeat.

We cannot fight on all fronts. The real issue is where Britain and Germany will end up. If they choose to go dhimmi, Europe may be an albatross. I am not optomistic.

It is WWIV. The cold war ended with the fall of communism; but we are back to the Great Game. And Russia must be denied Persia, you are correct. That is why India is now so important to us. That is the place Bush should visit. That is the important ally to be.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 7:38:31 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:38:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Dave D, hold your enemy closer as the saying goes. Schroeder seems to be a rather stubborn "friend" and defender of Putin, but again, nobody is fooled by Russia's nature. I don't think the Bush administration is any dumber.

And yes 11A5S, there is nothing irrational about France: They know very well what they are doing. France often tries to "impersonate" the policy of the whole EU, which should fool no one. Germany will slowly shift away from France's close embrace. It only slowly dawns on people that France is not really our "friend". It was France that killed the German economic independence by killing the Deutschmark with the Euro (a price Kohl had to pay for reunification), it's France that's jeopardizing the ties between the U.S. and Germany. They might be a lot of irritation over Iraq, fueled by a leftist government, but most "sane" Germans think "transatlantic" rather than "trans-Rhine".
The islamists are probably just pawns in that bigger power game. But never forget, the pawn can endanger the King.
It's playing out right now in Iran. Extremely smart politics will be needed in the Iran gambit. This is about much more than a few Iranian nukes.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-12 7:48:27 PM|| 2005-01-12 7:48:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 thisn educatin

putin in goddam confuser

Posted by muck4doo 2005-01-12 8:07:15 PM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-01-12 8:07:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 "Dave D, hold your enemy closer as the saying goes."

As I thought. Thank you.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-12 8:07:50 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 "This is about much more than a few Iranian nukes."

Huh? Wait a minute - only one Iranian nuke can ruin Israel's whole ~~day~~ existence. The health of the Trans-Atlantic relationship might be important, but it's a fluffy sigh in the wind relative to the Mad Mullahs making good on Rafsanjani's oft-repeated statement that they will wipe out Israel the very minute they have the delivery, guidance, and nuke to do it.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 8:10:37 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:10:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Economically we are becoming joined at the hip with China. This is not the case with Russia. Initially, when the USSR fell apart, it looked like Russia was going towards a Western-like economy with a free market. The transition has been slow coming and awkward. I'm not certain where the allegiances of Russia lie with regards to the US. We have few to no ties to Iran since the days of the Shah. Iran is isolated--mostly self-imposed. I don't see China becoming an ally of Russia. A Russia-Iran nexus seems to be shaping but why? Is Russia simply extending its sphere of influence? Is it longing for the old days of world power and developing proxies a la Iran? Is Russia worried about US domination of the midEast? I see a world-wide energy pinch in the future which is going to strain a lot of oil-dependent countries. These strains could get very serious.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 8:20:14 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:20:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 .com, a single "rogue nuke" used by terrorists could wipe out Israel as well. The mullahs are not "mad". They may harbor an irrational hate of Israel but they won't send their missiles into Jerusalem or Tel Aviv just yet.
The mullahs play a big big game of chess right now. It's our duty to convince them that nukes will ultimately not foster their power but sink them.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-12 8:20:58 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:20:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 TGA - The stakes riding on this game are far higher for the Israelis than ever was true of the West vs Sov Union. It only takes one to destroy tiny Israel. Rafsanjani, who has better than fair odds of becoming the next Iranian "President" has been clear. The Not? Mad Mullahs have been clear.

I have faith in your judgement, but this is the ultimate chess game - for the Israelis, and they're not at the table.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 8:27:49 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:27:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 "Mad Mullahs"

That's the issue however, whether the Mullahs are mad or not. If they are mad (as you believe), then they'll nuke Israel, Israel will nuke the whole region to oblivion, fun will be had by all. Nobody wins.

If they aren't mad, just evil tyrannical imperialists, (as *I* believe), then the nukes are there to help them scare away intervention from near or abroad as they pursue their more patient power games in the whole Middle-east, and aim for the position of regional superpower. Whether consolidation of tyranny internally or organizing Islamofascist terrorism elsewhere, nobody dares invade them as long as they have nukes.

