Article

2004-09-27 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 Mrs. Davis 2004-09-27 6:33:29 PM|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The most obvious and most straightforward parts of the war have been done with: Afghanistan (had to be taken care of, and quickly) and Iraq (establishing a base of operations for the coming phase). Neither involved much uncertainty; the "what" was obvious to all, and only the "when" and the "exactly how" were kept obscured from our enemies-- and from us.

But from here on out, it's ALL going to be murky; and at times it's going to seem like we're not doing a damn thing at all-- and it may seem like we're not ever going to, either.

That's bad for our enemies, and it's also bad for our nerves. My nerves, especially: I've got a kid over there who's very likely going to be in the thick of it if it starts before about next March.

Hang in there, people. These things take a lot of preparation, and very little of it is evident from our point of view. And it shouldn't be.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-09-27 8:00:06 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:00:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I am sure that we are revising plans and making new ones for military ops in Syria. However, there are things going on in Syria right now that may indicate change. Like a boom on a hamas biggie, like some troops being pulled back out of Lebanon. Maybe Hamas and Hisb'allah are becoming more like liabilities to Syria than assets. Time will tell if we have a trend. The thing that I keep thinking about is if we can change Syria by quiet diplomacy, coupled with covert means, it will be more possible to do something similar with Iran. I do not think, however, that diplomacy is going to really help the Iran case, except for some pressure. Syria peacefully exiting the camp of Iran would be a tremendous blow to the Black Turbans.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in Syria during the coming 3 months.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-09-27 8:00:11 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:00:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Why can't we pull large numbers of troops from Europe and Japan and send them to the middle east?

Syria certainly has it's share of sins to pay for, but it seems to me that Iran would be the more pressing issue.

Posted by RJB in JC MO 2004-09-27 8:00:18 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:00:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I vote for Iran first. Once it's gone, Syria will cave jig-time.

Posted by Anonymous6692 2004-09-27 8:16:28 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:16:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Agreed. An Iran decap strike, if serious and successful, is a three-fer with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon all falling into the chaotic Missing-Paymaster-Mullah-Vacuum.

Melike.

Posted by .com 2004-09-27 8:22:40 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:22:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm voting for Bush, but here's the painful paradox that makes me consider voting for Kerry: it is going to be almost impossible for Bush to take out Iran. The opposition, externally from other countries, and internally from democrats (and a lot of republicans), if he started down that track will make Iraq look like a cakewalk. I just don't think he will be able to manage it. Fewer allies would join, and it might be asking too much from the US people, who are pretty wary of another war at this point. Kerry would have more credibility to take out the Mullah's--only-Nixon-could-go-to-China kind of a deal. But I don't see Kerry having the nerve or long-term vision to do it. If he did, I would be even more perplexed, because I think we need a president who can take on the Mullahs in the next four years.

Posted by sludj 2004-09-27 8:32:28 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:32:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Being an absolute dictator, Assad is considerably more flexible than are the mullahs. The effort for the time being, more than anything else, will be to convince him that the status quo of the middle east has changed, and he must change with it. However, he sits under the sword of Damocles, and he is painfully aware of the fact. So even under the best of circumstances, it will take a long time for him to "get his ducks in a row", to prevent an utter collapse of his regime. Another factor pushing him towards instability is Egypt, a nation becoming dangerously imbalanced. They are the wild card in this entire process. Iran, on the other hand, has begun to resemble Japan before the Pacific War. Theirs is a aggression based on machismo as much as ignorance, and this lust for their "place in the sun" must be utterly broken. They will either strike first in an ill-conceived assault, just to show they can; or they will be attacked pre-emtively by Israel, and the US will see to it that their response is neutralized and ineffective. From that point on, they are at the tip of the bayonet. If nuclear weapons become an issue, the best thing the US could do would be to issue a "death list" of their leaders and scientists, by name and face, to let the Iranian people know that these people MUST die for their to be peace.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-09-27 8:34:56 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:34:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually that death list could be covertly issued right now. Why wait?

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-27 8:37:23 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-27 8:37:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Interesting this leaks the same day Bush says Iran will not get the bomb. The same week of the first presidential debate on foreign affairs. Bush is staking out the hawkish territory to force Kerry to either look weak or alienate his base.

And by focusing the first debate on foreign policy Bush is setting himself up to have a foreign policy mandate if he wins big. His second "first hundred days" could be more interesting in the ME than domestically. Australia will also have an election behind it with a hawkish victory.

