iRan
Dr. iRack puts his Dr. iRan hat on for a moment to call your attention to three interesting pieces.
1. Ilan Goldenberg notes the emerging consensus among the foreign policy establishment and wonk-o-sphere that we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy with Iran.
2. The Center for a New American Security brings together a collection of Iran experts arguing in favor of diplomacy and against a U.S. military strike.
3. Laura Rozen interviews an Israeli intel correspondent, an Iranian American activist, an arms expert, a former peace negotiator, and an anti-war intellectual about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran before the end of Bush's term. The conclusion: unlikely. This is important, because proponents of a strike in the United States often say "Look, even if you don't want us to hit Iran, the Israelis are about to do it and that would be worse. So we should do it ourselves."
4. Sy Hersh on the escalation of covert ops to undermine Tehran.
Just a little more fun Sunday reading. Enjoy!
65 comments:
"The conclusion: unlikely."
I've been hesitant about discussing it openly, but it's impossible, for the main and obvious reason: The IAF do NOT have the refueler capacity to conduct the strikes necessary to achieve their goals in Iran (the targeting mix, I heard, would be something like 70 or so installations and suspected facilities, many of which are hundreds of meters underground).
The US is NOT going to give Israel refueling opportunities, and Turkey wouldn't grant fly-over rights, nor would we.
This is a military aspect to the debate that hasn't been often mentioned because all the "military experts" who like to hear themselves talk about averting war with Iran don't understand it.
When to become worried? When you see the IAF begin to drastically ramp up their in-flight refueling capabilities.
And even if Israel did have more refueling aircraft, they would still require some coordination with the US (so we don't shoot them down as they exit Iran and so we can take measures to protect our forces from reprisal) which means the US essentially has a veto over an Israeli strike.
And all this misses the point. The "critical node" in Iran's nuclear program is not Natanz or the UCF or even the reactor at Arak - it's the scientists and nuclear experts who are in the process of mastering enrichment technology (and they are very close). Could Israel destroy Natanz, the PFEP and Iran's existing, known (and safeguarded) facilities? Probably, but Iran has the technical capacity to rebuild and they likely already have the capacity to make centrifuges domestically. They are also smart enough to anticipate a strike and likely have spares of critical equipment to reconstitute quickly. So unless Israel can kill all that expertise, the effects of a strike will be transitory at best.
Much is made of the need for IDF/AF refueling and flight operations over foreign airspace.
An historical point of reference:
During the Iran-Iraq War, in what was known as Operation Sultan Strike in 1980, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force made effective use of their KC-707 tanker aircraft. These tankers served IRIAF F-4 fighter bombers and escorting F-14 Tomcats, to hit Iraq's al-Hurriyah AFB (near Mosul). They actually crossed into Turkish airspace, using the Yak Pass to hide their progress. The Turks did not respond and the airstrike against the IrAF was a complete success.
Two side notes concerning previous airstrikes against Middle East nuclear sites:
1) Iran's Air Force was actually the first in the world to launch a successful airstrike against a nuclear reactor site. Operation Scorch Sword took place on September 30, 1980, against the very same site the Israelis hit eight months later- Osirak.
2) It should further be pointed out that the Iraqi Air Force flew no fewer than seven airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr, between the years 1983 and 1988.
All I can say is Wow!:
Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates's comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates's answer, the senator told me, was "Let's just say that I'm here speaking for myself."
Can't say I disagree.
Cheney must be having six kittens.
As I have argued before, I think the probability of a strike on Iran before this administration leaves office is close to nil, presuming there is not some unforseen development on the ground.
Is the purpose of Hersh's article, do people think, to bring more attention to the issue to make the probability of action even more unlikely? Obviously just as a matter of course you probably don't want secret operations being leaked to the press, though it raises the question of who leaked to him and why.
“We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...
“George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president in the White House seven and a half months from now.”
-Ehud Olmert, adressing the press after meeting with Pres. Bush earlier this month.
"Vanquish!" Did Bill Kristol or David Frum ghost write that speech?
I'd say it's a slam dunk that Bush pulls the trigger. Cheney wants it, Bush wants it, Olmert wants it, and Congress is currently passing a bill that would allow a blockade of Iran.
It may get busy soon at Dover AFB.
Everyone seems to believe that it is the IAF that will do the job. if Israel chooses a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran.
If so, wasn´t it a little untactical to demonstrate the capacity of the IAF in the mediterranian excercise?
Perhaps the excercise was a "Ruse de guerre" and that the israelis contemplate quite different methods to neutralize the iranian nuclear program.
Ballistic missiles? taking the front scientists and technicians out?