With the latter scenario, Russia's alliance with Iran would probably have to be seen in the context of the Nazi's alliance with Japan. Russia's hopes of giving them nukes is not in order to destroy Israel (why would Russia care about Israel's existence or lack thereof?), but rather so that USA won't topple its ally.

In the latter scenario, Iran and Russia win. Which is why it makes more sense to me than the "Mad Mullah" scenario of them nuking Israel.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 8:28:48 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 8:28:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 The monkey wrench in the gears of your machine, however, is that they must acquire the delivery system, the guidance system, and the nuke package... what makes you think the US, unlike the E3, will sit by and allow this to occur? Bush has said it twice: Iran will not be allowed to have nukes.

When comparing the statements of various political leaders, one may be forgiven for being skeptical. But Bush? Seems to me that he has kept his word in such matters for 3 solid years, without flinching or mincing or dancing around issues.

Want to reassess based upon the actual evidence available rather than speculation?

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 8:43:13 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:43:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 so they're gonna nuke an "invading" SF ops, huh? In their own yard? I don't think so, Aris. Nukes are only useful if you're willing to use them, and against us - it will result in annihilation.

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 8:48:36 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:48:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 When given the chance, Bush has not reiterated the no nukes for Iran policy lately. I think he's choked.

Iran need not have a conventional delivery system. Hezbollah via containership will do.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 8:48:55 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:48:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 not a chance they'll let it out - they need it at home to be all "big guy on the block"

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 8:55:12 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:55:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Ãt"? You think they'll make only one?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 8:56:25 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:56:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 at first... I actually still don't think they'll get that far. IMHO

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 8:57:57 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:57:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 "what makes you think the US, unlike the E3, will sit by and allow this to occur?"

I make no predictions on what the US will "allow" to happen, I made prediction on what I believe Iran's and Russia's plans to have been.

And it's not a matter of whether Bush will keep his 'word' or not, it's also about what Iran believes Bull will be *able* to do about it. If they feel the US army won't be able to occupy Iraq at the same time as invading Iran, then they feel the game's theirs.

And ofcourse Bush won't be president for life. Some parts of their plans may be held off until a president which *hasn't* made such a promise.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 8:58:27 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 8:58:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Interesting Mrs D - I won't get pissy and expect links, but I still take him at his word.

And one other major factor has been left out of the equation: Israel. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain in stopping the MAD? Mullahs. Who here really believes they will sit idly by? The evidence, again, suggest otherwise.

BTW, personally, I do believe they're mad. Mad as hell... Their "foreign relations" history speaks for itself and is a classic textbook case of unrelenting paranoia, schizophrenia, and megalomania.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 8:59:06 PM|| 2005-01-12 8:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 This will come to a "head" within the next 4 years, you can count on that.

Invasion? Where have you been? No one is talking invasion.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:01:02 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:01:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Aris, the Mullahs may be both not mad and willing to start the war. They may believe that they can actually pull off a first strike, thanks to the small size of Israel.

I personally have my doubts about the reports of Israeli subs armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles patrolling the Indian Ocean... and Israel doesn't have anything like Montana or the Basin and Range country to lock away a deterrent force in.

Mrs. Davis: Iran doesn't seem impressed enough with Hezbollah to stop work on ballistic delivery systems.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-01-12 9:01:18 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-01-12 9:01:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 It's an open secret that should a nuke explode in Tel Aviv the last thing you'll hear in Tehran is.. "oh shit".
Because Israel will not bother to trace the nuke back and will take out any place where that nuke could have originated. Israel's submarines can operate even if no single Jew is alive in Israel.
I don't worry that much that Iran would use nukes against Israel or give them to terrorists (nukes are way too precious and important to lose control over them). But Iran could raise the political stakes and pursue a far more active hegemonial policy in the Gulf.
Of course, Iranian nukes will cancel any "first strike options" Israel may have had until now.
No Frank G, I disagree. Nukes are only "useful" if you are NOT willing to use them (but leave your enemy in doubt whether you would or not).
Only terrorists could "safely" use nukes. That's why I doubt that Iran would ever let a terrorist go near their nukes.
Nukes are an instrument of power and asymmetrical deterrence.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-12 9:03:40 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:03:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 TGA - The hegemony issue, per the regional "super" power desire, is rather significant, given the oil. Can any modern nation entertain the idea or allow such a thing to fall into the hands of the Iranians?

