The Boiling Point

[NorthSideSox72]

With all the recent tumutuous events in the Middle East (Hamas victory, response to the cartoons, Iranian nukes, continued unrest in Iraq, high oil prices, etc.), I've started feel a lump rising in my throat. It seems to me that, as unstable as things were a few months ago, they've gotten much worse recently.

 

I'd just like to ask the opinions of people here: is there a new war coming in the Middle East (aside from the current Iraqi insurgency and Palestinian/Israeli flare-ups)? Is it soon? Who are the players, and how will it play out?

 

Things are getting pretty ugly, and I see a lot of indicators that it will get worse. I don't know a time frame, but here are my thoughts, to start out:

 

--As I've posted before, I think that if Israel can get decent info on Iran's nuclear facilities, they will strike to kill the program.

--Iran's leader is a nut job. Many Iranians seem to know it, but they also hate America to varying degrees. I don't know who will win out there, but I am really hoping the people realize the level of danger, and push the government to be more reasonable.

--The Russians are a scary part of all of this - if Iran is attacked, there is a good chance Russia would stand up with the Iranians (depending on exactly what is going on).

--Other countries like Pakistan and the other Stans could quickly destabilize if a war involving Iran occurs

--Our military is stretched awfully thin. If something happens that requires their attention outside Iraq, we could be putting them at huge risk.

--I don't know if the current US administration has the willingness to take a chance on real peace. I think they are just too stubborn, and they won't step up to the diplomatic plate unless the are forced to.

--I think if there is one key piece to this whole puzzle, its the Palestinians. If Hamas stands up as a political party a la Sinn Fein, and makes real movement towards peace, that could help keep things stable. If on the other hand they are unable to do that, or worse, they become more aggresive, then there could be another Lightning war involving Israel, Syria and others in that area. Nothing good could come of that.

[mac9001]

There's also a good chance the EU would strongly oppose an Iran invasion. Later this year when the Iranian Oil Exchange becomes a reality the EU will have a considerable economic stake in Iran. Countries such as China, Japan and South Korea will most likely invest heavily in the euro once it's accepted along with the international dollar. Simply put we can find out selves in a standoff with the rest of the world and severely damage the value of the dollar. When you take into account our enormous budget deficit and the infalation that could arise for the increased value and accessibility of the euro we could be facing an economic crisis.

Edited February 4, 2006 by mac9001

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

With all the recent tumutuous events in the Middle East (Hamas victory, response to the cartoons, Iranian nukes, continued unrest in Iraq, high oil prices, etc.), I've started feel a lump rising in my throat.  It seems to me that, as unstable as things were a few months ago, they've gotten much worse recently.

 

I'd just like to ask the opinions of people here: is there a new war coming in the Middle East (aside from the current Iraqi insurgency and Palestinian/Israeli flare-ups)?  Is it soon?  Who are the players, and how will it play out?

 

Things are getting pretty ugly, and I see a lot of indicators that it will get worse.  I don't know a time frame, but here are my thoughts, to start out:

 

--As I've posted before, I think that if Israel can get decent info on Iran's nuclear facilities, they will strike to kill the program.

--Iran's leader is a nut job.  Many Iranians seem to know it, but they also hate America to varying degrees.  I don't know who will win out there, but I am really hoping the people realize the level of danger, and push the government to be more reasonable.

--The Russians are a scary part of all of this - if Iran is attacked, there is a good chance Russia would stand up with the Iranians (depending on exactly what is going on).

--Other countries like Pakistan and the other Stans could quickly destabilize if a war involving Iran occurs

--Our military is stretched awfully thin.  If something happens that requires their attention outside Iraq, we could be putting them at huge risk.

--I don't know if the current US administration has the willingness to take a chance on real peace.  I think they are just too stubborn, and they won't step up to the diplomatic plate unless the are forced to.