Regarding a blockade of the Iranian coast, how doable is that? How many fleet elements are in the local waters right now? Bless Fallons heart, btw, if he ever comes to Oslo I would like to buy him a beer.
Btw, it is interesting to note how brazenly lawless the US seems to have become with regards to its international "enemies". There is only one other country that openly brags about its use of covert intelligence and terrorism in sovereign states it is not at war with, even Russia protests it innocence and uses Chechen mafya strawmen to kill its opponents. In my book, running SF missions inside another sovereign country with the aim of destabilizing that country through terrorism/ targeted assasinations constitues an open act of war, and gives Iran every damned right to retaliate in kind. If the SF forces are not in uniform, it makes them unlawful combatants, and prone to Gitmo-treatment, waterboarding and all. But, I guess different rules apply to the Masters of the Universe, eh? A Iranian SF-team in Baltimore wouldnt be quite the same? (Oh, I forget, the Kuhnian paradigms of the national state are so 20th century, I know, dahling. Let us vanquish the serpent of Evil. Wooo.)
doth Dr.iran not read MESH? relevant article to this discussion - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/06/assign_iran_to_israel/
one very salient point (that fnord touched on) is the after-effects, primarily that of shipping in the Persian Gulf. If it gets hot enough that the US has to mass fleet elements in the gulf, and if one or two oil tankers were to be hit by Iranian surface to sea missiles - how likely is it that insurance rates would then go through the roof for tankers, leading to a rapid decline in traffic? ...very likely, methinks...
hmm - clipping my link - Middle East Strategy at Harvard - MESH "Assign Iran to Israel"
Fnord, please turn your history books back 50 years. We have had people inside Iran "adjusting" their internal politics for a long time. We are really good at it! They won't mind.
Steve
Steve: Yes, that went swimmingly, didnt it?Kermit Roosevelt jr, your country needs you now. Like a fish needs a bicycle.
We had Khatami and his female vice-president up here last week as part of a new peace-center that is being established, and they were pretty clear that the reelection of Ahmadinejad was hinging on the outcome of the next months. They were also pretty clear that the clandestine maneuvers of the US were counterproductive unless the aim is to provoke a fight.
And for some really wacky stuff, check out Norman Podhoretz at Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139), praying that Bush must bomb Iran as part of the war on islamofascism. This guy actually has face to face-time with the POTUS? Wtf?
"Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades."
War on a world religion? Whut? And these folks are taken seriously by the most powerful man in the universe? Next, there will be hohlwelte experiments and US expeditions to find Agartha in Tibet, mark my words.
Seriously, if ideological loonatics like this is allowed near your president, it says miles about what Gates has to combat. It must be horrible to walk the same hallways as these folks. Got im himmel.
Podhoretz isn't as scary as the "serious people"
at MESH.
Dear Mr. iRack,
Let us concentrate on the more substantive matter. Israel can destroy you. Very easily.
Khatami and the vice president of Iran attending the inaugeration of a peace center. Were there any representatives from Hamas and hezbollah in the iranian delegation?
*Former* vicepresident Massoumeh Ebtekar, to be precise. Or Screaming Mary, as you folks propably know her. She is part of a two-year dialogue program aimed at developing a ecumenical discurse on womens rights, and she is actually quite modern in her reading of Islam. Details to be found here: http://www.oslocenter.no/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=121&Itemid=1
But I forget, talking to these folks is appeasment, right?
That depends on how deep you bow to them and how anti american and anti israeli your agenda is.
I excpect you mean "bowing" in a political sense, and are not talking about what hip-angles are allowed in polite greeting? Somehow I think our former primeminister of the Christian democrats is not about to declare fealty to Quom. Its facinating how so many americans see dialogue as powerplays, like the meetings of dogs where one must be alpha.
"depending on how anti-american and anti israeli your agenda is."
Pretty much entirely. But then I don't bow to anyone, ever.
Apropos of appeasement I recall that the norwegian state department was the only one in Europe that received minister Atef Adwan from the terror organization Hamas in 2006.
The peaceful ambitions of that organization are of course well known
Dr Irack,
The foreign policy communities’ record of failure on the matter of Iran is unmatched. They all be driving cabs or bussing tables a long time ago in the Private Sector. They can’t even succeed at appeasement.
The only point of negotiations is to buy time for Iran. We've been talking to them secretly, openly and through third parties, and the vaunted International Institutions and gotten the same answer for decades. NO DEAL.
BTW How seriously do you take Sy Hersh? He is not a friend of either the Administration or frankly the military, nor has he ever been. But I interested if you think he's credible.
Fnord,
Iran has been at war with us since 1979, it's just that we rarely respond. And whatever covert OPS we are doing now it is long overdue, they have been practicing Covert OPS against us for decades, and they are responsible for over a thousand American deaths, both civilian and US over the years.