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:07:26 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:07:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Frank> "so they're gonna nuke an "invading" SF ops, huh?"

No, Israel will still be their target. Or ofcourse there's what Mrs. Davis suggested: "If you invade us, an all-ready nuke immediately goes to Hezbollah or Hamas or Al Qaeda".

The alternate scenario is utterly dependent on the mullah's supposed madness to use nukes even if their regime's not directly in danger. So, I think you're betting too much on their supposed sanity *not* to use nukes even if their country is in the process of invasion.

And either way it won't matter what they do, if their bluff *isn't* called. Mere intimidation may work to their advantage, without a need to actually nuke anything.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 9:07:56 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 9:07:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Rhetorical idea to consider... Another aspect comes to mind, TGA. How will the Iranians know an Israeli first strike has been launched? They aren't the US or Germany, who can detect such things with some measure of accuracy and thus respond before impact. Russia might alert them, but once the nukes were flying, I would suspect Russia would realize that this particular game is up. No doubt the Iranians are just a convenient card to play, and not their whole hand. The Iranians are far far behind the curve in every respect save the offensive package.

Back to Iran acquiring a regional power hegemony over this major oil producing region, I do not believe this is acceptable to anyone except Russia.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:15:14 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 I'm agreeing with you TGA, so I must not have made myself clear (to myself? happened before....).
Israel has nothing to lose, will not allow it's annihilation to go unavaenged and the hajj will require protective suits. Tehran will be gone as well. It would be an all-out lashout, and who can blame them. We would obviously need to take over Venezuela for no-radioactive oil, and China can go fuck themselves. Sound extreme? Take Rafsanjani at his word, and start the overthrow now to prevent the scenario. "Kill a mullah for the Earth"â¢ . BTW - New Jerusalem in New York would have few Paleo problems, wouldn't it?

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:16:47 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:16:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Stop using "invasion". Sigh. No one has suggested it, except you. It's a bullshit strawman.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:17:41 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 agreed - use "subversion, targetted assassinations, undermining and psyops"

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:19:22 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:19:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 I prefer decapitation strike, myself.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:20:11 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:20:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 I doubt the rationality ascribed to the muslims in the midEast. If suicide bombers exist on an individual basis, why is it not possible to consider the equivalent on a nation basis?

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 9:20:39 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:20:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 "No one has suggested it, except you."

And four years ago no one was suggesting the invasion of Iraq. So stop being shortsighted.

Not to mention that any threats against the prospect of invasion can be almost just as well made against the prospect of bombing in its entirety. You can wish them to forget Saddam, but perhaps they've not forgotten Milosevic either.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 9:21:27 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 9:21:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 To clarify, I think there are 2 strategic issues:

1) Iranian threat to Israel primarily, and secondarily to everyone else within range - which does beg the question of their sanity / policies. Their perfidy should be abundantly clear to everyone here - or is that also presumptuous?

2) Iranian hegemony over the region producing a majority of the world's exported oil.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:23:54 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Aris, y'all wanna translate #61? I lost you there

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:26:30 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:26:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 why wopuld we invade? Incursions, yes, but invasion would likely turn the Iranian people nationalist/against us as the Mullahs try to whip up the fodder... got it (#61)now

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:28:07 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:28:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 If suicide bombers exist on an individual basis, why is it not possible to consider the equivalent on a nation basis?

It's always possible to consider the equivalent on a nation basis. North Korea I wouldn't trust not to be suicidal. Or Zimbabwe.

But (ignoring nationalistic rhetoric), from what I know, the Iranian mullahs never seem to have done anything *actually* insane and self-destructive in their whole quest for power. They've sought and extended power efficiently. Underestimating them by calling them "mad" is dangerous, I think.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-12 9:29:10 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-12 9:29:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Links? We got links!
Washinton Times 12/21/04

[T]he president acknowledged that the United States does not have many tools to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions, now that Washington has imposed sanctions.
"We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran," he said. "In other words, we don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now."
...
Mr. Bush said he expects Iran to listen to other countries in much the same way he expects North Korea to listen to its neighbors who are demanding nuclear disarmament.
But he cautioned that diplomatic pressure on Iran should be given time to work and noted major differences between the situation with Tehran and the lengthy disputes with Saddam Hussein over Iraq's weapons programs.