--I think if there is one key piece to this whole puzzle, its the Palestinians.  If Hamas stands up as a political party a la Sinn Fein, and makes real movement towards peace, that could help keep things stable.  If on the other hand they are unable to do that, or worse, they become more aggresive, then there could be another Lightning war involving Israel, Syria and others in that area.  Nothing good could come of that.

 

 

I agree with most of your post. The only thing I take issue with is your assertion that the US isin't interested in peace over there. I think its the other parties involved (islamo-fascists) who are not interested in peace. These are people you simply cant negotiate or reason with because they are guided by a warped interpretation of religon and are prepared to go to any extreme of violence to back it up.

[Rex Kickass]

Things with Iran seem tense at the moment, but I actually think that any Mid-East flare up wouldn't escalate quickly towards war.

 

Iran's current nuclear tension problems have flared up to the point where Russia, China and Europe are all about addressing the situation seriously. My sense is that there's a general sense of realism of the dangers here - both in a resource sense and in a cultural sense. Iran and Russia may have economic forces at play, but Iran represents a movement that is creeping up on the Southwest corner of Russia that the powers that be in Moscow don't want to see further strengthened. China too, worried that any kind of serious turmoil in China would strangle their economy now growing more and more dependent on oil would take a serious risk by alienating the world community and threatening oil supply.

 

So far the US has acted amicably and responsibly regarding Iran and seems to be on the right track. It's been much more successful in handling the situation internationally - the only way to do so in a manner that will be as peaceful as possible.

 

That may have a lot to do with the fact that geopolitical problems in the region have decidedly turned against the US interests and done so democratically is a definite issue for us. In a free and fair election, Palestinians voted in a group that wants Sharia and is virulently anti-American. Perhaps because of the perception of where America stands in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or more likely because of corruption from the Palestinian authority over the past ten years since the prior election.

 

Iraq, in a more direct response to the U.S., voted in relatively religious Shia politicians who will work with the US but are also willing to cozy up with Iran. Iran, worried from political attack seem to be hell bent on building a nuke. Although an attack on Israel would be a concern, my guess is that the state is more interested in protecting its own power than it is on attacking Israel when there is nothing to gain other than the end of their regime. They may be crazy, but I doubt they're stupid.

 

So despite the volatility that seems apparent, I think the situation is more stable than it appears.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183802,00.html

 

In other news, Iran votes to restart uranium enrichment and declares deal to do it in Russia as "dead".

[FlaSoxxJim]

And in apparent imitation of the United States they've decided to say "screw it" to the NPT.

[BigSqwert]

The only thing I take issue with is your assertion that the US isin't interested in peace over there. 

You say this after another memo is leaked, in Britain, that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq no matter what they did or did not find there.

 

War as a last resort? Sure.

 

Link

Edited February 4, 2006 by BigSqwert

[JUGGERNAUT]

I disagree with most of the first post. This is not the 1970's. Israel won't say Boo without US authorization. There are three ways this will go down:

 

1) The UN Sec Council backs the US on a pre-emptive strike if Iran does not submit to inspections.

2) The US doesn't get backing from the UN SC but does get significant backing from nations in the EU, & G8 to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

3) The top intelligence agencies of the G8 join forces in making use of the technocrat population in Iran to stage a coup.

 

My guess is 3 is in the works because *cough* *cough* it's worked so well before. No, not really, but it does seem a course of action that always is attempted first.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You say this after another memo is leaked, in Britain, that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq no matter what they did or did not find there.

 

War as a last resort?  Sure.

 

Link

 

And I'm shocked that the "liberal media" hasn't touched this story three days after it broke.

[JUGGERNAUT]

What is the best way to fight terrorism or the threat of terrorism? A cancer analogy fits well here.

 

If you attempt to take the most non-intrusive path to riding the body of cancer then the process takes longer but collateral damage is minimized.

If you are looking for the quickest most expedient way then chemotherapy will take less time but increase the collateral damage significantly.

 

Old ways of treating cancer were analagous to killing the body to kill the cancer.