Any US personnel captured get a hellava lot worse than waterboarding. That's because our enemies know there will be no consequences. Frankly we get next to nothing out of the Geneva Conventions (not that the enemy obeys them either).
And you Dear Sir are becoming absolutely rabid in your anti-Americanism. WTF did we ever do to Norway, anyway?
Seymour Hersh was interviewed today on "Democracy Now" where he usually appears after a controversial "Annals of National Security" article is published. Verbally he usually provides more information than in a published article. The video/audio of the interview is available online (link below). The way Hersh has worked in the past is he does favors for those in intelligence work and in return he gets information. In this case it seems from his interview that there is an institutional unease with the White House agenda toward Iran, and especially the public discrediting of the NIE on Iran which Hersh said comes from 18 intelligence agencies. Hersh was particularly critical in the interview of Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller and Silvestre Reyes who he said know about these operations.
In the interview Hersh said Israel can't carry out the attack, and Cheney has ruled it out, since he said ground troops are required to take out Iran's air defenses which are buried. He said Admiral Fallon couldn't find out about operations from a new JSOC command center that has been built in Afghanistan. He said the White House hopes JSOC can kidnap an Iranian nuclear scientist and bring him to testify before Congress. He said there is a lot of concern about JSOC contacts with the Jundallah who will kill anyone for money.
Also he said a lot of the time the US doesn't seem to know where the funds given to the MEK and Iranian dissidents are going, so we are "flying blind". However he said an attack is more likely if Obama is elected since McCain is seen as on the White House's "wavelength". Hersh said doesn't have a source to know if the recent up tick of violence in Iran is related to US operations (meaning he is looking for a source). Also he said Cheney is "top dog" on a lot of issues, not Bush. Link: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request
SNLII,
So the IAF is bluffing?
Hmmm. They've been pretty serious about this subject so far. While they may not have the capability to destroy the program, they certainly could disrupt it.
RFC: bluff or not? Also, how did they get to Greece and back, that is....how did they refuel on that CAPEX over Greece last month?
Why anyone would ever believe Hersh or listen to him is beyond me. He has a record of libeling the US military. His articles are all from anonymous sources.
"His articles are all from anonymous sources."
But he's always been correct.
I think he finds it easier to infultrate the US to report atrocities than the other side - be it Vietnam or some other country.
That's just his thing.
I think if Hersh wanted to, he could safely navigate Iraq and get plenty of stories on the other sides "atrocities".
He just doesn't want to. Not to mention, they actually retaliate. We don't even bother to correct incorrect or bad reporting.
His thing is sh*tting on the USA.
Our worst "atrocity" was staging some sex photos at Abu Gharib. Those of you in academe - take a surprise look at your student’s cell phones or laptops. I think you'll find as bad or worse.
Dr K: it really would require a second blog to list this (so let's not do it here, I'll set up a stub network if you like) but by what method do you arrive at the conclusion Hersh is always right? For goodness sakes, NO ONE is always right. Including me.
"Apropos of appeasement I recall that the norwegian state department was the only one in Europe that received minister Atef Adwan from the terror organization Hamas in 2006.
The peaceful ambitions of that organization are of course well known."
Ah, I would be happy to live in your world of stark dualism, black and white absolutes. Yes, Norway kept up, and tries to keep up, contact with Hamas. It is after all the legaly elected governme nt among the palestinians, and was subject to an attempted coup by US backed Fatah-forces wich backfired somewhat heavily (as usual with US black ops).
You folks call this appeasement and anti- Israelism (and propably anti-semitism and remnants of our nazi-past or whatever when we are not speaking publicly, too). We prefer to call it maintaining channels of comunication in solidarity with a supressed people. The peacefeelers of Hamas have been many, far above my paygrade to judge the seriousness of them all, but they have been many. Most of them got bombed to silence by the unmentionable nation.
This is from the 6/26 Jerusalem Post. Norman Podhoretz may have his prayers answered:
A tourist who visited the Kirya in Tel Aviv this week could have been excused for mistaking the IDF Military Headquarters for an American army base. After all, it is not every week that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff visits Israel - certainly not mere days following a visit by two four-star generals.
The week began with the arrival of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, who had come to meet his Israeli counterpart, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom. Both took up their positions in late 2007, and they have already met three times - twice in the US, and now this time in Israel. This is the most, Roughead told The Jerusalem Post, that he has met with any other foreign Navy commander.
In the middle of the week, Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, landed in Tel Aviv. He was here as the guest of OC Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi. In contrast to Roughead's visit, which was covered by the media, the IDF refused to provide details surrounding the purpose of Wallace's trip here.
