[jato]

Looking at it from the Bush Administration point of view:

I think the USA is setting up control of the Middle East in order to control the oil…the final Act in the great oil age. In the future, global oil trade will collapse. The USA will have to control the oil. We will decide what countries will crash due to a lack of oil. Any nation state that attempts to change this by attacking the USA out in the open will be nuked.

We must gain/maintain control of the other countries in the Middle East, by hook or by crook. The USA must tailor its control for each Middle East country. What works in Iraq, may not work in Iran. Is Iraq working? To answer that, one only needs to look at the real desired outcome; who has control of Iraqi oil?

Iran will soon also come under the control of the USA Empire. It’s only a matter of how.

Lack of post-peak oil control would mean the death of the USA. We must have oil to survive. Being the most powerful country on the Earth I think we are going to take what we want…for now.

All of this is ‘IMHO. A shot in the dark.

This is a very good thread BTW.

[seahorse]

Let's all assume the neocons in power will act recklessly and lean towards military action to take our Iranian nuke making capability. In this scenario, we assume they will overcome any objection by the conservative military - is there any solution we can brainstorm (short of military action), that would satisfy the neocons and Israelis that Iran will not develop the bomb? Any idea or option is open, to include any combination of countries acting in concert. Maybe we can come up with some ideas that will get back to the neocons, get them thinking in a different direction than taking military action.

[nero]

I think if Iran admitted that it had a WMD program and then gave it up the crisis could be averted. If they don't actually have a WMD program (after all it's only the CIA's word for it that they do, and we all know how fallible they are) then there isn't any way to avoid a military confrontation that I can think of.

I do believe though that the Americans can beat up the Iranians militarily. They probably could do it as easily as they toppled Hussein. The thing is that the administration doesn't have the political capital available to get the ball rolling (it would make a draft almost inevitable). It would need another big terrorist strike on the continental US to give the president that option. On the other hand some cruise missile strikes at suspected targets could happen. Unfortunately the Americans have no defense against the inevitable Iranian response. Here is my list of likely responses:

1. The Iranians can very easily cause havoc in Iraq by supporting a true insurgency.

2. they could pull out of the IAEA and carry on the WMD programs at secret locations. That would make the cruise missile strikes seem pretty pointless.

3. they can increase the price of crude oil by threatening or targetting the oil infrastructure of the American client states with their conventional missiles. It could even be spun as a proportionate response by the Iranians. Missile for missile, each time the Americans hit a nuclear power plant the Iranians could hit the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil terminals with a similar number of missiles.

4. the Iranians could start to seriously fund Alqaida like terrorist groups. Iran hasn't been a big supporter of Sunni fundamentalist terrorists so far but that could change.

5. The current Iranian domestic opposition to the clerics evaporates as they all rally around the flag.

The Iranians if they are smart can easily avoid a casus belli or suicidal provocation (ie. hitting Israel or invading Iraq) and still hit America where it hurts.

On the idea that trading oil in euros would cost the Americans billions, I think that is dead wrong. The Americans do receive some benefit from being the world currency of account, but the dollars in circulation required to facilitate trading oil is comparatively trivial. 1.5 trillion dollars buys all the oil produced in a year. And that assumes that the dollars change hands only once a year. If we give a more reasonable velocity for the money of say 5 times a year the dollar changes hands in exchange for oil then about 6 billion dollars a year has to be added into circulation to continue to lubricate these transactions. This is about the cost of occupying Iraq for one month. On a cost benefit analysis they aren't saving any money by invading Iraq.

[0mar]

It should also be noted that oil production usually goes down by 1/2 during a time of crisis.

From 5 million barrels of exports to 2.5 million would be disasterous. We literally do not have any spare capacity. An invasion of Iran would spell out $100 dollar oil pretty soon. Also, victory in Iran is not guarenteed. Remember, Iran is not anemic due to 10 years of economic sanctions, has a public that is very anti-american, is on hilly/mountainous terrain and have very well trained special forces. It would not be a pushover by any means. I can potentially see Iran turning into what Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union. And if Iran did some spiteful tactics, as were mentioned above, she could plunge the world into a depression that could last a generation or more. In short, Iran does not equal Iraq. It will be messy.