 

With respect to terrorism:

New method: US military - protection of civs > killing the enemy

Old method: mercs - killing the enemy > protection of civs

 

Mercs will risk their lives to infilitrate the enemy & kill them so they can reap their rich reward. That's politically incorrect to ask of a US serviceman.

 

This is where war favors the aggressor. Always has. The aggressor is never afraid of using mercs because they could give a rat's arse what the world thinks of them. Whatever means gets the job done at the lowest cost is what works best. If you think the terrorists are simply volunteers think again. They are heavily financed & trained mercs. Unless you can cut the supply of money you can't stop the terrorists from replenishing their ranks with mercs.

 

Again getting back to the cancer analogy it's like fighting the cancer with lazers while it fights us with chemo bombs. We have to spend painstaking efforts to find it & zap it out of existence while it attacks us indiscriminately.

 

How can you ever hope to defeat it that way? I blame the left-wing for the pussification of the US military.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Radiation fixes cancer, therefor Nuclear Radiation is the best way to cure terrorism. Drop THE bomb. Hell, lets drop a few of them.

[Flash Tizzle]

Radiation fixes cancer, therefor Nuclear Radiation is the best way to cure terrorism. Drop THE bomb. Hell, lets drop a few of them.

 

The further draw comparisons, there's always the possibility radiated Arab terrorists in the region will be normal afterwards. Although hairless. So, I say drop the f***ing bombs.

 

GLASS PARKING LOT!! YEAH BABY!!!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

LOL @ Juggs for the left-wing pussification comment...reminds me a lot of the objectivists proclaiming that it is immoral to not attack civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html

 

From the article...

The war in Afghanistan was a letdown for him because we took care not to inflict civilian casualties. This, says Peikoff, is immoral: in Iraq, too, we are far too squeamish about innocent civilians. And I note that Peikoff emphasizes the word "innocent," even as he proclaims that it would be immoral not to condemn these innocents to death. When someone in the audience cried out in horror at this brazen display of naked evil, Peikoff interrupted his talk and imperiously demanded "please throw that man out." A far cry from Ayn Rand herself, who, during the 1930s, took to the stump for Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie, and, when confronted by hecklers – of which there were plenty – gave as good or better than she got. But the thuggish, hectoring Peikoff, whose high-pitched voice is in stark contrast to his stern admonitions, will have none of that.

 

Unlike the neocons, whose foreign policy he faithfully echoes, up to and including their iconization of Israel, Peikoff doesn’t hide behind any beneficent-sounding slogans, like "exporting democracy" and implanting free markets and the rule of law. This, he claims, would be "altruism," the worst sin in the Objectivist theology – although why freedom, in the abstract, and not just one’s own freedom, cannot be a value in and of itself is not at all clear to me. And the clear implication is that the Iraqis, like the Palestinians, are considered "savages" by Peikoff, who wouldn’t appreciate such a gift in any case. No, what we must do, says Peikoff, is kill them – enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike.

 

This same maniacal bloodthirstiness is expressed by Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a recent lecture on "The Morality of War," in which he outdoes Peikoff – and also Cuffy Meigs – in the complete thuggishness of his stance, advocating the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in a total war of annihilation against the entire Middle East – except Israel, of course. When one timorous questioner raises the issue of how Mr. Brook reconciles such a view with the central doctrine of individualism, which is that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, Brook brushes this aside with an impatient wave of his hand and declares that all enemy civilians are legitimate targets. The reason is because your government represents you, whether you like it or not.

 

So much for the idea of individualism.

 

Yes, but what about a six-year-old child, asks the persistent – and clearly perplexed – questioner, who complains that he has trouble "internalizing" (his word) this monstrous doctrine of collective responsibility for the crimes of a ruling elite. What, he wants to know, has the child done to deserve such a fate? Brook hems, and haws, apparently reluctant to come right out and advocate child murder on a mass scale – and in the name of "individualism," yet! – but, in the end, he gathers up his courage, and, in a wavering voice that sounds eerily like Elmer Fudd, declares that six-year-old kids suffer all the time because of their parents’ behavior. This instance – in his view – is no different, he says, except in degree, reiterating his crazed view that when a government violates rights, all the citizens of that state are guilty, and can therefore be put to death.

