Crazy president No 1 with plans to extend sphere of influence in the Middle East:
Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran’s regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late
Crazy president No 2 with plans to extend sphere of influence in the Middle East:
They know that any action against the Iranian nation would be faced with a proper response
Dangerous provocative act by crazy president No 1’s armed forces:
The Iranian embassy in Baghdad says U.S. troops have freed seven Iranians hours after detaining them at a hotel in the Iraqi capital
An embassy official said the men were handed over to Iraqi authorities early Wednesday morning.
American troops raided Baghdad’s Sheraton hotel late Tuesday and seized the Iranians. Video footage also showed soldiers leaving the hotel with what appeared to be luggage and a laptop computer bag
Of course, crazy president No 2 has already had a go at dangerous provocation.
This is going to end well.
Note: The numerical designations of the crazy presidents is arbitrary. This is not to be taken as an indication of rank presidential craziness as, to be frank, they both seem equally insane.
.
Don’t forget we now have a crazy French president too, who also wants military action against Iran. Aux armes citoyens!!
Crazy President No. 1 is a real President (for better or worse): head of both state and executive.
Crazy President No.2 is more of the titular kind, the type Crazy Republicans Nos. 1-2,000,000 in Australia wanted… elected to office but not to power.
So I think your ordering is correct, if not in the “Crazy” stakes at least in the potential to both want do real harm and to carry it out.
On RN this morning they interviewed a guy whose name escapes me, who used to work for the CIA and is writing a book about Iran. He said he contacted his old sources in the CIA recently and was told he’d better get writing because everything was about to change, and that there would be military action in Iran before the end of the year.
All I can say is I hope he’s wrong.
What’s crazy about protecting your nation against US imperialism? And what’s crazy about acquiring nuclear weapons? North Korea has, and have they been obliterated like Iraq, who didn’t.
Whoops! That should read “…haven’t been obliterated like Iraq…”. Sorry, must be early morning craziness…
For the US, it’s all domestic politics. Always has been. The Republicans would lose control of Congress, Senate and White House if they were seen to be starting something with Iran. Of course, if they were seen to be valiantly responding to Iranian provocation, that may be a different analysis.
I happened to be reading Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam. A History this morning.
He was discussing the construction of a presidential speech:
With the collapse of Bush’s administration, it would appear to me that Bush is now winging it with his own speeches. The recent ones are written in a different voice that Bush seems to be able to read with a modicum of fluency. I think that Bush may be writing his own material.
Nostalgics might hanker for a return to Lincoln, his envelope, and the Gettysburg Address.
However, the world doesn’t have Lincoln. For the next 18 months it’s burdened with Bush.
The next six months threaten to be very dangerous indeed.
Next six months? I’m going to speculate if it’s going to be anytime, it’ll be the fortnight following September 15, the date set for the interim report on the surge from General Petraeus.
It’s a shame you can’t get odds on war from the TAB. They’d have to make a new name for multiple warbets—with trifectas, quinellas, could we have guerillas?
Daryl Mason quotes Sheridan speculating that Bush is planning to drop out of APEC.
If an attack on Iran is seriously on the way, that would certainly be part of the planning.
As Darryl notes, Howard would probably be glad to have Bush out of the PR action. And a well-promoted war with Iran can’t do Howard’s polling much damage at this stage, and might even help.
Dangerous men with nowhere to go but Hell or The Hague.
This is a time-bomb set to explode. Fear of a Democratic triumph is not going to contain Bush. The odds are on Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama winning the White House, and the Democratics probably taking the Reps and maybe the Senate. Its too hard to pick what the influence of the Bible Belt will be in the next Us election to know which way they’ll go.At least that’s the gist of the American commentators seem to be saying. But its early days yet. There could be a Republican dark-horse.
Mad King George meanwhile, isn’t going to care less about what the Senate and the House feel. If he thinks a war in Iran sometime next year might whip up a bit of patriotic fervour that could help the Republicans, he’ll go ahead, regardless of world opinion, and in complete ignorance of the geopolitics of the Iran/Iraq region.
Iraq’s Shiite president has already publicly threatened to turn to Iran for more help against Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq. There’s no love lost between Ben Laden and the Shiites. One of Al Qaeda’s main platforms is the destruction of the Shiite states.