[seahorse]

The last two post were well thought out and make sense. They seem to both fall in the category that taking any kind of action against Iran makes no sense at any level - the repercussions are simply too high.

However, as also pointed out in one of the two posts, absent Iran stating its dropping its WMD program, a military confrontation seems inevitable.

So, let's follow that up:

(1) How likely is it that the Iranians will state they are dropping their WMD programs (assuming that's true)?

(2) If the Iranians don't unequivically state they are dropping their WMD goal, will the U.S. or Israel take military action (as dumb as that may be)?

(3) If military action is taken, how does everyone here see it transpiring, can it be contained from spreading to other countries?

(4) If it cannot be contained, will it escalate into a WW? If so, how do you see the alliances being drawn, and can a nuclear war be avoided?

[nero]

I think the 100 billion dollar natural gas deal with China is a significant clue. Iran is working to place themselves under Chinese patronage like North Korea. North Korea is protected from UN actions by the Chinese veto. Similarly if the Iranians become a vital strategic interest of the Chinese then they also would receive portection from UN supported sanctions.

If America is somehow able to convince the UN (Chinese ) to implement sanctions on Iran then we will have an extended period of uncertainty before any actual military action takes place. Unfortunately this uncertainty probably will result in higher oil prices. We don't have the spare capacity to do without Iranian oil. I think it is fairly highly unlikely that they stop production altogether (except under military invasion) but they might be unabe to expand or maintain current production without outside financing and technology.

Sanctions in my opinion would be simply a prelude to a military confrontation. We didn't avoid Gulf War II because of the tough sanctions imposed on Iraq , it even could be argued that the Iraqi sanctions made Gulf War II inevitable. Similarly, I'm afraid that any sanctions imposed now will simply solidify(petrify) the support of the Clerics, and impede the possible internal changes to Iranian society that might eventually defuse the problem.

[nero]

No world war yet. American Hegemony has a few more years to run. I think, however, in about 15 years time America will be in a very bad place economically and will have lost their preminent position. Historically the strongest army has been the one with the greatest access to international finance. With the current account deficit a seeming insoluble problem the dollar is on its way to losing the status as the currency of international finance, once this happens America will not have the credit rating to be able to confidently take on all challengers. Then we might get into WWIII(right around the time the debate over peak oil finally ends).

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')) How likely is it that the Iranians will state they are dropping their WMD programs (assuming that's true)?

[seahorse]

Based on all that has been said on this thread, it seems that there is general agreement to the following:

(1) Iran, like N. Korea, is and will continue to enjoy Chinese protection from sanctions at the U.N. (especially in light of their recent energy deals); this also seems more likely in light of Europes latest agreements with Iran.

(2) The neocons are probably not happy with the fact that U.N. sanctions are not likely from the U.N.;

(3) Although reckless, the neocons are acting recklessly and military action against Iran seems probable;

(4) It will be difficult to contain the consequences of any type of military strike against Iran.

I tend to agree with a previous post, and the article by William Clark, that some type of military action will occur prior to the Iranian oil exchange going into operation, which according to Clark, is scheduled to be operational early 2006.

How will the U.S. justify a first strike? Would they simply strike out or would they attempt to garner support at the U.N. and with the American public like they did prior to Gulf War II? Would they go so far as to create a Gulf of Tonkin situation to justify a firs strike? Some type of other "terrorist" attack at home or abroad linked to the Iranians?

My guess is that after Gulf War II, the recent European and Chinese agreement with the Iranians, the neocons would not bother going back to the U.N. I don't think it would push the American public too far also to prelude such an attack.

