Posted on 08/15/2005 1:42:38 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved
President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.
A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration. America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.
Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.
The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".
Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.
It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.
New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation.
As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.
We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack.
· Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival
Howard Dean doesn't even have a clue.
The difference would be in Iran, we would destroy it rather than trying to rebuild it from the ground up.
and we all know what happens to countries that are destroyed but not rebuilt...
For the moment, a military operation in Iran isn't likely. If diplomacy finally doesn't work, then we may see it.
I still think Israel will be involved .. if we determine that we must take out their nuke facilities.
I understand the India, Israel and the USA are going to be holding war games. Hmmmmm??
There's no reasoning with Mullahs. They have to go somehow before we face the risk that a major American city would be blown up.
The ties that Iran have with terrorism is rather terrifying.
My this Brit is getting fairly fast and loose with our assets isn't he? And with 150k US troops sitting within range of Irans missles/artillery we better hit them all on the first bomb run wouldn't you think? Maybe the writer would have us go Nuclear while we are at it... Just to be sure.
Then there is this:
This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm.
Cheney is an old man, and wants to retire. Anyone who believes Woodward is nuts. The next presidency will not be made up of large numbers of Bush team members, thats not the way its done. This isn't Britian.
But after setting up these two staw men, he comes back with this:
We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran.
Ah, so that's where he was going all along. How very clever.
IF? What do you mean IF?
Where has it EVER worked?
Oh, yes, the next step is pointless (and ineffective) sanctions...
Followed by trade imbargos, which, to the extent they work at all, serve mainly to impoverish the population.
Throw in a few toothless UN resolutions, stir, rinse, repeat.
I know it'll be difficult, but if they see a strike is imminent if they continue their defiance, they may change their mind only to conserve power momentarily. Sooner or later, their regime will be history. The future of the Middle East is freedom.
We already fly recon missions over Iran. The problem is, it takes a while to build up the forces for this.
Further, the author under estimates the strike power of the Mullahs.
The Straits of Hormuz are lined with Chinese Silkworms, and the entire gulf is unsafe for our ships until these are removed, but while removing them, a lot of US troops are within range of Iranian missles (loaded with what ever the mullahs have at hand, which could be rather dirty if not yet Nuclear).
There is a reason the Mullahs are pushing this now. They know that as we start drawing down forces in Iraq their trump card goes away. And with the Iraqi constitution comeing and the war going well (in spite of what the MSM says) they know that their time is limited.
Interesting way the Guardian sees the world. To them everything is to do with the industrial arms complex. Never mind that bombing certain parts of Iran is going to be absolutely necessary to stop Tel Aviv being nuked - or failing that, the western powers will have to spell out the Tancredo Doctrine to the Iran Theocrats. Nuke Israel and all the Ummah's pressure points (apart from Jerusalem) go up in smoke.
We would all gain from a war against Iran's mullahs.
Good One!
Not to mention:
We would all gain from the disappearance of the Guardian and other nasty, clueless and suicidal absurdities of the anti-Bush/anti-American Left.
:o)
"and we all know what happens to countries that are destroyed but not rebuilt..."
No. Please tell me.
you may remember a place called afghanistan, no effective central government, total international disinterest.
look what based itself there, look what took power because no other force was able to resist it.
if you remove irans government - its instruments of state power - you need to replace them with something else. that needs occupation - and iran is twice the size of iraq with three times the population. moreover you won't be able to move seemlessly from iraq to iran, any civil disorder in iran will spill into the southern shia areas of iraq very quickly.
so, limited airstrikes aimed at removing irans nuclear capablity are ok, but widescale airstrikes aimed at removing the iranian government from power without a viable replacement being available are a disaster waiting to happen.
if iraq uccupies some 100,000 us troops with a friendly north and a fairly benign south you may have fun finding troops to handle all of iran as well.
I agree. You can never occupy all of Iran. It hasto come in the form of a populace revolt, with killing off the mullahs and their followers.
This one will be very bloody.
I always thought a naval blockade to pressure and destabilize Iran would be the best alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.