Article

2006-01-16 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 ed 2006-01-16 12:03|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Does anyone else believe that Iran poses LESS of a threat to US national security than is being touted by the media and general commentary? While I anticipate that the MSM and international bodies will attribute our lack of military response to the fact that we "do not have the stomach" to confront Iran, couldn't this simply be a case in which we perceive our interests as suffering less than other affected bodies? Presumably, Iran knows it faces nuclear annihilation if it were to attack our interests in Iraq (or anywhere, for that matter) with a nuclear first strike. Clearly, Iran is already interfering in Iraq to the extent that it can, through covert conventional means. So how, exactly, does a nuclear Iran represent an increased threat to US interests?

Yes, of course it is a terrible precedent to allow nations to pursue nuclear weapons, but that precedent has already been set by Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.

I'm just positing alternative theories here. I'm not arguing that a nuclear Iran is a GOOD thing, but it does appear to me that the US has delegated the handling of this issue to those who will be most directly affected (e.g. Eurabia). My question is whether that decision may have merit, and whether ultimately Europe (plus Turkey) will be forced into acting, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-01-16 12:18|| 2006-01-16 12:18|| Front Page Top

#2 The "conclusion" is given, that we can't do anything - oh woe is us, then it wanks awhile, then it lays out some options - poo-pooing each in turn. This piece is a phreakin' disaster, not to mention a Mullah wank-fest. Bite me, Scotsman.

Posted by .com 2006-01-16 12:20|| 2006-01-16 12:20|| Front Page Top

#3 You have to remember - this is the *Scotsman*, one of those quagmire-predicting British fishpaper suppliers - and they're *all* fishpaper suppliers - that routinely predict American collapse in every sphere (military, social, economic). Let's take a look at the following Scotsman "news" article from May 2003:

THE war may be over but the battle is far from won. Declaring an end to major combat activity in Afghanistan, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has promised a new era of "stabilisation".

But while the message he delivered in Kabul last week may have gladdened the war-weary American public, it has been met with disbelief by the US military.

Although Operation Enduring Freedom - launched 18 months ago in the wake of the devastating September 11 attacks in the US - has come to a close, the American death toll from the conflict shows no sign of abating.

Despite the toppling of the Taliban, killings, explosions, shootings and targeted attacks on US forces are a daily occurrence.

The number of American service personnel who have died in Afghanistan since operation Enduring Freedom began in October 2001 is now 30. But not a single soldier was killed as the result of hostile action in the first three months of the main offensive. Recently the frequency of casualties has risen ominously, and in April alone four soldiers were killed.

In private, US special forces officers are now saying that Afghanistan is in danger of developing into another Vietnam. They see ominous parallels between the heavy-handed attempts at "pacification" which are alienating Afghan villagers and similar ham-fisted actions that turned the Vietnamese against the Americans.

And the situation is made even worse by fatal errors, such as an air strike near Shkin in eastern Afghanistan that was meant for a group of rebels but which hit a house, killing 11 members of a family as they slept.

In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the Americans have decided to confront an ideology which is perceived to be a global threat, only to find their vastly superior forces shadow-boxing guerrillas who can take full advantage of local knowledge.

Instead of neighbouring China, which gave help to the Vietnamese, there is Pakistan, whose government is either unable or unwilling to prevent its wild border territory from providing safe havens for al-Qaeda.

Washington is talking about pulling out its troops next year. But the situation will have to improve dramatically if it is not to find itself mired as it was in Vietnam for 10 years, according to analysts.

Andrew Kennedy, head of the Asia Programme at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, says: "The US is in an awkward situation. If it pulled out now it would raise a storm of criticism. Yet its most recent military operation didnât really achieve anything or capture anybody significant.

"If they were to capture Mullah Omar, whom I am convinced is still in Afghanistan, Washington could perhaps declare some kind of closure. But Mullah Omar is still at large."

Kennedy sees the US as trying to avoid the "bunkered-down mentality" that overcame the Russians in Afghanistan as they were increasingly tormented by the Mujahedin.

But in the mainly Pashtun south there is mounting evidence that the ousted Taliban, allies of Osama bin Laden are making a comeback.

One Afghan army commander said: "Six months ago the attacks were sporadic but today there is a new organisation to this Taliban."

And while the Taliban hone their guerrilla tactics, the Americans seem to be getting nowhere. Six weeks ago around 1,000 US Special Forces took part in the largest terrorist-seeking operation for a year, called Operation Valiant Strike.

