Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
February 05, 2007
Turning Toward Iran
By Michael Barone
It's often hard to identify a turning point in a military conflict. The news of mayhem comes in every day, and it's hard to figure out which changes the course of things.
Metrics available to the public are useless -- those available to commanders are, I suspect, far from completely helpful. Military historians can look back and, knowing more and with more certainty than anyone at the time, center their narratives on actions that really made a difference. Those of us following events through (often biased) news media and (often insightful but never with a full picture) military bloggers can't do this. Only on looking back can we begin to guess where the road turned.
In looking back over the last year, I see two turning points in the Middle East -- note, not just Iraq, but the Middle East. The first was the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. This was intended to, and evidently did, spark an upsurge of sectarian violence -- Shias killing Sunnis and vice versa.
In retrospect, and as George W. Bush indicated in his speeches of Jan. 10 and Jan. 23, it was a significant turning point. If Bush's surge of troops into Baghdad and Anbar is the right response to this increased violence now, it would have been the right move six months ago. But readers of military history won't be surprised that his timing was off. So was that, at times, of indisputably great commanders like Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt...
The other turning point, as I look back, was Hezbollah's invasion of Israel last July. The military effectiveness was hard to gauge and Israelis are still arguing about whether they suffered a defeat, scored a victory or managed a stalemate. But the important thing here, at least in the opinion of key administration policymakers, was not the effect on the Israelis or even the Lebanese, but the effect on other Arab states.
The Sunni Arab states viewed the Hezbollah attack -- undertaken without even the notification of the Lebanese government, yet putting Lebanon at grave risk -- as an Iranian offensive aimed at establishing something like hegemony over the greater Middle East. Shia, Persian hegemony -- not something welcomed by the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. For all their rhetorical opposition to Israel over the years, they found they had more in common with Jewish Israel than Muslim Iran. So they began to urge the United States to do more to curb the power of Iran.
As with the bombing of the Golden Mosque, so with the Hezbollah attack on Israel, the United States took time to respond -- more time, I suspect, than future historians will decide was appropriate. But after the policy review that followed the Republican defeat in the November elections, we have responded. The rules of engagement have been changed in Iraq: U.S. forces captured and held Iranian "consular" officials in Erbil, and there is reason to believe we're stepping up interdiction of Iranian weapon supplies to various hostile forces in Iraq...
Barone always delivers something worth reading, and this is definitely worth reading.
It could be that the current drop in gas prices can be laid at the feet of this new policy re Iran. I've heard two theories about this. The first is that Saudia Arabia is putting more crude oil on the market--not their usual practice--to wreck Iran's economy, which is faltering. Ummmmm. Wasn't Condi Rice in SA for talks recently?
The second is that Saudia Arabia is concerned that America's politicians might actually follow through on their talk about finding alternative sources of energy and are trying to protect themselves and their financial base. The first theory makes more sense to me, although both theories probably enter into the picture.
What do your myriad sources say about this topic?
Yes, of course, President Bush is the one causing Iran to send troops into Iraq to fight our guys. Its a huge conspiracy. He somehow controls the Iranian regime and is sending their troops into iraq to kill our troops. That way when our troops fight back and kill these Iranian troops in Iraq, we goad Iran into a war.
I think it's quite the opposite. Iran is trying to goad us into a war. that is why they are sending troops into Iraq.
And just where'd ya find that little morsel? Did it pop outta Rush Limbaugh's arse?
I know it's difficult for you Bullyboy, you don't recognize what Avatar is so unfairly using against you, let me help you. It is called logic, most guys can recognize it because it is one of the few things that men are pretty good at, you obviously aren't.
Oh by the way, when Rush Limbaugh takes a crap he flushes more than twice the intelligence that you possess. It's really kind of sad, was it agent orange that did this to you?
It seems clear however, that Chimpy and Co have chosen to ignore the consequences of such a course of action.
And yet you choose to ignore the consequences of allowing Iran to build nukes. This is another situation where we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't." Yet instead of recognizing that there can be and will be dire consequences no matter which action we take, you are only concerned with your political agenda of blasting Bush any chance you can get. You liberals blasted Bush for "not doing enough" when the North Koreans got their nukes, now suddenly he is doing too much in efforts to stop Iran.