It makes more since that some other situation would be used to justify a strike or some type of intervention. The U.S. has stated it wants regime change in this "axis of evil" country. So, how can the U.S. effect regime change without being the first agressor? As a previous post points out, just as we used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, there is a northern opposition group in the Iranian norther mountains. It is interesting that just last week, after the Europeans and Chinese signed their new agreements with Iran, that "diplomates" from the Iranian opposition in North were on the news showing their intelligence on Iranian WMD (satellite photos). Of course, those photos must have been CIA photos bc I don't know of any satellite launches by this group out of the mountains north of Iran.

Therefore, it seems quite possible that the U.S. would institute some type of rebellion from the north, similar to what occured in Afghanistan, and arm this group. I'm sure the initial hope from the neocons would be that this method is most politically feasible, since there wouldn't be direct U.S. or Israeli involvement, would appeal to Americans desire to help people who want to be democratic (bs of course).

Again, though, I think there is a lot of risk to this strategy. The Chinese and probably Russians would definitely send arms and equip the Iranians to fight the rebellion. It would have consequences, but probably a slower build than a simple missile strike on known targets.

I think the rebellion possibility would only be used if we were fairly convinced they didn't have WMD. The Israelis will never take a chance on the Iranians getting one. So, ultimately, our intelligence as to how far along they are in their WMD program will be the timetable for any action.

The Koreans were able to make some. I don't think the Israelis or U.S. will allow that to happen in Iran, and won't even let them get close.

Problem is, it seems our CIA is pretty disfunctional right now with all the change over in the leadership. It appears the administration is packing the CIA with neocons (I'm not sure, but that is the charge). Further, I think Rumsfeld has been opposed to any real change in the intelligence structure (defense has most of the assets). This all tells me that, again, the neocons are going to, at a minimum, interpret intelligence on Iranian WMD through the neocon perspective, which again, tends to lead to a reckless approach.

[smiley]

I agree with most of the posters here that it would be very foolish for the US to attack Iran now. I think that the US will 'allow' Israel to strike the suspected nuclear sites.

That also happened in '81 in Iraq. That way the US can make a point without causing an international riot. Perhaps they can even use the resulting turmoil in Iran to their advantage.

[savethehumans]

As I said on another thread, the US won't want to invade Iran in 2005: though they could win their invasion with technology--like in Iraq--they are then saddled with enforcing the "peace from hell." To do that they need human fodder--oops! I mean soldiers--and they need a LOT more of it than they have now! A springtime reinstatement of the draft MAY put those numbers in the entire Middle East region by this time next year. But in the meantime, surely even the neocons realize they can do little but saber-rattle! (OK, so maybe they don't--they sure haven't got anything ELSE right, yet! )

The 20-year-olds are first up for the draft, when it comes; then comes the 21-year olds. Families of children in this age group: please have a Happy Holiday Season! It is probably your last, for at least a long time. (I mean it--this isn't meant satirically! It should be made special, for all of you. Please.)

[julianj]

Good thread.

I just wanted to clarify a few points: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons currently, although it is enriching uranium for reactors (to get better performance, which actually is a long way short of weapons grade material).

International Atomic Agency inspections have verified this and Iran is keeping to its treaty obligations:

Antiwar.com article

Antiwar.com Article 2

Quote: “The International Atomic Energy Agency conducts regular inspections in Iran. The IAEA recently issued a report stating that it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.â€

[savethehumans]

I've got 17- and 15-year-old nephews and a 46-year old retired-from-the-military brother; I'm not even HALF joking....

The boys are "safe" for now; they'll be at the end of the age-order for the draft, so I give them a couple of years. This is time to build up a case for being a real, live CO. My brother is not so lucky, especially with the recent news that retired soldiers are being recalled to duty. I expect him to come up pretty soon, maybe even before the draft resumes (which I believe will happen next year).

I'm giving them all dream catchers for Christmas; they'll need to catch a few to offset the very real nightmares about to descend on them....