 

How can people who claim to hold "rationality" as their highest value sink to such depths of depravity?

[Flash Tizzle]

LOL @ Juggs for the left-wing pussification comment...reminds me a lot of the objectivists proclaiming that it is immoral to not attack civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

Haven't heard many support this position. Personally, I wouldn't intentionally target civilians if I were in either conflict; but I'd be extremely cautious. I don't care how this sounds, but I value my life--within a warzone--more than an innocent civilians. I'd rather assume everyone is a terrorist than everyone is friendly and welcoming.

[whitesoxmurph]

The United States will attack Iran by the end of 06 unless there is a significant and verifiable change in their position regarding the development of their nukes or unless someone takes out that nut case running their country.

Israel will be a silent partner in this, not wanting to provoke retaliation from any of its "neighbors".

Europe will will sit this one out with the possible exception of the British, who will at the very least state their support for our actions ( The French of course will be shocked).

The UN will do nothing more than launch many investigations leading nowhere. If the Security Council votes China and Russia are likely vetoes.

The attack itself will a tactical strike, most likely in one of two variations.

 

1- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C strike(Tomahawk Cruise Missile, conventional land attack variant with high explosive warhead). This Attack Variation has a a fair chance at disabling the Iranians. It will set them back a few years most likely. This Variant exposes no American Military personnel to any danger. It is also likely in this scenario that a second strike would take place weeks or months after the initial one. The NRO would monitor the facilities that were hit and we would hit them again, when the Iranian scientists come back to retrieve anything of use that survived the attack.

 

2- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C (see above) and TLAM-D (Tomahawk Cruise Missile conventional land attack with bomblets) followed by Stealth Fighters and Bombers. The TLAM-Cs would take out any Iranian anti-aircraft sites around the target areas and along with the TLAM-Ds would also hit every Iranian Air Force base in the country. The Cs would hit Planes, Hangers, Barracks and Bunkers while the Ds

would hit the runways and any taxi-ways long enough for a plane to take off on. The Stealths would go in and hit the sites themselves with whatever conventional munitions are deemed ness. (Bunker Busters etc..) We of course would have an AWACS plane monitoring the situation from just the other side of the border, with the ability to vector fighters (F-15, F16 etc..) should any Iranian planes get off the ground and happen to get to close to one of our Stealths. This Variant has a much greater possibilty of setting the Iranians back a decade or more and this plan could be followed up with a second Cruise Missile attack, as in the First Variant. The problem with this plan is of course that a Plane could get shot down and the Pilot killed or captured.

 

IMO

[YASNY]

I believe Isreal will air strike Iran if Iran continues it's nuclear program. They will attempt to take out each and every location where Iran is doing nuclear work. The US will back Isreal 100% other than a likely meaningless public statement that won't have the effect of a slap on the wrist. The collective Arab world will respond in kind against Isreal. Where and how it escalates from there, who can say?

[NorthSideSox72]

The United States will attack Iran by the end of 06 unless there is a significant and verifiable change in their position regarding the development of their nukes or unless someone takes out that nut case running their country.

  Israel will be a silent partner in this, not wanting to provoke retaliation from any of its "neighbors". 

  Europe will will sit this one out with the possible exception of the British, who will at the very least state their support for our actions ( The French of course will be shocked).

  The UN will do nothing more than launch many investigations leading nowhere. If the Security Council votes China and Russia are likely vetoes.

  The attack itself will a tactical strike,  most likely in one of two variations.