"Weâre trying to get the leadership," an American official said, referring to the elusive trio, Osama bin Laden, the one-eyed Mullah Omar, and wanted warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. "Somebodyâs going to tell us where they are." But the Americans missed all three, and so far no one has come forward with vital information despite the lavish rewards on offer.

The most recent fatal attack on the Americans, nine days ago near Shkin, was particularly brazen. About 20 rebels opened fire on a platoon of American and Afghan soldiers in broad daylight, killing one American soldier and wounding at least six others before retreating across the border to Pakistan. A second American soldier later died of wounds.

Along with the human cost, the financial cost is mounting too. At the end of February Pentagon officials said that Afghanistan cost $750m a month out of $1.6bn a month the US now spends in its global fight against terrorism. The US has 8,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of an 11,000-strong coalition force from 23 countries.

Equally worryingly, the rebels have adopted a deliberate policy of targeting civilian aid workers for the first time. On March 27 Ricardo Munguia of the Red Cross became the first aid worker to be killed in Afghanistan for five years. He was "executed" after being stopped near Kandahar by gunmen, who made a call by satellite phone to a "commander" who ordered him to be killed.

The next day a leading Taliban commander, Mullah Dadullah Akhund, claimed responsibility for the killing, and said he was acting on the orders of Mullah Omah to destabilise the government.

Since the murder of Munguia, more than 10 international aid agencies have pulled out of Kandahar. Several other areas of Afghanistan are also closed to international aid workers because of insecurity.

In an attempt to win the âhearts and mindsâ war, the US is starting to deploy some of its troops in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in key urban areas to assist in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

But the teams are dependent on local warlords to provide security and may do little to enhance the Kabul governmentâs authority. Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan presidentâs brother, commented recently: "There have been no significant changes for people. People are tired of seeing small, small projects. I donât know what to say to people anymore."

The US insists it is winning and intends to stay. The question, however, is how long it is willing to see the death toll mount from a guerrilla war many experts believe it is incapable of winning.

The tactic is to distort cautious remarks by American officials and combine them with hostile views by anti-American polemicists. I recommend you save your limited time and read stuff like this no more than once a month, just to remind yourself about how ideology- rather than fact-driven these people are. They *are* stupid and ignorant, but the reason they advance these fatuous arguments is not because they're stupid and ignorant, but because they don't have much other material to work with.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 13:09|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-16 13:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Bottom line is that the Scotsman is not in the news business - it is in the business of printing religious tracts. The fundamentalist Scotsman position is that America is headed for collapse, and every news item out there is an indicator of imminent disaster.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 13:12|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-16 13:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Heh - the only thing they left out of that piece was the brutal Afghan winter.

Posted by .com 2006-01-16 13:14|| 2006-01-16 13:14|| Front Page Top

#6 I have a question. One country with the most to fear from a nuclear armed Iran is Russia. Yet Russia seem oblivous to this and assist Iran in their efforts. You'd think the Russians would have learned from their cooperation with Hitler, but apparently they have not. A nuclear armed Iran, with mad mullahs at the helm will turn the Russian terrorist problem into a nightmare overnight and will ultimately result in a very bloody war.

My question is.. how is it that the Russians do not seem to grasp that they have far more to fear than the west? A kindergartner could predict that once armed with nukes that the mad mullahs will turn them toward Moscow. So why do they assist them?

Posted by 2b 2006-01-16 13:23|| 2006-01-16 13:23|| Front Page Top

#7 I expect Iran to be an issue in the fall elections and the result to indicate that the US has a bit more stomach than expectedas Bush increases the GOP seats in both houses for the fourth election.

The American people will recognize that the importance of Iran having nuclear weapons is due to the belligerence of the regime. Were Iran a less aggressive country, we might learn to live with their holding nukes as in Pakistan. However, they are sure to use the threat of use of their nukes to influence policy in every country in the Gulf in their favor and toward the extension of violent jihad throughout the world. To fail to act now will only make the ultimate reckoning more expensive, in blood as well as treasure. This will be the national subtext of the election. The people will decide as they did in 2002.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-16 13:23|| 2006-01-16 13:23|| Front Page Top

#8 2b,

Never underestimate the power of greed, stupidity and hatred of the U.S.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2006-01-16 13:49|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2006-01-16 13:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Ernest, sadly, I think you are dead right.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-16 13:59|| 2006-01-16 13:59|| Front Page Top

#10 2b: One country with the most to fear from a nuclear armed Iran is Russia. Yet Russia seem oblivous to this and assist Iran in their efforts.