Wallace is responsible for a wide range of issues, including the recruiting, training and education of US Army troops. A recent op-ed he wrote for the East Valley Tribune read like a piece that could have been authored by an Israeli general protesting declining draft numbers. In Israel, he wrote, 25 percent of youth may be evading the draft, but in the US, only 28% of the 17-24-year-old population even qualifies to wear a military uniform.
After Wallace and Roughead flew back home on Thursday, it was their boss's turn to arrive. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen - as was reported exclusively in The Post this week - decided to cut short a scheduled tour of Europe to fly to Tel Aviv over the weekend for talks with his Israeli counterpart, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.
This is significant. Until Mullen's previous visit to Israel in December, no joint chiefs chairman - the highest military position in the US - had been here in more than a decade. This week's visit is his second since taking up the post less than a year ago, and comes just weeks before Ashkenazi is scheduled to fly to Washington to meet with him there.
This sequence of visits was explained by IDF Spokesman Brig.-Gen. Avi Benayahu as "routine trips dealing with many areas of cooperation."
Fair enough. But they come just two weeks after it was reported that the Israel Air Force had conducted one of the largest aerial exercises in its history. The IAF allegedly flew 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets - supported by midair fuel tankers and rescue helicopters - 1,500 kilometers westward over the Mediterranean Sea. This just happens to equal the distance eastward from Israel to Iran's nuclear facilities.
In addition, the meetings coincide with a recent escalation in Israeli rhetoric vis-à-vis Iran. Earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran. Other officials, too, such as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Israeli ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor, have made similar, if less definitive, remarks.
Regarding S. Hersh and his reporting, let me guess what comes next: Someone will fire up a list of five-six times he has been wrong, and so state the blanket fact that he is always wrong. Then elf-will chime in with how its just a part of the liberal press. Then someone will bleakly oppose this by pointing to things he have gotten right. Then everyone will snort and deride. Then we will all have ended up discussing the character of Sey Hersh instead of the fact that the US propably have rogue terrorist-programs outside military control affecting the military situation, and that it is run by a small cabaal of insane fascists led by the US vice president with 6 months left in the bunker, and that Gates is (hopefully) fighting them tooth and nail.
Sometimes I think Great Cthulu lumbered forth after the breaking of the Ring of Pentagon and posessed a whole lot of americans and filled them with his Spawn of Hateful Dualism. Avert! Avert!
There is the law of Godwin which disqualifies the debater who first makes a reference to Hitler and nazism in a discussion outside that topic.
Then we have the law of fnord which makes the first debater to use the word fascist in conjunction with USA, Israel or the west, a loser of the debate.
Well fnord that´s it.
Oh really? And here I thought fascism was a ideology that had some pretty close parameters to the ide of the Unitary Executive idea put forward by Card and the lads. To quote Pat Lang:
"Today on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show, Card was asked by Pat Buchanan if the American people did not have the right to be informed in advance of deliberations that might lead to a new war.
Card's reply was that the citizenry have a right to be informed only if that does not limit the president's freedom of action in deciding how to defend us (America.)"
If you add to that a strong streak of corporatism, a lot of emphasis on the Soul of the Nation, the National Will, etc., add to this a fundamental disrespect for the sanctity of the Individuals rights before the Law and I do not see this as a Hitlerism at all. But hey, if it makes you sleep at night, good for ya.
Those who equate USA of today with Nazigermany, Mussolinis Italy and Francos Spain ought to return from the orbit in outer space.
First, this is a derailing off topic, the discussion is about the ongoing operations inside the sovereign state of Iran, and how to relate to its position in the ME.
However: Fascism is an ideology, an attitude to the relationship between the individual and the state. It is not a historical analogy. In no way is the USA a fascist state, but certain of the individuals in positions of power I suspect very strongly wouldnt feel morally appalled by living in Francos Spain, or in South Africa during the old days. (Nelson Mandela got sticken of the terroristlist 3 days ago, dont know if you noticed?)
Or to put it another way: Its a historical fact that Podhoretz has gotten facetime with POTUS. Now, that means that someone must have invited him, and this means that someone in the proximity of the POTUS thinks he has a point. Since Podhoretz is, to me, obviously insane this indicates to me that someone in the White House is also. When we know that the Cabaal of Cheney have been the ones pushing the principles of secrecy and the Unitary Executive legalistic reading of the Constitution, wich every US officer is sworn to protect, then the term fascists come easily to my lips. It doesnt fit perfectly, in a idea-historical sense, but its close enough for government work.
Now, back to topic: How do you feel about the concept of sovereign nation states and diplomacy, sir?
elf: Iran has been at war with us since 1979, it's just that we rarely respond... they are responsible for over a thousand American deaths, both civilian and US over the years.