[seahorse]

More evidence is mounting that the U.S. is heading for a military confrontation with Iran. In an interview yesterday, published on ABC Online, Senator McCain was quoted as saying the U.S. has little time to deal with the challenge of Iran's nuclear program, estimating that it is "months rather than years."

www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s124837.htm

As we all know, if quoted correctly, anything said by McCain should be a fair indication of where the U.S. is leaning. As many here have worried, despite the recklessness of any type of confrontation with Iran, it appears we are headed that direction.

[seahorse]

For those of you who haven't been to it, go to the Project for the New American Century website and start reading. Although I had heard of it, I had never gone to their website to read anything.

www.newamericancentury.org

That organization, apparently started in 1997, is the development of the neocon movement in American politics. The premise of the organization is to maintain American supremacy is all areas, political and economical, by maintaining military preeminence. In 1997, the want to adopt a "Reganite policy of military strength and moral clarity . . . to ensure our security and our greatness in the next [century]." See statement of principles. Signing off on the statement of principles are all the usual characters associated with modern neocon movement, some but not all are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, there are other people of interest listed.

With regard to policy toward the ME and in particular Iraq and Iran, you will find several interesting articles on their website. However, you should begin by reading a 2000 paper, 64 pages, on how to rebuild the U.S. Military. In that paper is the often quoted passage that "short of a new pearl harbor" the suggested rebuilding of the military will take a long time. In that paper, it mentions the big three Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (although it didn't specifically call them the axis of evil, its obvious this is where the roots of that statement are).

Regarding Iraq, its interesting that in either June or July 2001, the neocons worried that Pres Bush was going to go soft on Iran (as did Clinton in their view). This is in one of their memos to opinion leaders published on the website. This fear suggest to me they were not yet in control, so to speak, of the presidency or certainly U.S. policy. So it appears to me that 9-11 changed that, and put the neocons driving U.S. policy and the Colin Powells out.

More recently, you will see a Memo to Opinion leaders dated July 2004. In that they list all the reasons we need "serious policy toward iran; one of containment, pressre, accountability, and ultimately regime change."

The fact that that this group is advocating Regime Change in Iran, after a year debacle on regime change in Iran, suggest to me that they haven't learned anything from their experience in Iran. In fact, they seem to be hardened in their outlook, as evidenced by Powell and other moderates, even in the CIA, being replaced.

This website only supports the posts here that the neocons are on a reckless course to a military confrontation with Iran. They clearly want regime change. Their doctrine of military supremacy has not changed since 1997. They obviously don't view Iraq as a mess, and as of this past July, they are ready to move for regime change in Iran. Again, McCain has stated we are talking about months, not years.

It may be unfair for me to say this, but the principles stated on their website really sound a lot like nazi principles:
(1) a new American century sounds like the 1000 year rule of the Reich;
(2) revamped military strength (weren't the nazis great and building and developing new military machines, rockets, jets, etc, read their 2000 paper and look at all the military toys they invision, i.e. complete military domination of space)
(3) moral clarity (this is scary, who's going to define this. I'm not a historian, but didn't the nazis view the jews as immoral?);
(4) recent invasions and confrontations, there are a lot of parallels.

Food for thought, but its worth the read if you have some time.

[smiley]

I'm familiar with the website and frankly it scares the hell out of me.

But on the issue of a military intervention in Iran it is not clear. Clearly they want to invoke a regime change, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will invade Iran. Most probably they will try to do it by supporting the opposition.

In the latest budged proposal which was cleared last week, Bush requested additional funds for "stimulating democracy around the world".

This money will most probably be directed to the national endowment for democracy.

http://www.ned.org/

While supporting democracy is an admirable goal, this endowment is not so democratic as it might seem. Firstly it is extremely republican and secondly their methods are questionable. They have been heavily involved in supporting the opposition in Venezuela and there are clear signs that they have been supporting a coup there.

Supporting a coup in a dictatorship might be viewed as a call for democracy, but supporting a coup in an established democracy is a call for the opposite.

The NED has also been trying to meddle with the course of the French elections by supporting an ultra right wing party (Union of France), because they feared that the socialist parties would get too much support in the National Assembly. Regardless what you think of France one can hardly view it as an "undemocratic country", or a country in need for democracy.

http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html

Iran has long been complaining that the opposition is sponsored by the US and I think they are right to think so. Since the budged has been increased we will see more aggressive support for the opposition.