Actually, they're assisting Iran because they figure this will help weaken Uncle Sam. They think of Iran as a buffer state against American ambitions in the region. Note that Iran does not border Russia, now that the Soviet Union has dissolved. In fact, the best possible outcome for Russia would be for the US to fight a war with Iran, weakening both in the process. As far as the Russians are concerned, an American war with China would be better, but Iran will do.

2b: You'd think the Russians would have learned from their cooperation with Hitler, but apparently they have not.

The Soviets did not *cooperate* with Hitler - they actively backed him, and helped him to circumvent limitations (imposed by the terms of the Armistice) on Germany's post-WWI rearmament. Their hope was the same as it is now - to weaken two of their potential adversaries by having them fight each other. In WWII, the Soviets only half-succeeded, since the Germans rolled up Western Europe a little too quickly, and then turned their attention to Eastern Europe.

But they really have little to worry about - as long as Uncle Sam stays involved in the region, Iran's power will be limited by none other than - Uncle Sam. If we step away, Russia is in deep trouble. But they don't think that we will step away - they figure that even if we don't attack Iran, we will restrain them from going after the Gulf states, and getting a monopoly on Middle Eastern oil.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 15:08|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-16 15:08|| Front Page Top

#11 With military action off the agenda, ...

Off of whose agenda?

It was a bitter failure by the EU, which had taken the lead over the Americans and put its faith in a policy of "constructive engagement".

Bitter? I'm convinced that the failure was a feature, not a bug.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-01-16 15:19|| 2006-01-16 15:19|| Front Page Top

#12 A nuclear armed Iran is not a direct threat to the west. They are not going to launch missiles against London, Paris or NY. The threat is a regional one. They want to be the regional hegemon. They want to control the Gulf and consequently the world's oil supply. They have similar aims along their northern border in the Caspian basin.

A nuclear armed Iran would be largely immune to military retaliations and would continue to increase it's influnce over Gulf states. Possibly by invasion as it has already with several Gulf islands but more likely by engineering Shiia takeovers of places like Qatar and their resources.

I suggest the endgame for Tehran is to gain control of the oil and gas under the gulf and southern Caspian, much of which is undeveloped due to boundary disputes.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-01-16 15:29|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-01-16 15:29|| Front Page Top

#13 If we step away, Russia is in deep trouble. But they don't think that we will step away.
That is a valid point. But giving a gun to your enemy in the hopes that a policeman will prevent him from shooting you is simply not wise.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-16 15:32|| 2006-01-16 15:32|| Front Page Top

#14 Phil_B, I'd agree with you if Ahmadinejad hadn't already proclaimed his intent to wipe Israel off the map and begin Armageddon.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-16 15:36|| 2006-01-16 15:36|| Front Page Top

#15 The model you should use to understand Iran, is the Soviet Union, for several reasons, not least they have deliberately patterned their 'revolution' and state institutions on the Russian Soviet system.

In general Iranians believe in their revolution, as much as Russians believed in world revolution and the victory of the proletariat, i.e. not much.

That's not to say there aren't true believers and Ahmadinejad may be one of them. But he is not a Stalin in absolute control, he is more like a khruschov(sp?), someone at the top but with power shared amoungst various centers. Even if Ahmadinejad want's to bring armageddon down on Iran, by nuking Israel, I doubt he could at this stage. Perhaps he will amass power the way Stalin did in the 1920's, he is certainly trying. OTOH the recent plane crash wiped out some of his important supporters in the RG and was IMO unlikely to have been an accident.

And BTW, this is the reason Iraq is so important. It's the only possible regional counterweight to Iran in the Gulf. I worry more about Iran getting a chokehold on the gulf than I do about them nuking Israel, becuase I don't think they will try and if they do try chances are Israel's anti-missile systems will stop them.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-01-16 16:54|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-01-16 16:54|| Front Page Top

#16 OTOH the recent plane crash wiped out some of his important supporters

Are you sure they were his supporters?

Posted by 2b 2006-01-16 22:15|| 2006-01-16 22:15|| Front Page Top

01:21 Aris Katsaris
01:15 Aris Katsaris
00:06 JosephMendiola
23:59 ex-lib
23:51 Oldspook
23:40 ex-lib
23:38 Flerert Whese8274
23:25 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:13 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:12 Shereting Hupenter8025
23:03 Rory B. Bellows
23:01 CaziFarkus
22:56 Frank G
22:51 Frank G
22:44 ed
22:30 Tibor
22:24 C-Low
22:17 trailing wife
22:16 .com
22:15 2b
22:15 Old Patriot
22:15 Jarong Chush4043
22:13 trailing wife
22:00 trailing wife