The US responds fairly often, actually. It first invaded Iran in 1980, and then proceeded to grant significant support to Iraq in its aggressive war against Iran from 1982 onwards - arming and funding Iraq and supplying it with satellite intelligence, and finally sending its troops to fight Iran directly in the Tanker War, in defence of the shipping of Iraq and its ally Kuwait - culminating, of course, with the destruction (due largely to incompetence, for which the culpable officers were none the less decorated) of Iran Air 655.
The Iran-Iraq war, which the US supported and funded, began with an act of aggression by Iraq and led to the deaths of half a million Iranian soldiers and civilians. It's true that this body count is slightly lower than that of the 2003-date Iraq War, but it's still fairly substantial.
Fnord or ajay or others that buy Hersh's argument and think the US is going to attack Iran. How confident are you about this? Confident enough that you would like to place a wager? Abu M can hold both of our monies in escrow or something. . .
The IAF exercise in the Mediterranian which has been described as a "dress rehearsal" for an attack against the iranian nuclear facilities has been analyzed by George Friedman at Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mediterranean_flyover_telegraphing_israeli_punch
His conclusion is that IAF not should have advertised the mode of a future massive attack overtly if a such one was imminent.
Instead he interprets the exercise as psychological warfare in order to accelerate the internal conflict in the iranian leadership between the hawks and the doves, and if possible, prevent that Ahmadinejad becomes a presidential candidate for another term.
brad lohaus: I dont think the US will attack Iran, unless a provocation pops up. What I am worried about is that such a provocation may be created by the people running covert ops inside Iran. So no wager, only niggling worries about rogue elements inside the US and its allies going all existential and taking matters in their own hands.
Brad, I don't think the US is going to launch a major attack on Iran - defined as a concerted air campaign or ground invasion - but I can easily believe that it's currently engaged in the sort of smaller-scale (illegal) operations that Hersh describes; supporting anti-Iranian terrorist groups, kidnapping Iranian soldiers for interrogation under torture in Iraq, etc. Turn it around: how much would you be willing to bet that no US troops or paramilitaries have entered Iran since 2003?
I don't see anywhere in that article, incidentally, that Hersh says the US is going to attack Iran. Care to supply a quote?
"But he's always been correct."
Oh, ha ha ha ha. That was good.
If there's ever an uneven journalistic career -- half brilliant, half made up humbuggery -- it belongs to Sy.
I too don't think an attack on Iran will happen. It carries too much risk.
But it doesn't matter what I think.
I find myself guilty of prognosticating by logic, and that is not a useful calculus to use with the current US administration.
Prognostication by this administration can all be summed up by reading one person - Charles Krauthammer. If he wrote about sports, his advice would consistently be for the home team to score more points than the other team. That way, when they win, he can claim wisdom. When they lose, he can claim the home team didn't follow his advice.
It's not about providing valuable information, it's about shaping opinion.
I can claim all day that this administration has been run with a twisted view of American ideals, but so what? What are we going to do going forward? Prognosticate like Krauthammer or assess and plan?
Does anyone see parallels between the actions of the British in Iraq and US actions today?
Does anyone think a "limited" strike on Iran at this stage will result in something positive?
I wonder why this set of possible consequences to an attack on Iran is not more thoroughly explored.
An article on the Millennium Challenge exercise:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq1.htm m
Some information on various anti-ship missiles, some known to be deployed by the Iranians, perhaps in large numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkworm_missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802
Why in the confined waters of the Gulf being "prepared" for an attack by these missiles might not matter. See page six of the following:
http://www.ausairpower.net/ascms.pdf
A long and well sourced paper on the history and current scope of Iranian asymmetric naval warfare doctrine and capabilities, from the Marshall Center:
http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-de/page-coll-research-1/static/xdocs/research/static/occpapers/occ-paper_10-en.pdf
The US failed utterly even to find, much less destroy Iraq's scud missiles. The Israelis failed utterly to suppress Hezbollah's rocket fire in 2006. The Iranians are known to manufacture the Noor missile, a possibly upgraded version of the C-802, with a range sufficient to turn most of the Gulf into a kill zone, and have had years prepare for conflict in these waters. There is little reason to suppose that their capabilities will be any more susceptible to countermeasures than were Iraq's scuds or Hezbollah's rockets. If they are not suppressed the consequences to US naval forces in the Gulf will be very grave. Add to this the small boats, the mines, and other Iranian capabilities - and the clear lessons of the Millennium Challenge exercise - one wonders why the threat to the large number of American warships stationed in the Persian Gulf receives so little attention.
fnord:
..."In no way is the USA a fascist state..."
