Troop Escalation and Iran (Paul Craig Roberts)

A good read but, in particular :

Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush’s appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration’s attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran.

so the end is ny indeed, they couldn’t take iraq, and they think they can roll over iran? damn me thinks some nukes tactical probably, israel most likely, will have to be involved. fighting iran conventionally will make iraq look like afternoon tea.

and really how possible is a war without some premed attack ala 9/11? i think it’s good to get them sandwich boards folks…

Just the idea of using anything published in World Net Daily as a basis for serious contemplation or discussion about the world makes me laugh out loud. The premise of the headline is sound, but it’s a bit like turning to Iron Hymen to get a balanced perspective of birth control options. LOL!

In addition to moving additional military forces into the region, President Bush is putting into place a new political and military command team, all in preparation for an expanded war in the Middle East.

That White House cabinet room must be the most leakiest room on earth. They can’t keep any secrets from the far left.

ill_logic proves that he is worthy of his name so the end is ny indeed, they couldn’t take iraq, and they think they can roll over iran? damn me thinks some nukes tactical probably, israel most likely, will have to be involved. fighting iran conventionally will make iraq look like afternoon tea.

If the US wanted to “take” Iraq as you put it, what makes you think that the coun’t do it a a couple of days. They took saddam down in record time, do you think Maliki’s army is any better? In fact, the Iraqis depend on the US for stewardship.

The fact is that the US is there to help Iraq, not defeat it. The stupid things some people say.

I’d have to agree with Rune. This is a pretty poorly written article. Not that I disagree with the main premise… but his facts are loose in some places, wrong in others… and the author leans pretty heavily on assumptions.

who remembers the build up to iraq? tons of stories just like this one coming out leading up to the inevitable. Oh yeah took iraq alright, just look how good that’s going. and yeah iran’s army is a lot better then iraq’s, they haven’t had a decade of sanctions, have a bigger population, and are much more prepared then saddams peeps were. i almost hope they do attack so the US can their nose bloodied even more then they did in iraq, but for the many innocents that will die i hope for no bombs to be dropping.

yea nobbin i hear they want an extra 30 000 troops to “help” the iraqis, why don’t you go sign up if you’re convinced of the righteousness of your cause? aren’t you a true believer?

that’s what i thought.

_and really how possible is a war without some premed attack ala 9/11? i think it’s good to get them sandwich boards folks_…

Yeah, and a massive attack on one of their allies would maybe suit them way better than on homeground.

Not all bad news tho’, the neo-con danish Venstre (Left!) party has, with the help of an ultra-right racist party ‘danish peoples party’ kept a few troops in Iraq/afghanistan. Don’t even think the number killed has reached double digits unfortunately (if it had they would probably of been forced to withdraw). Anyway the ‘neo-cons’ are in trouble now cos’ they allowed the handing over of 31 Afghanistan ‘POWs’ – ha!- to the US, even though they knew the US was breaking the Geneva Convention. They lied in parliament, and if that is proved they will have to call a new election.

If the US wanted to “take” Iraq as you put it, what makes you think that the coun’t do it a a couple of days.

_The fact is that the US is there to help Iraq, not defeat it.

Comedy GOLD

“The one wild card that would change the equation would be an aggressive move by Iran.”

Interesting. This could be something that could be arranged, or even in worst case something along the lines of an accident that could be spun to Congress in a way that would make them think they had to react in a warlike way.

Seems unlikely but so did the patriot act pre-9/11, and there have been some really questionable things done in the wake of 9/11 in the name of national security.

I try and maintain a positive and logical outlook, but at the same time my paranoia has been growing over the last few years in what i thin immature and unaccountable idiots we have in office might be convinced to do by power players who are just as immature, and far more nuts.

Iran would be a nightmare. One that would be spun in our media as a necessity and a success, meanwhile we would lose even more ground with maintenance of the military as well as our standing in the world. A war with Iran will see a complete decline in the support of the US dollar.