If you're an islamofascist, you're starting to get squeezed.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-27 8:49:32 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:49:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Military action against Iran would not be a full blown invasion.
My take would be a simultaneous full force aerial attack on any known nuke site plus a massive decapitation strike that can possibly jeopardize the Iranian chain of command. Both must be complete surprise attacks. Professional hit squads should take care of any ranking mullah they can find.
Allow for a maximum chaos situation, then give any possible help to the anti-mullah forces.
Most Iranians are U.S. friendly (more so than the Iraqis in 2002) and they want the mullahs gone.
Then offer Baby Assad the Ghadaffi option. Remnain the strongman but cough up the WMD and vacate Lebanon.
I'd be less happy about Syria falling into anarchy... they don't have the progressive forces that can take over like in Iran.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 8:50:43 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:50:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Without taking out the Revolutionary Guards you would have a real mess. They wield the force in Iran. They are well trained and are zealots.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-27 8:54:34 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-27 8:54:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6693 TROLL 2004-09-27 8:56:31 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:56:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 TGA, Unlike WWII where the strategy was Germany First this one is Iran last. Syria goes next so that we don't have to watch our backside in Iraq when it's Iran's turn. I agree, no land forces into Iran, but we would send them into Syria if BA wond play Ghadaffi to secure Iraq personnel and weapons shipped there. We will also need to de-Baathify Syria or the job will not be done. This is the last regime with fascist heritage, and it must be rooted out.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-27 8:58:41 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:58:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 TGA, agree 100%.

SPoD, that's a given. It is also possible that in the ensuing chaos, being a foreigner (majority) RG would be like having painted the bullseye on the back. On the front too.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-27 9:00:01 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:00:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The roach is back. Sigh.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-27 9:00:57 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:00:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Maintenance, Troll clean-up in Aisle 12.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-27 9:01:26 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:01:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mrs Davis
I'm not sure if time's on our side with Iran. I don't know how close they REALLY are to have the bomb (although there is some German intelligence on the matter).
Syria is even easier to defeat than Iraq but might be difficult to control after that. Who would be in charge after taking out the Baathists?
Baby Assad isn't nearly hated as much as Hafis, and Syrians would probably go into guerilla mode. A messy situation that would bind too many U.S. forces.
Syrians are annoying, terrorist sponsoring... but Iran is the big picture. If the tanks had just rolled on to Damascus in March 2003 in "hot pursuit" of the Iraqi WMD's, that would be different. But now?
Israel could always handle Syria alone if need to.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 9:10:41 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:10:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I don't think that our decap strikes worked very well in Iraq. Even Chemical Ali returned from the dead. I would think that the target ought to be the Revolutionary Guard. If we can damage them, maybe the populous will take care of business.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-09-27 10:08:37 PM|| 2004-09-27 10:08:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 From an armchair generals view point I have a tough time seeing much hope for a change of regime in Iran any time soon. There is just too many Revolutionary Guards answering directly to the mullahs who have the money. The regular army is keep on a short leash for weapons and money, and the RG watches them real closely. The small student demonstrations are just a small pressure relief mechanism that will not be allow to boil over.

We don't have the troops to make a solid effort via invasion. With the rotations in and out of Iraq and Afganistan and having a presence in South Korea leaves little or no slack. Our conventional decapitation strikes haven't been a resounding success and if we tried and failed, the mullahs would have no restraint on nuclear attack.

Unless we have a very large rabbit in the hat I think we will have to wait at least two to three years before Iran is ripe to pick.

Posted by Old Fogey 2004-09-27 10:42:20 PM|| 2004-09-27 10:42:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Dja ya'll ever consdier that perhaps Russia may want a piece of Iran; they may want to help? The mullahs have been funding regional Islamic groups since they have been in business, they have been sabre rattling the last few years. Perhaps Beslan is the motivation Putin needs to remove this sore from the buttocks of the earth: Th Mullahs.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-27 11:05:37 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-27 11:05:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6693 2004-09-27 8:56:31 PM|| 2004-09-27 8:56:31 PM|| Front Page Top

20:56 Anonymous6693
06:35 Anonymous6334
06:29 Anonymous6334
06:26 Anonymous6334
06:20 Anonymous6334
06:17 Anonymous6334
18:46 Anonymous6334
18:35 Anonymous6334
15:35 Anonymous6334
15:26 Anonymous6334
15:22 Anonymous6334
19:47 Anonymous6334
19:37 Anonymous6334
18:23 Anonymous6334
14:32 Anonymous6334
08:14 Anonymous6334
17:37 Anonymous6334
16:16 Anonymous6334
23:34 Zenster
23:13 smn
23:11 .com
23:06 Anonymous6694
23:05 badanov
23:03 Lone Ranger