I don't think it will help though. The only thing the NED appears to be successful in, is in discrediting the dissidents it is supporting. Which is unfortunate because some of these dissidents have noble goals, but by taking US money they appear to be simply pressing the US agenda.

So for the next few years I expect Bush to try to destabilise and to invoke a regime change in Iran using the NED. Based on the experience in the past I don't see this happening, most likely the opposition will loose support precisely because of the US funding.

Perhaps we will see a US invasion, but it will be at the end of his term, when he's able to free enough troops from Iraq and Afganistan.

[Dvanharn]

I suspect that many others here who criticize the use of the term "neoconservative" (neocon for short) by me and others have not read at the PNAC web site, because they react as if it was a derogatory term made up by the opposition. Neoconservative simple means "new conservative" reflecting the fact that the PNAC perspective is a new and updated form of the traditional American conservative philosophy.

Reactions to the term "neocon" here treat it as a made-up derogotory term like "d-rats" and "republiguns," but it is indeed a political philosophy that is clearly described on a public website by it's practitioners. And they now pretty much control the U.S. government in that the current administration is closely following the plan published by PNAC, and that many of the signatories of PNAC are senior members of the current Bush administration.

Dave

[seahorse]

You're correct, neocon is short for new conservative, and they are following the basic plan outline on the PNAC website, and that's what's scary. Just as Nazi's were at one time a political party following their own political philosophy, the word "nazi" now has new meaning, and is used to characterize a person or movement that is much more evil, devoid of any of the rights that traditionally are thought of as democratic.

However, only time will tell if the word neocon or the PNAC philosophy will be viewed in history as something great or something much more evil or sinister, like that of the nazi party.

The scary thing to me is that there are a few people now driving our country, all of whom are members listed on the PNAC website, none of whom were elected, who all have signed off on a vision of America that is one of absolute military dominance to solve world problems as opposed to working with others, who believe in using military force to spread our "moral values" whatever those are supposed to be.

I don't see how the basic principles of democracy are spread through absolute military dominance. These professed new conservatives that hail Reagan as their founder, forget that Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot, without occupying anyone.

Even if we could agree with the principles stated in their PNAC doctrine, the last 2 years certainly, have already judged it to be a failure. Their refusal to negotiate with N. Korea has given N. Korea time to get the bomb, and several of them, and apparently they are still making them as we speak. We have been an utter failure so far in Iraq. We have no more friends and allies in Europe, or the rest of the world, the dollar is collapsing, our budgets are as bloated as our bellies. We are so bloated, we literally can't see our feet, and therefore, we stumble. If this is the start of the new American century, I'm ready for it to end, peacefully, I hope.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', '
')Here is another idea though, what if the US were DEFEATED ? It is certainly not out of the question. With the missiles Iran controls the Gulf. With US forces stretched so thin, sending a few hundred thousand Iranian troops across the border could easily overwhelm the US military in Iraq. No way the military could react in time. I think they are highly overconfident. Pushing the Iraqis around is one thing, fighting a semi-capable army is another.

[gg3]

That phrase "moral clarity" sounds all too much like "racial purity." Not to suggest that ethnic cleansing is on the agenda, but religious correctness most certainly is, unless we do something about it.

Neo-cons are not conservatives. Conservatives want a more compact and efficient government (I don't like the phrase "smaller government," it is overly-simplistic, and too value-neutral with respect to quality), not a ballooning and bloated one. Conservatives want fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, not supply-side mumbo-jumbo and exploding deficits. Conservatives want government to keep the competitive playing fields level but otherwise keep hands off, not play favorites and practice cronyism. Conservatives want government to protect the liberties of all citizens but otherwise keep hands off, not pander to some by curtailing the liberty of others. Conservatives want a foreign policy based on stability and gradual change, not one based on destabilization and recklessness.