He had the chance to tell them no way and he didn't. I don't like the trend, but I don't think he's got much choice, and neither does Israel. We're back to MAD. And agreed the mullahs are mad. The difference was the Soviets were rational revolutionaries who believed history was on their side not irrational fanatics with Allan on theirs.

Once Tehran has multiple nukes, it can follow multiple strategies. There are certainly enough sources for terrorist nukes now that the Mullahs have plausible deniability of involvement in any attack. No one would believe U. S. evidence that it was their material.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 9:30:36 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:30:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Many of you Americans are looking at nukes as if they are some evil genie in a bottle that has to stay there. I can't imagine why Iran would see it that way. I'll grant you that that is true when it is thousands of U.S. nukes vs. thousands of Russian nukes. But that's not what this is. Iran will have a small quantity if we don't act soon, and Iran will gain great leverage:

How will you respond if Iran tells you to remove a carrier group from the gulf or they will nuke it? Would you be willing to risk it? How would you retaliate if they did nuke a carrier group in the gulf? Nuke civilians?

What about if they threaten to destroy critical oil fields in Saudi Arabia? Would you be willing risk going without heat next winter? Would you risk an exchange that takes out both Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil -- drawing China and Europe into the conflict against you?

Are you willing to blockade Iran indefinitely to make sure that a nuke doesn't end up in an American port? If not, will you ever be secure.

If America is going to project power into the region and protect vital interests, America had better be willing to smack down anyone who wants to raise the stakes. That doesn't require an invasion, but you had better be willing to glass over any area that contributes to Iran's nuke capability. And considering Iran's stance toward The Great Satan over the last quarter century, you had better start lobbying for a pre-emptive strike.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-12 9:40:56 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:40:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 I'm still lobbying for a strike over the '79 hostages.

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:42:16 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:42:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 "And four years ago no one was suggesting the invasion of Iraq."

-was this blog site going before 9/11 2001? Since I was not here I cannot say. However, I do know the invasion of Iraq was in the works since about 1992. The actual plan itself as the one we have for N.Korea, Iran, etc. As far as any politicians mentioning invading Iraq four yrs ago I doubt it since Clinton would just be leaving office.

Posted by Hupereger Clish6229 aka Jarhead 2005-01-12 9:42:43 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:42:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Well put, Tom. I say Go Glass.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 9:43:37 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:43:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Mrs D - Thanks for the link / snippet... Interesting, but certainly not conclusive. For one thing, I believe Bush was speaking within the issue of the E3 negotiations. True, in the venue of a negotiated end to the Iranian nuke program, we are out of ammo.

I mentioned it once before, but the gutting of the CIA, the wasted 8 yrs under Clinton, Tenet's incredible failure... Tenet and Clinton may someday be known best for their failures regards the Middle East in general, and Iran in particular. I say that simply because the Persian people are ready for a little decap strike of their own - and if our CIA was working for US interests, we would have much in progress to help them, including the decapitation needed to remove their largest obstacles (Mullahs, Rev Guard, the Council, and the Basij), and assistance at every turn and phase.

That aside, I still see nothing to dissuade me from believing Bush sees the threat an Iranian ascendancy over the oil region - and would be compelled to prevent it. Remember, he has already been given almost blanket permission from the US House to put Iran down (HR388, IIRC), it has been amended in the Senate, but there is no true dissension. Bush has a green light. If the CIA isn't utterly worthless, then he has an opportunity to coordinate with the Persian people, then this will have legs for a decap, SF opn, in conjunction with an internal revolution - a real revolution. If not, then stopping them via air strikes, as many and as often as needed, are effectively authorized.