So what would Commander-in-Chief Bully do? Would you put pressure on them, or would you allow them to build their nukes? Inspiring liberals want to know.
Barone always delivers something worth reading, and this is definitely worth reading.
It could be that the current drop in gas prices can be laid at the feet of this new policy re Iran. I've heard two theories about this. The first is that Saudia Arabia is putting more crude oil on the market--not their usual practice--to wreck Iran's economy, which is faltering. Ummmmm. Wasn't Condi Rice in SA for talks recently?
The second is that Saudia Arabia is concerned that America's politicians might actually follow through on their talk about finding alternative sources of energy and are trying to protect themselves and their financial base. The first theory makes more sense to me, although both theories probably enter into the picture.
What do your myriad sources say about this topic?
Three things will drive Mr. Bushs decision to instigate a shooting war with Iran: #1. / Were already over there. #2. / Were going to be there for at the bare minimum - another five years (not his problem in 23.5 months). #3. / The Evangelicals that put him and kept him in office want to protect Israel.
Everything else is purely academic.
Obviously you are wrong, as we would have done this months or years ago if that was the srategy.
No, I think the real strategy is to have Mr Amenajadad and his Imans (no attempt made at correct spelling) implode and the saner Iranians string him and they up by their entrails.
Since best estimate indicate they are five to ten years away from being able to refine enough uranium to do so, what's the rush? And gosh, America spent the entire duration of the Cold War negotiating with the former Soviet Union on the issue of nukes. Why not engage Iran? No reason, aside from Chimpy and Co's "Paris Hilton School of Diplomacy"..."I don't like you, so I'm not going to talk to you!"
That's my point, isn't it? The nutjobs are trying to run a country full of pragmatists, and their power is very unstable. What Bush is trying to do is to stress the system, show and obvious wilingness to use force, and let the house of cards tumble.Yes - obviously Im wrong. Considering that Irans leadership is based on Islamic religious nutjobs. Yep - My Bad.
So we wait "five to ten years", then what?
And what "negotiating" with the Soviets did we do? And did it lead them into not building an arsenal of nuclear weapons? I think not....
And the main difference between the Soviet Union and Iran is that even the Soviets weren't stupid enough to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, are you willing to bet the lives of millions of poeple that the Iranians won't? Excuse the rest of us if we aren't willing to take up that bet.
I think its pretty obvious were your loyalties lie Bully. Now you're making excuses for a regime that has and continues to openly proclaim its intentions of wiping another country off the map. One that continues to defy the international community at will. So the so called experts say they are still "five to ten years away" from having the bomb. Thats the same thing they kept saying about North Korea. Obviously your obsession with Bush is still blinding you to the truth that most of America is definately afraid of Iran getting nukes. Maybe you can sleep at ease with the thought of Iran making nukes as they please, excuse the rest of us if we worry about it.
....Thus five to ten years is sufficient time to ratchet down the pressure on the Iranian government and get the moderates there back in power, as was the case before Chimpy started babbling about and "Axis of Evil". ......
When were there moderates in Iran anytime since Carter? And it's Bush's fault that Amenajdad (again, no attept at correct spelling) is in power? Very interesting. As a premise to my response you first have to understand that I believe our main objective in the WOT is to get a regime change in Iran. That's why we took Afghanistan and Iraq, to eliminate their allies and surround them first.
The Saudi issue is part of this strategy, as they can put pressure on Iran economically exactrly as you stated. It appears as they are doing this now.
I also think you are right about the alternate energy thing. The Saudis want to remain living like kings by selling the world oil and if we build nuke power plants and possiblu fusion plants they are left sitting on a huge deposit of nothing more than polluted groundwater.
Wht is really funny about this is that Liberals like Bully have absoultely no concept of what is really happening. Their hatred of Bush has blinded them to reality and created a sideshow which has become an excellent diversion.
But neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was an ally of Iran. So what you are trying to say is, that you invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to weaken Iran by takeing their allies away.
But the opposite happened and Iran got stronger by USA taking away its opponents and enabeling Shiite rule over Baghdad and in times of Chaos massive arming of Shiite groups in Iraq which now in the question of attacking Iran seems the biggest problem, as these militias are now a tool for Iran carrying this war over Iran's boarder into the region.