 

1- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C strike(Tomahawk Cruise Missile, conventional land attack variant with high explosive warhead).  This Attack Variation has a a fair chance at disabling the Iranians. It will set them back a few years most likely. This Variant exposes no American Military personnel to any danger.  It is also likely in this scenario that a second strike would take place weeks or months after the initial one. The NRO would monitor the facilities that were hit and we would hit them again, when the Iranian scientists come back to retrieve anything of use that survived the attack.

 

2- A Sub and/or Ship launched TLAM-C (see above) and TLAM-D (Tomahawk Cruise Missile conventional land attack with bomblets) followed by Stealth Fighters and Bombers.  The TLAM-Cs would take out any Iranian anti-aircraft sites around the target areas and along with the TLAM-Ds would also hit every Iranian Air Force base in the country. The Cs would hit Planes, Hangers, Barracks and Bunkers while the Ds

would hit the runways and any taxi-ways long enough for a plane to take off on.  The Stealths would go in and hit the sites themselves with whatever conventional munitions are deemed ness. (Bunker Busters etc..) We of course would have an AWACS plane monitoring the situation from just the other side of the border, with the ability to vector fighters (F-15, F16 etc..) should any Iranian planes get off the ground and happen to get to close to one of our Stealths.  This Variant has a much greater possibilty of setting the Iranians back a decade or more and this plan could be followed up with a second Cruise Missile attack, as in the First Variant.  The problem with this plan is of course that a Plane could get shot down and the Pilot killed or captured.

 

IMO

 

Interesting on the details. But I guess I don't see us attacking Iran, for a few reasons.

 

One, our military is too stretched. Yes, we could accomplish what you are saying without a problem. But you cannot attach Iran with the last 5% of your military assets, because you need to be ready for the potential backlash. That backlash (counter-attack), would take much more in the way of resources than what you suggest.

 

Two, Isreal has much more at stake in a nuclear Iran than we do, so their motivation to act will be much higher.

 

Three, if we were apt to do this sort of thing with a major aggresor country, why did we not do it to North Korea? We could attack Iraq easily enough, but attacking Iran is more on par with attacking NK, which we didn't do, despite knowing they were building nukes and where they were being built. Iran and North Korea both have large standing armies, significant air forces and some limited naval bits. Both are ruled by psychos. Lots of similarities, and we didn't do it to them.

[whitesoxmurph]

The elements of the US Military that would be used in the 2 strike variants I listed are uneffected by the current situation in Iraq and Afg. The Subs and/or ships that would launch the Cruise Missiles strikes have little or no tactical job in the current war on terror, other than some ships inspecting and boarding vessels in the Persian Gulf. The Subs have no job other than surveillance and any Special Ops. that might pop up. The total time to launch these missiles is less than an hour most likely. As for the second variant, the planes involved for the most part are not invovled in Iraq or Afg. The Stealths are not needed and the fighter protection is readily available. It is mainly the Ground Forces (ie: the Marines and the Army) that are stretched pretty thin, but they will have nothing to do with this operation.

 

On the second point I agree with NSS72 in that Istael has much more to lose in Iran develops nukes, but they also have a very real concern over being attacked by evreyone and their Arabic brother if they do strike themselves. I think that the Israeli Gov. will little to no trouble convincing the Bush Admin. to take out the Iranian nukes, and then they can wash their hands of the act.

 

The third point is one that I hear over and over. You are falling into a trap in thinking that the same tactical solution can be used in two very different situations. I agree that both countries and their leaders are dangerous madmen, who have or are going to have nukes. That is where the similarities end. I have been to South Korea, while in the U S Navy and the city of Seoul, with millions of people is within range of North Korean artillery. If we do a tactical strike on North Korea hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians could be killed in an artillery in response. North Korea could also hit Seoul with a nuke and that would be horrendous. Up to a million people could die in that attack. That is a price that nobody can afford to pay. We would have to make sure that we wiped out all of North Korea's nuke programs and sites while also hitting and wiping out any targets that could hit the South. This is also impossible to do with conventional weapons and I don't think anyone wants to cross the nuclear threshold. Just as the United States had to use different tactics in WWII in regards to Japan and Germany, we now can not think of the threats posed by Iran and North Korea from the same tactical stand-point. The problem in the same (madmen with nukes) the solutions are not.