And Iran, probably quite legitimately, sees Iraq as being in its sphere of influence. Thye Amewricans in their egoism, sees Iran’s provision of arms to Iraqi Shiite insurgents as being directed at them. Its not. Its directed at those Iraqi Sunnis with whom they were involved in a bitter and disastrous war in the 1980s. Even if the CIA is telling Bush this, he won’t be listening.Look forward to some good television in 2008.
“dangerous provocative act by crazy president No 1’s armed forces: …U.S. troops have freed seven Iranians hours after detaining them at a hotel…”
Yep, there’s nothing like freeing seven detained suspects after a few hours, to spark World War Nine, or whatever it is we’re up to.
Yes j_p_z. I’m sure if the role of the countries in the incident were reversed the reaction would be just as measured and reasoned.
Helen the ex CIA guy you mention is Bob Baer. The interview with Fran Kelly is up in the news section here, for the moment.
http://www.abc.net.au/
“I’m sure if the role of the countries in the incident were reversed the reaction would be just as measured and reasoned.”
How well I remember the nuking of Teheran in 1979, in retaliation for the hostage-taking! How we danced in the streets, and ate little nuke-shaped candies passed out by the patriarchy, who were all wearing vampire masks.
Cool. Got any pics?
On a more serious note, while the history of enmity between the US and Iran is worth exploring, this is 2007 and not 1979. The dynamics are quite different and best viewed in context of the Middle East mess of today rather than the past.
Do you remember the US support for Iraq in the Persian Gulf War that claimed 1 million Iranian lives.
Or perhaps the murder of 290 civilians when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 in 1988?
Katz - interesting that you quote Lincoln in comparison to Bush. Would you like to also do a military personel combat deaths comparison between the two? And, perhaps you could provide a commentary on the entrenched continuous criticism of Lincoln’s conduct of his war versus that of Bush. It would be very illuminating.
Gosh Raze, looks like I couldn’t hope to out-shout the bee buzzing inside your bonnet on this interesting topic.
What is the pesky little critter saying to you?
Katz it’s also well-known that Winston Churchill had to endure constant sniping from the media while he was winning the second world war, whereas the press in Germany was very supportive of Hitler. This proves conclusively that we should invade Iran and it’s beyond me why lefties can’t see the logic.
Bush might have one slight problem declaring war on Iran. He has to have consent of the Congress. And the Democratic Congress has this funny idea that because of 9/11 the US should concentrate on wiping out Ben Laden. No more useless Iraqi type sideshows that distract from the main game of the 9/11 War. (I refuse to use that spurious term, War on Terror.)But then again, Bush wouldn’t be the first US President to subvert that particular requirement of the US Constitution, would he?
Paul, apparently the plan is to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation (even though it’s part of the Iranian army), based on Iran’s support for Hezbollah. No doubt he’s secured legal advice from Gonzales before he resigned that the Afghanistan resolutions give him a general power to bomb or even invade “terrorist bases” without further reference to Congress.
Paul Burns,
Bush wont declare war on Iran, or commit troops. This wil be an airstrike operation.
Still a major diaster in the making.
Yes, I think it’s a bit niave to think that Bush will suddenly develop an affection for legal niceties, such as a declaration of war.
More like air strikes, hopefully not involving nuclear weapons, although there’s not much I’d put past this administration.
Global catastrophe, Howard postpones election indefinitely. Nightmare scenario all round.
It’s also rather naive…
When are the British forces leaving Basra/Sth Iraq? They will want to be gone before Bush attempts to annihilate Iran. The danger and loss of life to the troops in Iraq (and Iraqi’s) is likely to be devastating.
Yes.
Rolling Thunder until:
1. The Iranian government dismantles whatever may remain of its nuclear program and outlaws the Revolutionary Guard.
or
2. The Iranian people rise up and install a government acceptable to the US.
Mmmm, Operations Linebacker and Linebacker II are more appropriate analogies, Katz. They were designed to bring the North to the negotiating table, rather than to achieve impossible objectives.
I don’t recall Howard being asked a single question by either the opposition or the media about the government’s position regarding sanctions against Iran or the advice which is being conveyed to the Bush Administration. The war drums have been beating for months, we have troops in the region, yet government, opposition and most of the MSM carry on as if they haven’t really noticed.