It's the word that upsets people, not the actions. The Unitary Executive theory gets around the word, but let's not lose sight of what it means.
I watched V for Vendetta again the other night and the sequence of Evey's simulated imprisonment was brilliant. We are seeing fear being promoted in absurd ways with Obama right now, and it appears so far the larger population had reached Evey's state.
How much further does it have to go before people stop filling their tanks with gas and starting filling glass bottles with the stuff instead? The filling stations may be dispensing the very products that one night might be lighting them all up. The price of gas becomes inconsequential when it can't be had. Irrationality isn't a state monopoly.
anon:
Surface-to-surface too. I posted this a week or so ago:
Iran has purportedly been mass-producing a missile called the Fateh-110 which, on paper, is well suited to hit the Saudi oil terminals and refineries.
The largest terminal in the world, Ras Tanura, is about 80 miles from the Iranian coast. If the missile travels at Mach 1, then that's roughly a 6 minute flight from Iran to a 6-million-barrel per day terminal. There are many other things they can do to mess with the flow of oil. Complaining about $9.00 a gallon gas will come in second to complaining about the 3-hour wait getting it.
Additionally, they have studied our tactics for 6 years up close now, and I can't even imagine what kind of strings they can pull inside Iraq. Do you think it would be easier for us to march into Iran (pop. 80 million) or for Iran to trickle forces into Iraq? They could make things difficult for us on many fronts.
back on topic I see, excellent.
following up on my original post -
shipping lanes in the Straits
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg
tanker drafts for VLCC and ULCC - relevant because of the depth changes in the Straits - they can't just go wherever they want
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/tankers.html
- and a relevant article on Iranian missile placement from our friends at FAS (indirectly through Jane's)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/abu-musa.htm
Fnord or ajay or others that buy Hersh's argument and think the US is going to attack Iran. How confident are you about this?
hersh's argument is not that the US will attack iran.
here's hersh in the democracy now interview
I can tell you that inside the White House, Cheney has said more than once that Israel is not gonna go. If Israel wants to go, we will have to go because if they went, we would be blamed anyway. The whole—how much of this is posturing from Israel and how much of this is posturing by us—I don’t know. I would love to have at the end of this regime be proven to be dead wrong on all this stuff, that it never was going to happen. But I do think the idea of Israel going is not realistic because they simply do not have the firepower. We’re the ones that can do it. This is the Presidency—you have to listen to what these guys say. They’re pretty consistent. If you listen to what they said before the invasion of Iraq, in ‘03 when many thought it was just crazy, including me, that it would not do it. It has been pretty clear. They could not care less with the N.I.E. said. They believe Iran either has or will have a weapon and will be stabilize Israel, and would use it against Israel, even if it meant suicide, ignoring the fact that Iran has never attacked anyone outside of its borders for 280 years, or something like that as a major power. They have never done an offensive operation, that is just a simple fact. That is just ignored by this White House. They talk about Iran—internally, their position is, we’re not leave the Presidency with Iran capable of blowing up the world, and they believe they are capable. They want to stop it. It cannot stop with negotiations, I do not know what they will do.
while hersh may not be 'always right' he's broken a lot of stories that have turned out to be true. his stove piping article in the newyorker was spot on and the first mainstream report of the inner workings of cheney's command.
It's the word that upsets people, not the actions. The Unitary Executive theory gets around the word,
yep. anyone reviewing the 14 points of fascism can see the roots in this current set up. i don't see this is 'america', certainly not my america. i see this as the enemy within, who happens to reside in the white house.
Those who equate USA of today with Nazigermany, Mussolinis Italy and Francos Spain ought to return from the orbit in outer space.
oh, don't be such a baby. nobody is 'equating' w/anything but fascism. the fact fascism is associated w/your references is incidental. this is akin to accussing you of being a monkey because i can identified you as a homo sapien.
why don't you review the 14 points and identify one that is definitely not spawning seeds at present in the US under this administration.
this has been the most secretive administration in my lifetime, we're lucky to have hersh and his sources to give us an insight to some of the maneuverings. do i think they are all spot on? please! do i think he creates news from thin air? no. do i think his sources think their perceptions are accurate? yes. he's can be critical in areas that offend the military but that should stop of from listening to his observations. when it gets to the point we rely solely on the military for self criticism we're in trouble because the military relies on vibrancy of citizenship and thrives on diversity. sometimes the only outlet for self criticism within the ranks in times of suppression is thru the 4th estate.
a
"do i think he creates news from thin air? no. do i think his sources think their perceptions are accurate? yes."
I don't know if that really matters. What matters isn't whether Sy makes up crap, but rather that the final product is crap.
