Posted on 08/18/2005 6:06:22 PM PDT by Yasotay
I have several thoughts about your post, but that would involve a whole new thread. I will always think that NOT declaring war was Bush's first mistake.
Is a seige possible in this context?
Sharon has cleared gaza, next he will clear the outlying settlements in the west bank, then he will drop 100 plus bunker busters on Isfahan and the other Iranian nuke sites. This will impede the Iranians for awhile. The Pakistanis are supplying so much, they are the true critical vulnerablity in Irans nuke ambitions.
The Pakis are supplying so much what?
That would hurt us worse than them, but going to bio diesel or making fuel from coal would give them some concern. The Middle East has absolutely nothing except oil. Go to a different fuel and our problems are solved. It might take a while but in the long run we would be better off.
Energy for world commerce really drives everything. As long as we were self sufficient we always continued to grow and never felt threatened. When coal was king there was no problem. Early in the use of oil, we had all we needed right here. The British empire was at its zenith when coal ran the steam engines. Even back during the US Civil war people don't understand why cotton was so important in the South. The major use for it was sails but steam was taking over. But sails were still important up to about 1880 or so.
What we have to do is divorce ourselves away from the Middle East. We have the coal reserves, the technoligy for nuclear power (electricity) and plenty of land for the bio fuels. Europe doesn't have this, nor does the Middle East. Take away the univeral need for oil from the Middle East and they go back to living in tents and riding camel. They even have to import sand to make good concrete.
I think you nailed it. Not only is there no political consensus for Iran or Syria, the conventional forces are going to need a breather.
The regimes of Iran & Syria are teetering right now. Anything less than a decisive move against either country would probably be counterproductive. It would actually confer a kind of moral legitimacy that both regimes lack at present.
Wrong .... I did not say attack Iran .... I said OVERTHROW it's government. We have a SUCCESSFUL history of doing that in Iran. We are in a perfect position to do it again. That is not operational overreach. Military operations to support that (unlike the Bay of Pigs) would be needed. Not invading Iran.
AQ Khan is the technical wiz that has spread the know how on nuke manufacturing, the fissile material they are making themselves. But the centrifuge design is Pakistani. The technical training was done by Pakistani's and could be still. Who monitors flights from Islamabad to Teheran? The CIA does a piss poor job of Humint and doesn't know if the Iranians are close to gassification or if they already are reprocessing.
I am a strong alternative feuls backer, how would riding the bus one day a week hurt us?
Actually, a blockade, since we only control the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Iraqi, and Afghani Borders. This leaves the Turkish, Armenian, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan borders in doubt.
Iran is 1.65 million square kilometer, and has a population of 68 million.
One of the keys is whether the US could keep the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf open to shipping of crude oil. If not, there would be a mighty conflict for the remaining supplies, with severe rationing world wide.
The biggest problem with Iran is they might close the Straits or "Baker" it. I don't think a blockade is a good idea. Help the Iranians overthrow their government. Make the Iranian President not get a good night sleep.
Congratulations on your appointment and your assessment.
I also wish to point to a strategically placed peace initiative now brewing that must be well funded, indicating not only anti-war/Bush sentiment, but perhaps something else: party politicking, and, worse, infiltration. See Sperry's work; I am high on his words right now.
This would slow down Iran's ability to produce her own nuclear weapons. However, it would seal Israel's fate.
Israel would become a Pariah State to most other countries of the world. And it is likely that another country would supply Iran with operational nuclear weapons within a year or two.
Instigating an insurgency briefs well but it is another story for the SF guy that goes in there and pulls together Guerrillas to fight the Mullahs. It is possible but will the US sheeple tolerate a bunch of show trials of SF and CIA bubbas who get doublecrossed by their indig freedom fighters.
No problem with that or how about no students in highschools have cars. We are going to have to change. I know I have basically had to shut down a small business I do on the side as the result of fuel cost. We need to change because things are to expensive, not wait until we run out and then change. Then it is too late.
If the Middle East understands we don't need them, then they will understand we don't care what we do to them. They have always understood that for the past 1000 years.
I also wish to add that the neat triangulation of Syria, Iran and Saudi place Iraq in that spot on a newborn's head that must be protected at all costs.
We will be having this thing one way or another for a very long time. They question is how much control we actually want over our own futures, individually, and, as a nation.
Pardon. The question
Sorry, no one ever accused me of high intellect, so I can't tell you how much I appreciate that...I am only good at pretending...
however, I was referring to a book written by Liddell Hart called "On Srategy" which details historical incidents of military strategy in which the outcome of the battle is determined by indirect action before the battle begins, such as by proper positioning of troops, denial of lines of supply, eroding the morale of the enemy, and the like. IN many cases, the battle was avoided by such indirection , since the opponent acknowledged defeat before the battle was joined.
I would like to find a way for Iran to acknowledge defeat without joining the battle. The only thing I know, is that in all of these situations, the threat of attack needed to be present.
I recommend the book to all interested in the study of global or military conflict.
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.