[mmmmmbeeer]

I think any action, military or otherwise, will receive widespread support from around the globe.

 

France has already stated their displeasure with Iran's actions and the rioting outside Paris last year didn't help any muslim sympathies. The rest of Europe, thanks to the ridiculous rioting and burning of embassies, is also more than likely running short on patience. Russia offered a very fair opportunity to Iran by opening their doors to allow Iranians to produce nuclear power on Russian land. I doubt Putin is very pleased with the Iranians dismissal of his generosity. China, they'll veto any action.

 

I don't think that there's any doubt that we're headed toward some sort of serious conflict in the middle east. Whether that conflict is nothing more than a strong aerial bombing campaign or a arduous ground campaign remains to be seen, but I don't see how conflict can be avoided when dealing with that f***ing lunatic Ahmadinejad.

 

Edited to add, I don't believe that a single middle eastern government outside of Hamas or Syria cares for Ahmadinejad's antics either.

Edited February 7, 2006 by mmmmmbeeer

[Texsox]

The balancing act that the US always finds ourselves in is:

 

We are the 800000000 pound gorilla that everyone hates. We can annihilate almost any country on the planet. Right or wrong, nations fear us and see us meddling into problems that aren't ours.

 

If your in BIIIIIG trouble, who you gonna call? Of course, the US, and we'll spend billions ridding your stink hole of a country of some idiot that you, and possibly us, put into power. Of course while doing that, you will have to denounce us as aggressors and evil.

[NorthSideSox72]

The elements of the US Military that would be used in the 2 strike variants I listed are uneffected by the current situation in Iraq and Afg.  The Subs and/or ships that would launch the Cruise Missiles strikes have little or no tactical job in the current war on terror, other than some ships inspecting and boarding vessels in the Persian Gulf. The Subs have no job other than surveillance and any Special Ops. that might pop up. The total time to launch these missiles is less than an hour most likely. As for the second variant, the planes involved for the most part are not invovled in Iraq or Afg.  The Stealths are not needed and the fighter protection is readily available. It is mainly the Ground Forces (ie: the Marines and the Army) that are stretched pretty thin, but they will have nothing to do with this operation.

 

I think you have missed my point here. As I stated, its not about the attach - its about the aftermath. What happens after the attack? Do you think Iran will just sit there and be upset about it? They will retaliate, quite possible against our assets in Iraq and Kuwait, but possibly elsewhere as well. Again, you need to have assets in place to handle the next few events, not just the attack itself. That may need to include troops on the Iraq/Iran border. And I think that we are short on those right now.

 

The third point is one that I hear over and over. You are falling into a trap in thinking that the same tactical solution can be used in two very different situations. I agree that both countries and their leaders are dangerous madmen, who have or are going to have nukes. That is where the similarities end. I have been to South Korea, while in the U S Navy and the city of Seoul, with millions of people is within range of North Korean artillery. If we do a tactical strike on North Korea hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians could be killed in an artillery in response. North Korea could also hit Seoul with a nuke and that would be horrendous. Up to a million people could die in that attack. That is a price that nobody can afford to pay.  We would have to make sure that we wiped out all of North Korea's nuke programs and sites while also hitting and wiping out any targets that could hit the South. This is also impossible to do with conventional weapons and I don't think anyone wants to cross the nuclear threshold.  Just as the United States had to use different tactics in WWII in regards to Japan and Germany, we now can not think of the threats posed by Iran and North Korea from the same tactical stand-point. The problem in the same (madmen with nukes) the solutions are not.

 

I do agree with this. There are differences. I think its an indicator, though. I just don't see us attacking Iran right now. But you are correct, the tactical situations are different between the two.