Let's give Sy his due for My Lai and Abu Ghraib. Spot on.
But let's also not forget the fables:
His book on KAL 007 suggested that it partly was a US intelligence operation, part of a PSYOPS campaign to prod the USSR to shoot down a civilian aircraft (not true).
Hersh's 2006 New Yorker report that the US was soon to launch a nuclear first-strike on suspected Iranian atomic sites was mere fantasy.
His 2001 New Yorker piece about a firefight that wounded numerous US SOC personnel at Mullah Omar's encampment wasn't factual.
His 1991 work on Israel's nuclear capabilities later was determined to be wrong (determined, publicly, by Hersh himself, who said his source was a pathological liar).
His JFK book relied on documents purporting to show sexy details concerning the president and Marilyn Monroe, but they later turned out to be bad forgeries.
I won't even mention his smear job on Barry McCaffrey.
Some of Sy's work has been brilliant, in the best traditions of American journalism, and a profound service to his country.
Some of Sy's work has been complete lies, with some of it exposed in court or by follow-on reporting by other newspapers and magazines.
I knew this would turn into a pro/con Sy Hersh debate. I prefer to think of him as being a mouthpiece for the more humanistic forces inside intel. It seems they use him to vent their fears, and as preemptive action against heedless policies. As in the case of the nuke-strike on Iran-story, it sounded to me like somebody might have been discussing that option and so the ones opposed used him to put the word out and shine some light on it. So the critiscism that now and then he may be a tool is spot on, but a tool is not always bad. As seen by the cases he *have* gotten right.
do i think his sources think their perceptions are accurate? yes."
I don't know if that really matters.
given that we have an abundance of evidence we are dealing w/an administration w/a history of creating policy around 'evidence' that includes the 'throw everything against the wall to see what sticks' genre, i'd say it matters.
it goes beyond simply Ignored Iran Facts. it includes a climate of demoting good agents and outing entire operations (brewster jennings) to replace it w/false spin.
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all," Krieger said in an interview.....In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine...The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees," according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say.
It seems they use him to vent their fears, and as preemptive action against heedless policies. As in the case of the nuke-strike on Iran-story, it sounded to me like somebody might have been discussing that option and so the ones opposed used him to put the word out and shine some light on it. So the critiscism that now and then he may be a tool is spot on, but a tool is not always bad.
if some of hersh's sources claims turn out to be false, it could be the public alarm over the drumbeat to war w/iran has been detrimental to those plans to begin with. i want to here what our intellegence community is thinking, whether it materializes or not.
Hersh's 2006 New Yorker report that the US was soon to launch a nuclear first-strike on suspected Iranian atomic sites was mere fantasy.
you don't know that. and if it is pure fantasy try peddling the idea advisors to cheney have been pushing war w/iran and arguably the most powerful lobby in congress (aipac), the one know dem or rep can remain in office if they threaten to defy in any serious way, for sure it on the drumbeat.
furthermore, i have been hearing this drumbeat for months prior to hersh's piece but it was largely ignored by the msm and not addressed until the article came out and then, exactly what the WH did NOT want, that was all anyone could talk about and now it has become completely relevant and each presidential candidate professes his undying dedication to protecting israel.
sooo... had not hersh written that article when would it have come to the attention of the masses. mere fantasy? hmm. wonder what fallon might think of that assertion?
It seems they use him to vent their fears, and as preemptive action against heedless policies.
well worth the risk of getting a little 'crap' thrown in by and by.
a
my apologies, i really screwed up on the copy paste in that post.
Whatever. Those of us in the reality-based community have to deal with real facts and real interviews from real NAMED sources, and not what Sy typically spins out.
All I know is that there's a certain history of him falling credulously for "sources" and "documents" later proven to be fakes.
This wouldn't matter much if sometimes his journalism didn't border on libel (with regards to the Kennedy family and Barry McCaffery), get good reporters fired (the hopelessly wrong reporting on Israel) or impugn the very intelligence community you seem to believe he appreciates and rewards by becoming their mouthpiece (Flight 007? The Mullah Omar lie?).
I'm frankly surprised that Dr Irak included Sy Hersh's "reporting" in with CNAS or Laura Rozen.
But Sy is a complex figure. He's done absolutely fabulous reporting when he is provided real documents that include real names of real people making real assertions (his Abu Ghraib and My Lai pieces both came out of leaked US military reports, he just regurgitated them).
He's also had to retract publicly his stories about Israel's nuclear bombmaking, the JFK business and other pieces IN COURT or after damaging follow-on stories were written.
If you want to believe that Sy's stories helped avert a nuclear strike against Iran, go right ahead. It's a free country.
But I tend to have my doubts.
