Article

2005-02-03 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Reading the tea leaves - Bush's Strategy on 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 DoctorZin 2005-02-03 4:30:32 PM|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I would not underestimate the possibility of a military assault using unusual tactics. For example, bottling up the cities and other strongpoints, then attacking the rural nuclear facilities. The purpose of this is to cut off their military from their civilian population--met in the field they could only surrender or die. This would amaze the Iranians by *not* destroying their cities, and most likely *capturing* most of their army. This would leave the Mullahs stuck in the cities, trying to motivate a civilian population to "go out there and die". Highly unlikely that this would last long. Then, we would make a deal with their military leaders that *they* should rule Iran as a junta until *fair* elections could be held--mullahs need not apply.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-03 7:05:28 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:05:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 ....don't think we have the boots available for such an action - unless we knew exactly which facilities were key. I don't think we have that kind of intel. It's a tough case. The diplo route may take a very long time. Military action probably can't guarantee the results we seek. At the very least, we need to ratchet up the pressure and be ready to face a nuclear Iran and be ready to back Israel if / when they take action.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-03 8:03:02 PM|| 2005-02-03 8:03:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I generally agree with this analysis. I particularly agree that an Iraq style invasion is both unfeasible due to manpower constraints and would risk causing Iranians to rally around the government.

Still, I have always been skeptical that a bunch of coffeehouse students have the spine to stick up to the harsh government crackdown that would follow any serious revolt.

However, the main vulnerabilty of the Mullacracy is that the sham elections they hold are a tacit admission that democracy is legitimate. This gives us, and the liberty seeking Iranians we support, a rhetorical opportunity with every election season to support human rights and real, free choice in leaders.

What's missing is a charasmatic, effective leader to become the alternative in waiting and followers willing to take up arms should he or she not be given their due. It's the latter missing requirement that distinguishes Iran from Georgia or the Ukraine. We better be contacting to the more sensible members of the Iranian military as Anonymoose states. I also hope to see us supporting organized exile movements.

In the 'election crisis' scenario I think is our best hope, limited use of US airpower and ground troops are conceivable if not likely. I'm no military expert, but I would expect missions to include interdiction Revolutionary Guard movement against friendly military formations, destroying secret police buildings, securing nuclear materials, etc. Our presence in Iraq would make this more doable than it would have been in the past despite our problems there.

If this best case scenario fails to work in time, massive air strikes should remain an option (taking this option of the table as advocated recently by Straw and Clinton is insane) but I would have to think they will be ineffective as the Iranians have had a long time to dig in. We may just fall back on our strategic triad -- second strike anhilation.

Posted by JAB 2005-02-03 8:30:05 PM|| 2005-02-03 8:30:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I think there will be military action of one sort or another. Remember, we don't have to stop their nuke program forever -- just delay it long enough for the bums to be tossed out.

Posted by someone 2005-02-03 8:50:52 PM|| 2005-02-03 8:50:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I think the author calls it pretty well. We are so engaged w/Iraq right now that Iran is three years off, at soonest.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-03 9:27:46 PM|| 2005-02-03 9:27:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I tend to agree with the article, but I also agree with Jarhead. We are stretched too thin for any more major projects in the style of Iraq. We sure do not have the occupation/nation building resources to take on another project. What we will need is a bunch of crowbars, i.e., leverage in key places to multiply our application of force. It seems to me that Syria needs a few well placed crowbars. Their actions or condoning of nefarious activities inside their country has been a source of misery to Iraqis and a source of loss of our troops in Iraq. Iran has a forward base in Syria. Take it away or neutralize it and more heat goes onto the MMs.

At the risk of being maudlin and over the top, I think that Bush, in his SOU address, raised the battle to a moral issue, just like Lincoln did in the War between the States. Fredrick Douglass used to work on Lincoln to take the moral high ground and to include liberation of the slaves as one of the war aims, and not to just explain the war as saving the Union. When the moral high ground was taken, it made the enemy weaker in people's eyes. Doing this with human rights in Iran is a smart move by President Bush.

We do not have the options in Iran that we had in Iraq. A regime change is an option that needs to be pursued. The human rights thing ought to make the EUniks uncomfortable, well, maybe. I would not count on it.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-02-03 11:06:23 PM|| 2005-02-03 11:06:23 PM|| Front Page Top

11:19 peggy
11:19 peggy
11:18 peggy
11:18 peggy
09:30 Liberalhawk
09:30 Liberalhawk
00:51 Gluper Angaiting8683
00:00 Zenster
23:59 .com
23:59 lex
23:57 lex
23:54 .com
23:54 lex
23:53 .com
23:53 Zenster
23:52 .com
23:51 Pappy
23:49 .com
23:47 lex
23:43 .com
23:40 God Save The World
23:40 Zenster
23:36 lex
23:31 Frank G