We simply would fall apart in less than 20 years if we choose war on these terms.

hmmm maybe there is a solution, though. Maybe we are all wrong… Tell us, izzy, how we shall bring these heathens to their knees, meanwhile maintaining Superpower status because we say so…. =)

“Surge” my friends is cover for the call up of whatever reserve strength remains 9-5ing it here at home in preparation for Iran.

Bush will be on TV in 2 hours telling us how more troops in the near term are going to get them all home sooner.

Truth be told, they are digging up all the Guard and Reserves they can put on standby right now.

“Surge” provides the cover.

The press would get wind of something big about to happen when rumors start flying about who’s getting called up and preparing ship out.

Everbody called thinks that they are part of the advertised build up for Iraq.

This whole mess has been part of a regional plan since the onset. Wait’ll it goes global.

Sometimes no Peace,

tyecian hmmm maybe there is a solution, though. Maybe we are all wrong… Tell us, izzy, how we shall bring these heathens to their knees, meanwhile maintaining Superpower status because we say so…. =)

I don’t quite understand where you are coming from.

Here is the basic fact set concerning Iran. These facts are not controversial amongst people in the know. Although the far left modifies these facts to suit the socialist model of conflict. Enough about that, here are the basic facts in no particualar order:

1. The US Administration has no desire to fight Iran.

2. If it it did fight Iran, the US would fight on US terms and win quite easily.

3. The mulluz have a definite shelf life and Iran without war with the US and Iran will probably free itself shortly anyways.

4. Iran would not want to, and could not stop oil from flowing.

5. I would love to see all Persian Gulf oil stop flowing, and it would be a mixed blessing but mostly positive.

6. Most and eventually all Saudi oil could be diverted to the red sea.

7. If the US did fight Iran, on US terms of course, the mulluz would say such silly and inflammatory things about us infidels that they would piss off most people in the US and so such a war would end up very popular anyways.

8. There will never be a war basically for the reasons that I stated and a few more that I have not stated.

izzy youre no factologist, stick to your day job, fluffer at the WH.

fluffer at the WH

Gold.

Bush looked like he’d been hit in the “pillow” last night.

Do you ever think the brinksmanship of journalism today actually pushes us closer to conflict?

NBW, Apart from the first two points which are blatently untrue -well actually I think that if point 1 is correct then it is due to point 2 being incorrect – the others don’t seem as idiotic as usual. In point 7 though the mullahs’ statements will be taken out of context and twisted by your corporate media mates, as they desparately, yet with very limited success according to democratic polls taken in the US, attempt to whip the public up into another frenzy of bloodlust and fear.

The only trouble is that you insist on using the word ‘war’ as you drivel endlessly on about the evil arabs getting their come-uppance. It should be ‘war of aggression’ or ‘illegal attack’. If you do not, then you should also consider hitlers attack on poland as a legal war. If it were, why did the british then declare war?

IF2,

silent on the enlistment request-as always-all talk-no walk. no respect to others, no self respect.

—

On the speech last night we heard: 1) even if things go perfectly to plan with a ‘surge’-lots more of our soldiers will die and iraqis will be killed. 2) ‘victory’ and success will not look like the winning of any prior war (peace treaty on air craft carrier).

having said that, it means: 1) If the ‘surge’ succeeds or fails, lots of death will continue—so things won’t change. 2) victory is not defined, so, no clear point at when things would ‘end’, no clear opposites to name failure.

Soon

Last night’s speech wasn’t about ending anything. It was about enlarging the war to make room for the U.S. Navy. Changing the tactics. Going after the Iraqi militias.
Bombing the Iranians and Syrians.

That speech wasn’t about finishing Iraq, it was about starting WWIII. Very soon.

Kinda scary. A while back, I wrote here that, if a bombing attack on Iran is in the works, it will have to be preceded by a sudden, large reinforcement of ground forces in Iraq. I can’t remember the number precisely, but I think I said between one full division and 30,000 troops.