Those of us in the reality-based community have to deal with real facts and real interviews from real NAMED sources
lol, that's not all we have to deal with! unfortunately those of us in the reality based community also have to suffer the consequences of dealing with rulers at the top of the food chain w/ their false allegation, fake (niger)documents, a white house bent on pushing lies and suppressing dissent of military leaders w/consequences far more outreaching than pushback to reports in the newyorker.
let's not forget the origin of term.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[1]
the reality based community has much bigger fish to fry than seymoure.
a
"Those of us in the reality-based community have to deal with real facts and real interviews from real NAMED sources..."
You didn't work for Fieth did you?
However and whatever the how and the why, i say alhamdoullilah, everytime i hear that strikes on Iran can be averted and thus that human lives can be saved.
please Lord,
dont let the mad men kill some more.
amen
"If you want to believe that Sy's stories helped avert a nuclear strike against Iran, go right ahead. It's a free country."
NAh, i dont think it was ever planned, but there might have been talks about it in the non-reality based community of folks like Podhoretz. In a world where folks like him have direct acess to the President, there is no such thing as paranoia. Ill admit I now and then start seein this administration in a Joseph Campbell sort of mythological way, with the forces of dark nearly triumphing yet falling for their own hubris, etc. I quite simply wouldnt put anything by the neocons at the top of their power. Im aware that this is a wee bit paranoid. This administration has a tendency to induce that in folks, dont know if youve noticed ;-)
Cheney's 2% doctrine.
I'm alergic to bees and can die if stung. My neighbor refused to cut down his fruit trees so I killed him, his wife, and their children.
I haven't found his fruit trees yet but I have siphoned his gas tanks.
Im aware that this is a wee bit paranoid.
if you weren't a wee bit paranoid in this environment you'd be delusional.
DC said...
"hmm - clipping my link - Middle East Strategy at Harvard - MESH "Assign Iran to Israel""
This adds onto fnord's point - WTF is a US university doing babbling sh*t about waging neocon imperial world conquest? In any other country, this organization might have been added to the US's list of 'terrorist organizations'.
It also says something that Harvard Law School would sponsor a Derschowitzian/Strangelovian group.
-Barry
KAckermann said...
Cheney's 2% doctrine.
"I haven't found his fruit trees yet but I have siphoned his gas tanks."
Which was totally justified due to the costs of liberating that family from their fuel - I mean, from their evil bees.
-Barry
It also says something that Harvard Law School would sponsor a Derschowitzian/Strangelovian group.
harvard is completely neonut entrenched, check this out. Reasoned Debate and the Fear of Reprisal at Harvard.
Columbia University has a fairly active censorship program going too. I was just looking for a report on a paper that was censored which simply broke down media ownership by ethnicity.
I can't find it but I have 2 hungry kids knawing at my ankles right now.
Let me get this straight, the professor elites at Harvard and Columbia are censored or neo-cons?
On which planet?
Columbia's Middle East Studies program is perhaps the most radical in the nation, or at least that's how the scandals have painted it (it's also one of the most distinguished, just don't tell Kramer I said it).
If you break down the professorial vote after the 2008 election, I'm sure you'll find that far, far more profs voted for Obama than McCain. Indeed, I'd lay good money on more Nader voters than those for McCain, but I don't believe a smart bookmaker would take the wager.
KAckerman,
"How much further does it have to go before people stop filling their tanks with gas and starting filling glass bottles with the stuff instead? The filling stations may be dispensing the very products that one night might be lighting them all up."
Hmmm. by all means, do fire on Ft Sumpter.
SNLII,
On Haditha: you are being a tad unfair on the Marines there, they went to MOUT tactics because that's what they were facing. 7/8 of them have been cleared or had the charges dropped. The ROE had changed to using grenades to clear rooms after some Wahabbi hid under hospital sheets then blew themselves and some force Recon Marines up a week prior.
I don't know what role MG Bargewell's report played into the unlawful Command influence. I do know that was a shameful show trial, and a blemish on the USMC and all the Commander's involved.
BTW my info is that Haditha had two clans, one had gone Wahabbi, and begun killing the other clan members that wouldn't flip.
And without equivocation, American lives are worth more than anyone else's. Joke 'em if they can't take a f*ck.
Ajay,
I was aware of the historical record. We didn't invade in in 1980, we launched a raid to rescue hostages, hostages seized at our embassy - an act of war itself.
The tanker war: well, yes, as the Iranian's were sinking ships in the Gulf, some under our flag (a practice begun by the USSR, BTW).
I could give two sh*ts about shooting down 655. They wanted the fight, they got it. You really have to think twice about normal civilian flights in a war zone.
Post a Comment