Article

2004-06-27 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Tehran Should Have Been Bush's First Target

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 Mark Espinola 2004-06-27 02:59|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Look for a Naval Blockade against Iran and North Korea towards the end of this summer. In the last week, the US has put to sea virtually every carrier group the its Navy. One for the Arabian peninsula and the other into the Pacific.

Posted by ZoGg 2004-06-27 12:52:32 PM|| [http://www.americanintelligence.us] 2004-06-27 12:52:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Lol! The lead (first sentence) just might be the stupidest sentence ever published by The Telegraph - I'll defer to our UK colleagues on that - but it certainly must rank right up near the top.

This article is like a series of pop-politics snapshots - a real smorgasbord of posibilites and speculations and assumptions. For the most part it's just silly - with the exception that, for the first half of the article they make a fairly solid cassis belli for toppling the Iranian regime... then pretend that the Mad Mullahs aren't the duplicitious and determined foes they just described by saying the EU3 are handling the situation while the US's hands (troops) are tied (up).

And, be still my beating heart, they worry about ME "stability" - what is this shit? A phreakin EU "mantra"? Stability is over-rated when the status quo is a shitload of dictatorships and thugocracies and mullahcracies and certifiably insane people using oil as an economic weapon against the West. Can I get a 'f**kin duh', children? Lol!

I note that if it all goes bad they postulate that it could "suck the US into an all-out war with Iran" - but Iran would not face anyone else, I see. Then there's a little speculation of an Israeli or US airstrike - no conclusions drawn - which is amazing - consider all of the juicy speculations they could've inserted! Wow - self-restraint.

Then they assert it's a EU3 "sanctions" thingy which is keeping things under control (ha!) at the moment - and they nuance this turd with the notion that the right pkg could sway the Mad Mullahs to behave. Then they say incentives are necessary. A reward, it seems, for the Black Hats following the Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed. Right. Then it devolves into the NorK game of assurances from attack in exchange for more rope-a-dope. Sheesh! What a friggin mess!

I guess they covered every possible avenue and theory - except one:
The US doesn't need to free up a lot of boots to effect regime change -- if the Iranian populace is as ready for their ovethrow as their recent demonstrations suggest. Huh. The one approach that makes long-term sense is the only one they missed. Who'da thunk it?

ZoGg - regards a blockade, have you played out the economic ramifications of even suggesting it by moving the requisite naval forces into the immediate area, much less doing it? Blockades are slow-motion war - and a blockade is, indeed, an act of War. What do you believe the effect of this tactic would be? Abdication by the Mullahs? Or, and much more likely since they are insane and already wealthy beyiond your wildest dreams and unconcerned with the effect on their populace, an even more determined effort and non-coop stance to make their deliverable nuke? In effect, applying whatever measure of acceleration they have left to them?

Benefits? I see none. Zero. Zip. I see large oil price increases and increased risk that, before November if possible, the Black Hats will try to nuke Israel - with whatever they can put together at their first opportunity.

If willing to do the blockade, why not go ahead with an airstike on every known nuke facility - and toss in their missile storage & launch facilities as well, if fixed positions? That is an imminently defendable action - per the article and common sense. A blockade would make it much more likely necessary, anyway.

If you have some special insight / intel, lay it out there, (if that doesn't compromise some source) bro!

Posted by .com 2004-06-27 1:43:27 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:43:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think the affect on the populace is actually the reason a blockade would be used. It would act as a tipping point to get the Reformers in Iran along with Shia in Iraq to move against the hardliners. Once they know they have our backing, along with some air cover

the dominoes would fall in Iran.

Posted by ZoGg 2004-06-27 3:18:30 PM|| [http://www.americanintelligence.us] 2004-06-27 3:18:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Lol! Love the "movie plane" image - I snarfed that one up, too! I'll bet the deck crew had a good laugh!

It comes down to one simple question:
Is the populace ready to do it?

Yes - tip the regime, and that's largely an air-attack and SForces operation, IMHO.

No - Hit as much of the infrastructure involved in a deliverable nuke pkg as can be identified - merely putting off the tip-regime response for another day.

The intel agencies should be able to do a better job of prepping the way to a tip-regime response without damaging the world economy to such a large degree. 8% of World Supply is very significant since almost everyone's peak-producing already - and a blockade is such a slow results-generator. Iran supplies quite a bit to Japan and EU countries (e.g. Italy) - these real allies will have a major bone to pick with this approach!

We shall see... Note that there is an incredible dearth of links for this topic, lol! The 2 I found of substance...

Notes:
1) OPlan 1002-04 needs updating, heh.
2) A nascent "blockade" against missile tech, the Madrid Initiative, is already on the books for missile and other proscribed weapons proliferation. Been a big success, heh. Blocking oil via maritime, of course, would be a no-brainer. Pipelines? Plans, yes, to China, but existing? Only one to Caspian port of Neka.

Posted by .com 2004-06-27 4:03:44 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:03:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The lead (first sentence) just might be the stupidest sentence ever published by The Telegraph - I'll defer to our UK colleagues on that - but it certainly must rank right up near the top.

Most stupid opening sentence perhaps. Mr. la Guardia certainly threw in quite a few howlers.

In all honesty, I'm not sure a total blockade as proposed by ZoGg would work. The difference between reformers and hardliners is a matter of degree, and not large one at that. A restive, disillusioned, but disorganized population might not... appreciate how a blockade would help them.

The one approach that makes long-term sense is the only one they missed.

More like the only one they refuse to consider. However, I think that one is already in the early stages, and not by the usual party.

Posted by Pappy 2004-06-27 9:38:54 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:38:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I am not proposing it happen, I think it is going to happen; North Korea and Iran both at the same time. I believe it was agreed to at the G-8 summit, and the players in the blockade will surprise people. I don't think the U.S. or the World in general has a choice when it comes to Nukes. Iraq had been at war with the U.S. for over 10 years, the only thing left was invasion. With Iran and Korea, you won't see the same road being followed.

Posted by ZoGg 2004-06-27 11:23:41 PM|| [http://www.americanintelligence.us/] 2004-06-27 11:23:41 PM|| Front Page Top

02:32 Bootlicker
02:30 Bootlicker
02:06 Bootlicker
01:57 Bootlicker
01:53 Bootlicker
01:50 Bootlicker
07:45 .com
07:25 .com
07:23 Robert Crawford
07:08 Anon1
07:06 Anon1
15:24 Super Hose
03:46 Anonymous5296
02:24 Another Dan
02:24 Anonymous5296
02:08 Anonymous4617
02:06 rex
01:52 rex
00:55 Anonymous4617
00:40 Victory Now Please
00:28 Anonymous5296
00:16 Mike Sylwester
00:12 Jarhead
00:11 rich woods