Iraq would completely fall apart without this contingent of US reinforcements to tie up and engage the swift insurgent reaction to a bombing campaign against Iran.

Even with these extra troops, CENTCOM will basically have to start major combat operations just to hold on to the initiative.

If Iran gets hit, there will be escalated warfare from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and in other regions that only the military leaders can accurately predict.

However, the attack on Iran may not be coming right now, since the sanctions have only just started and naval and air forces — while certainly growing — have still not gathered in sufficient force.

The attack on Iran, if it is to materialize, will probably come in months; not weeks.

the speech left that VERY open, I would agree—though I am skeptical of bombing of Iran and Syria right now. Unless there is a large loop I am unware of—this would seem to catch most people in the nation totally off guard. The first american casualties and the president would seriously be held to the fire—people have have ever thinning stomach for his loopy choices. Any such thing would be such a serious step into the muck way more than iraq.. you thought maybe last new moon—-maybe this new moon. lets not be so eager to call in WWIII.

Bush is a facade-he always has been an always will be-sure he has done a lot of action with Iraq that is totally backwards-and that is more than just cheap talk-but he and his administration is about smoke and mirrors for a lot of stuff-i have heard a lot of the navy deployment is precautionary and as a warning to Iran, just to make it clear …... but i do not think iran would do anything to US miltary, they know they won’t be better off for it. I guess I can see the slippery slope it may be headed to but still i think it is more posturing than anything. It may be tense and have the powder-keg like nature say the Cuban Missle Crisis had—but i would earnestly hope that like that situation, it is a tense time that passes, especially as pressure continues on the administration and iraq war—nobody is going to start being in more favor of it anytime soon-and it won’t be improving any time soon.

Now, the next part of the equation goes like this. What awe-inspiring catalyst will take place in order for the president to gain major support to enact his plan? The “Get Iran” plan was formally put into motion as soon as he was re-elected in 2004, as Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter reported.

I’m assuming a false flag operation will be the catalyst. Mr. Cheney made it no secret that if a major 9/11-level terrorist event occurs, Iran will immediately be attacked, no questions asked, possibly with tactical nuclear weapons. And some national security ‘experts’ have made it no secret that another major terrorist event most likely is coming, with some elites (i.e. Buffett) openly predicting it will take the form of a nuke or dirty bomb.

i agree—there is no political capital—bush and possibly cheney would have impeachment proceedings brought against them quickly, if they were to bomb iran, without having the backing here at home. They aren’t going to honestly gain it with anything in Iraq—though I suppose a false flag event against our soldiers there could happen as well.

I consider something nuclear related happening here would give the mouth-piece justification for the tactical nukes against iran.

If a nuclear disaster took place, all remaining logic in public circles would be temporarily evaporated, as the hot mushroom cloud expands on Live TV. In the ensuing 24 hour period of hysterical chaos, the people would be begging Bush to nuke Iran, and they would require no evidence or soul-searching, at least during that crucial short window.

After doing Bush’s bidding so disastrously in Lebanon, I doubt Israel wants to do it here. The U.S. generals are also balking. So a false flag is definitely required. (There’s a ratcheting up of blame on Iran for fueling the Iraqi “insurgency” – Americans seem to be buying it. And not a whimper about Somalia.)

yeah the cloud could go up in israel, that’s def a possibility, it’d suit america to get the israelis hands a lil dirtier.

oh and nice to see ya cont, haven’t been around these parts lately?

Iraq proved to be tremendously tough in its ten-year war with Iran. Even with U.S. support for Saddam against Iran (through his Kurdish decimation program and all), Iraq had only a quarter of Iran’s population to fight with and it killed more Iranians than Iran killed Iraqis. Still, it was a horrific devastation for both sides as millions died all told. The U.S. wound up helping to arm both sides (not just for Reagan’s pseudo confession about needing win American prisoners in Iran, but to soften up the entire area for the eventual direct entrance of the U.S. 15 years later — the real longterm oil coveting American plan, which did not begin with W.).