Posted by .com 2005-01-12 9:44:30 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:44:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 I worry about nation states such as Iran using stateless terrorists to implement the nuclear option--this goes to the issue of plausible deniability suggested by Mrs. Davis.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 9:46:55 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:46:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 As I said, should Israel be destroyed "plausible deniability" wouldn't help. I don't see the major players using nukes deliberately, but we're back to Cold War jitters. Things CAN go wrong. We will never know how close we were to total annihilation in the 80s.
What the E3 have been trying: Convince Iran not to enter that game. And Europe can only play the trade card.
Sanctions against Iran won't work since China, Russia and India (just signed a 60bn energy deal with Iran) will ignore them and nobody can afford to boycott the flow of oil anyway.
Post-mullah Iran will dominate the Gulf, that's for sure. If it's still around.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-12 9:47:10 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:47:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 TGA: Sanctions against Iran won't work since China, Russia and India (just signed a 60bn energy deal with Iran) will ignore them and nobody can afford to boycott the flow of oil anyway.
Post-mullah Iran will dominate the Gulf, that's for sure. If it's still around

heh heh - one word: Halliburton

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 9:52:31 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:52:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Post-Mullah Iran.

There's a pleasant thought.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 9:57:18 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:57:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 We need to achieve energy independence from the mideast. There is a solution, invade Canada and take over their oil fields. Ease up Canadians, I was just joking.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-12 9:58:47 PM|| 2005-01-12 9:58:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Fox News - breaking: US warns Russia not to supply arms to Syria....Back on Topic?

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 10:10:26 PM|| 2005-01-12 10:10:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Had we wandered far?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-12 10:12:08 PM|| 2005-01-12 10:12:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 LOL - not in my terms

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-12 10:15:40 PM|| 2005-01-12 10:15:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Russia/China/Iran could develop into the biggest headache the West will face in the next years

I agree, True German Ally.

A Russia-Iran nexus seems to be shaping but why? Is Russia simply extending its sphere of influence? Is it longing for the old days of world power and developing proxies a la Iran? Is Russia worried about US domination of the midEast?

Putin and the russian generals are feeling very besieged right now. The US has allies or at least activity in many of the eastern european countries and now in former soviet states as well.

We are in Iraq, a client state of Russia under Saddam. We are clearly not happy with Syria, historically another client state.

Why *wouldn't* Iran and Russia work together?

Re: China, the relationship is multifaceted. Economic relationships can change quickly.

Posted by rkb 2005-01-12 10:18:50 PM|| 2005-01-12 10:18:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 A Russia-Iran nexus seems to be shaping but why?

It's all business...nothing to see here move along.

Posted by Rafael 2005-01-12 11:14:32 PM|| 2005-01-12 11:14:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 There is a solution, invade Canada and take over their oil fields.

Unconventional oil supply. Extremely costly.

Ease up Canadians, I was just joking.

Some would say..."unfortunately".

Posted by Rafael 2005-01-12 11:17:14 PM|| 2005-01-12 11:17:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 TGA, thank you for your stupendously useful posts in this thread. The pertinence of your observations are invaluable.

Aris, you too have made some extremely good points. Thank you.

Personally, I feel as though Iran, regardless of their intent to nuke Israel or not, must be neutralized. They will serve no good purpose as a potent mid-east power and can only exacerbate an already volitale situation.

Neutralizing Iran is the best message America can send to both Russia and China (the true global terrorists). The United States must protect, both itself and the remaining global nations, against ascendancy of totalitarian regimes. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Syria all represent this sort of threat. All of them must go the way of the horse and cart.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-12 11:48:55 PM|| 2005-01-12 11:48:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Fred, is there anyway to leave this thread open for further discussion or repost it on tomorrow's play list? This is one of the best threads of late and it needs a complete and total hashing out.

Best Wishes,

Zenster.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-12 11:55:57 PM|| 2005-01-12 11:55:57 PM|| Front Page Top

00:08 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:00 2b
23:56 2b
23:55 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:33 Glerens Thimble7229
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:28 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 Zenster
23:17 Rafael
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:14 Rafael
23:07 Phil Fraering
23:01 Zenster
22:51 John Q. Citizen
22:47 Atomic Conspiracy
22:44 Frank G
22:35 Zhang Fei
22:34 Bomb-a-rama
22:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:31 smokeysinse
22:29 Bomb-a-rama
22:24 Frank G
22:21 eLarson