Posted on 08/05/2006 2:13:21 PM PDT by Dark Skies
Bush has warned against for five years. Iran’s nuclear program, its support of groups like Hezbollah and its strident anti-Israel and anti-American statements appear to make it a prime target for American retribution.
But the administration finds itself relying on Israel to cripple Hezbollah and on the United Nations and an ad hoc alliance of European nations, China and Russia to try to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Iran is the enemy that best fits the definition of the adversary Bush has defined,” said Robert Malley, director of the Middle East program at the International Crisis Group. “This is the poster child of what he thinks the U.S. should be going after.”
And yet, so far, the Bush administration has pulled its punches.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is more of a three dimensional chess game than is apparent on the surface.
I believe this would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.
We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else.
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power.”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.
The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.
I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. 2 Trillion Barrels of oil in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). Any organic matter can be turned into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more Nuclear power if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks. There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. Talking is a waste of our time.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them.
We are at last at "fish or cut bait" time. Whether this President is great (or not) will be determined against the backdrop of history (this history).
He may be holding everything in reserve...but he isn't great yet because this play isn't over.
Hate to break it to you. We have been fishing for almost 5 years. And the islamo scum have been getting trounced at eveery turn. But yeah, I guess if one thought that the WOT would be over in 3 years, then I can understand the disappointment.
We haven't yet begun to fight. In fact, we haven't begun to identify a Churchill who might lead us in this fight. It ain't "islam is a religion of peace" W. It ain't "islam is benevolent" Condi. It might be Rudy...it might be Newty. It most certainly might be Bibi.
But this war hasn't even begun!!!
What is going on in Lebanon is exactly what we want. Another campaign in the on going War on Islamic Fascism
Take Lebanon for example.
There is a great deal of misplaced angst in Conservative circles about the the Israeli operations in Lebanon. In the first days of the war, Ralph Peters was all ready moaning, “ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write “ This week Charles Krauthammer exclaimed Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well” To quote Lady Thatcher, “This is no time to go wobbly” Conservatives!
The problem with these admirable men’s analysis is they are trying to force a Conventional Warfare paradigm onto an Asymmetrical warfare problem. That simply will not work. Start with our Revolution, Napoleon in Spain, Spain in South American, the US in Vietnam, Various European powers all over the world, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, the French then the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan. A Conventional Warfare doctrine applied to an Asymmetrical problem always ends in the eventual bloody defeat for the Conventional Force.
Think of Israel as a boxer punching a sand bag. No matter how hard they hit, they cannot hold their fist to the bag forever. Thus as soon as they pull their fist back the weight of the sand forces the bag back to the same old shape. This time Israel, with the backing of the Bush Administration, is trying to find a way to empty the sand OUT of the bag so that when Israel's fist is removed, the bag does not simply revert to the same old form. It's not as dramatic or made for TV sexy but it DOES have the virtue of possible achieving a workable longer-term strategic change for Israel. Israel is going for the long game, a solution to a decade long cancer NOT a drama-queen, ego-feeding headline-grabbing military blitz. It would be utterly stupid for Israel to settle for just pruning back Hizbolla when they could possibly completely uproot it.
All the various "armchair Patton's" plans would accomplish is a lot of dead Jews for a short term. Hizbolla would simply bleed the Israelis while pulling back into sanctuary areas in Syria and northern Lebanon. Then when the Israelis could no longer stand the blood and treasure long term occupation was costing them, Hizbolla would simply flow back into the same positions they hold now. And in a few years from now the Israelis would face the same crises in Lebanon Like the US in Iraq, Israel seems to be trying for a long term FIX that uproots Hizbolla and creates a viable Lebanese government that can police its own territory. That is why the Israelis are interested in a NATO force to do in Lebanon what it is currently doing in Afghanistan. The UN has showed it simply is too corrupt and ineffective to manage peacekeeping duties. Israel, and the world, need a force that can keep out the Terrorists while the Lebanese build a viable nation-state that can provide long term stability. Thus the Israel and the US should be looking with interest to the French.
The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military). Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jewish troops would in the Arabs. For domestic consumption, the French can spin this mission as one to protect the Muslims, stopping the Israelis. France does not have any where near the existing military commitments that the US and Britain do, so they have the forces available to take this one. With France heading the mission Germany, Spain and the other reluctant nervous-nellies among the old Europe nations would have political coverage to get involved. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists’ proxy forces and adds pressure on Tehran to make a deal on the nuclear issue since they are diplomatically isolated. It would be also be impossible for domestic political reasons for the French to let the mission fail. In face of the success we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, France needs to prove itself a serious world player. This mission thus would be seen as a test of France's Pan-Europeanism.
The $64 billion question is will the French do it? Source links:
"Israel's Lost Moment" Washington Post Friday, August 4, 2006; By Charles Kurthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html
"CAN ISRAEL WIN?" New York Post July 22, 2206. By Ralph Peters
href="http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html">http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html
China
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
10% (2002)
Military branches:
People's Liberation Army (PLA): Ground Forces, Navy (includes marines and naval aviation), Air Force (includes Airborne Forces), and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (PAP); Reserve and Militia Forces (2006)
Military service age and obligation: 18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)
Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 281,240,272 females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 13,186,433 females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $81.48 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (2005 est.)
Thanks for the factual data.....too bad we have to be politically correct at this time and not bomb Iran back to the stone age.....but they sure are asking for it....
Yer nuts. 2 conquered countries, a third who threw in the towel, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, of all places fighting against AL Qaeda. You need to get a hold of yourself.
We may still need to do that. But I think pulling the mullahs from spider holes is much better.
I agree with you...I was just humoring him...I don't agree with him all that much....too extreme...
WHo is the "him" you are referring to as being too extreme?
Well, I can't argue with that.
But in general, I think you and I are stressing two separate points. You are correct when you say that we trounce the enemy when we face it in a conventional military confrontation.
However, my point is this...in all those areas in the world where we have not faced the enemy militarily, it is still growing and in those areas where we have won militarily (Iraq and Afghanistan) the enemy (fundamental, radical, militant islam) is still alive and well. Furthermore, we don't even have a strategy for dealing with it. The enemy is not a country but a religion and I have yet to hear any world leader suggest how we are going to deal with radical islam (democracy sure as h$ll isn't the answer).
If you know of a strategy that I have either overlook or have not heard of, please advise.
Excellent, meaty post. Will need to chew on it for a while.
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.