So, say the Iraq-Iran War II goes and substitutes U.S. troops for Iraq’s 1980-1990 army against Iran figuring it should even do better against Iran than Saddam’s comparatively tiny Iraq had done. And, include the U.S. Air Force substituting for Saddam’s 1980’s Air Force. You may as well look at Iraq as South Vietnam and look at Iran as North Vietnam at this point. And, say the U.S. carries out its “long war” against terrorism (its long war to tamp down world oil!) in a Vietnam War-length war out of Iraq (i.e. South Vietnam) against Iran. And, say it bombs the shit out of Iran like it did against North Vietnam, but that the Iranians turn out to be as tough as the Vietnamese and do not cave in, and the Iranians even send in Iranian regulars and IranCong forces (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.) into Iraq to hold their own against the U.S.

Say that, even with some tactical nukes radiating their asses and all. Well, that’s would not be the problem for the U.S. — a long painful war, that is. A long fucking war is part of the solution for the U.S., not the problem for it. We know about war economies. Capitalist imperialist war economies. The U.S. war economy. The success of war economy.

And, even if the U.S. is forced through some series of successful bombings to have to occupy Iran or part of Iran and winds up getting even more overextended than it has become by having sent troops out from Kabul (to everywhere but the Opium hills) and into Iraq where it is being drained, that will just deepen political polarization in the U.S. and help the domestic Gulag industry.

No, the war, the wars, the extending of war, the occupations and the homeland dissidence and the reactionary repression is not the problem for the U.S. from the Iranians. The problem for the U.S. from the Iranians in case of bombings, invasions and occupations and devastations of Iran will be terrorism in the U.S. from Iranians.

Just a plastic bag of anthrax thrown into the wind from a skyscraper will cause the evacuation of a downtown business center for months if not years. Recall what a couple of envelopes run through Post Office machines and into Senate offices did. Anthrax takes a long time to clean up — those buildings were shut down nearly for years and the total costs mounted to billions of dollars — all for a few grams of anthrax and the lives and freedom of zero perpetrators.

Iran will turn lose agents to carry out acts that will crash the markets of the world and create a greater depression than the 1929 crash. And, that’s besides nuking Tel Aviv and setting the entire Mideast in flames and skyrocketing the price of oil. People will be wishing for the good old days of $80 a barrel of 2005-2006.

What you all are speculating about, calculating, interpreting, analyzing or extrapolating is a mad end to civilization as we have known it. This will turn out worse than Hitler’s insane opening of the Eastern front against Russia. These rumblings are the rumblings of WWIII. And, it will have been the appeasement of the U.S. totalitarian MIC by the Democrats, Europe, Russia and China and everyone, just like it was the appeasement of Hitler’s Third Reich that will be the cause. The world should have condemned the U.S. and threatened and applied U.N. sanctions against the U.S. at the time of the run up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq when they still all wanted to keep frisking Iraq for WMD — except for America.

Iraq = , in the history books.
~GW“Hunta”:http://www.gnn.tv/H12797

If these rumblings of war against Iran turn into war, I’m going to have to give the Bush administration credit for one of its projections. That is, its war is truly going to be “a long war.”

Long war is right. It would be generational, the very term Cheney was originally using. I’m in complete opposition to the people who claim to know that the Bush admin was merely incompetent, by being unable to finish the Iraqi war. It’s my opinion that they want hostilities, throughout the region and beyond, dragged out for decades.

The Cold War officially started around 1946, give or take a year. That’s roughly 45 years of tension. I expect the current Long War to match it in length (but not form), with occasional flare ups involving the true competitors: the great powers and their transnational money patrons.

According to the Moon, the best nights would be the 18th and 19th of January.
Thanks GWHunta.

does that mean the US economy will be propped up for just a bit more?

lord, goodness…

An outbreak of hostilies with Iran would immediately send oil over $100/barrel, then rising to $120 and then into mystery. In the short-term, that’s big profit. Even though America is clearly a big importer now, most of its crude intake could still be met for a while. The same cannot be said for Europe and many parts of Asia.

A barrage of CentCom and mainstream news reports declaring that Iran was dealt crippling blows would keep the markets going by hype alone. A lack of hard news and primary reports will make Centcom’s propaganda easier to believe. Still, the smart money would accelerate dollar & treasury dumping strategies, along with buying gold. China would be enraged and also dump fair amounts of US denominated stuff.

The plunge protection mechanisms would activate, and US-based multinationals as well as allied foreign banks, on advice of the CFR and Federal Reserve, would buy as much US stuff as possible to counter-act the dumping.

In the end, I think most everyone would suffer financially, not to mention horrid loss of life for people of the Middle East and US servicemen.

EU powers and China will be the pivots, especially China. If EU powers swallow this poison and gamble to side with supporting the US economy (which I think will happen), and China does not take too much of vengeful stance (which is still a complete mystery), then serious global economic disruption will not take place. Otherwise, there’s going to be trouble in most markets, enough to cause major corrections, unemployment, investment plunges, price hikes, security alarmism slowing down trade, etc..

Good continuity? Not off my spin. Yes, good Continuity, in the world that closes its eyes to projections like mine that may of well have included such details as twelve middle-aged Iranian agents unleashing a few bags of anthrax simultaneously onto a few downtown business centers in the U.S. of A.

That is, whose side the EU powers take and what China does will hardly matter if the U.S. unleashes its Air Force against Iran and occupies the oil fields off of the Straits of Hormuz. The kinds of terrorist acts that will be unleashed will paralyze the psyche of the American consumer. Heard of the consumer confidence index, lately? Forget about it? We will not be talking about surges then. We will only be talking about plunges.

U.S. attack Iran? Just madness. The U.S. will send Israel to do it and will lead us into the terrorist crises in the U.S. during the height of the ensuing right wing Christian delusion about a Second Coming after Iran trucks in a van nuke to radiate Tel Aviv and Israel unleashes its nuclear arsenal all the fuck over the Mideast.

Yes, I agree that the U.S. wants the long war. Many of us agree. the trouble is that it also has a fanatical clique that wants Jesus Christ to come along during an Armageddon of its own making. And, Iran will contribute to the realization of this — no matter who the EU powers support and no matter how much China wants world peace.

Is this for real?

Rumors are circulating in the United States capital of Washington that President Bush has declared a “secret, informal war” on Iran and Syria, according to a pair of blogs written by apparent Washington insiders.

“Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran,” blogger and think-tank fellow Steven Clemons wrote on Thursday on his site, The Washington Note. The Plank, hosted by the New Republic Magazine, posted an entry on Friday about similar speculation around the capital U.S. city.

Namaste, I visited your link and it just says “Bing, Bang”. Hmmm

Weird. It’s a link to Wiki News – it’s on the front page.

The source is from The Plank

Thanks Nam, but the friggin page has this floating ‘subscribe’ box covering the text!

The U.S. is awash in oil at present. Between the relatively warm El Nino weather in December and early January and the partial restoration and re-invigoration of supplies from Alaska, Canada, the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico proper as well as Venezuela the U.S. supply of crude oil is secure.

A sudden rise in oil prices will spell huge profits for an industry currently holding large amounts of crude oil and refined products in reserve.

The reaction of the Chinese, in the event of radical price volatility or supply disruptions, is likely to be heavily anti-American as they are dependent upon Iranian crude oil and trade with Iran for their continued economic expansion.

Any interruption of shipping in the Persian Gulf will directly impact the Asian market as that is where most of the oil leaving via Strait of Hormuz is headed.

Expect a meltdown of the global financial markets and global recession if not an immediate outbreak of armed hostilities between major the U.S. and China over first Iran, followed by the DPRK and/or Taiwan.