Howard and Rudd should be hammered to answer clear questions about whether they believe military action against Iran is justified and if so why? And if not, what are they doing to prevent it? The likelihood of another catastrophe being visited on the world by the Bush maniacs is looking bigger every day and in Australia all the main actors are worried about is not saying something that might lose a few votes in the next bloody election.
Bush will definitely do something huge before the end of his term. There is no way he would want Hitlary or Barrack to take the glory for attacking Pakistan and Iran.
Unfortunately the rest of the world can only duck and weave from the sidelines until the Sunni Arabs and Shia Persia finish their imperialist fight to death.
The neo-con chorus is making it very clear what they want, and at this point, his radical base is all that Bush has left. The amazing thing is that there was the potential for a constructive relationship only five years ago, when Iran provided support while the US invaded Afghanistan. Iran might have been a long way from an ideal ally or a model of responsible government, but a working relationship beats this dangerous game of threats and posturing.
The fact that the US has no troops to spare and that Congress is not going to be convinced that war with Iran is a legitimate course of action might restrict the damage here, but I’m not confident that will be enough. If the US does strike against Iran, retaliation against the US and/or Israel is likely - at which point, Bush gets to invoke the “we were attacked” rhetoric and rain vengeance upon them. And then it gets so much uglier.
Of course, maybe I’m exaggerating and this is just a couple of crazy presidents howling at the moon.
Of course it would be nice if the Iranian people could install a government acceptable to themselves, which they can’t do at the moment.
But I suppose that it’s considered sophisticated commentrary by some people here to see everytrhing in a “US versus” model instead of applying democratic principles.
If the Iranians are too stupid to reach a compromise, some modus vivendi with great powers then they shall reap as they sow. That’s life in history’s great jungle.
No GregM, sophisticated comment is considered by those of a conservative persuasion to label a whole nation as stupid and claim that the population deserve whatever fate befalls them.
I never cease to be amazed at the paucity of intellectual riguor, combined with an overbearing sense of self-importance displayed by most conservative commentators on this and other blogs.
Usually the level of self-importance is in inverse proportion to the quality of the argument.
Hence, you GregM might like to explain exactly which ‘democratic principles’ you might encourage the US to export to Iran through the barrel of a gun. The same ones that have been so successful in Iraq I presume. What a trite, tired and discredited thesis. But I imagine that ou knew that already.
I think it’s high time the whole US-Iran thing was sorted out by nude Presidential wrestling. In real mud. You’d have Dubya’s Skull and Bones training vs a younger more supple Ahmadinejad. With a shirtless Putin as ref.
Looking forward to $2.30 per litre fuel in Feb 08, and the local, personal consequences - just so we can subsidise these misfits.
There are some very serious and important questions here, which are (of course) completely overlooked in the general rush to sneer at Bush.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, what do people think is the likelihood of an Israel-Iran nuclear exchange at some point down the track? We cannot assume deterrence will work as nicely as it did during the Cold War. For one thing, the nations of the region seem rather less rational and calculating than the US and USSR were (and yes, I include Israel in that comment). Also, command and control mechanisms will be far less sophisticated, and the weapons will be much less survivable than the vast superpower nuclear triads were. Thus there will be considerably greater incentive to launch a first strike during periods of tension.
If, hypothetically, it were possible to destroy the Iranian program at the cost of a few thousand lives, and thereby prevent millions of deaths in a few years time, would it be worth doing? Of course, this raises the very big question of whether American airpower could destroy or significantly degrade the Iranian program.
Anyway, I apologise for raising such questions. Please return to the regular scheduled program of Bush insults.
The terms “hypothetically”, “Middle East” and “Western Asia” have never had a productive relationship.
And when it comes to Islamic zealots getting their hands on nukes, how come so many suddenly can’t recognise Pakistan across the room? Y’know, the place where key power players have a proven track record of aiding and abetting Al Quedia and the Taliban. Not to mention its nervous nuked-up neighbour, India, where one of the major politicial parties, the BJP, is a very large and prickly ultranationalist mob of hardcore Pak-hating Hindus.
And then there’s Israel, sitting on a clutch of thermonuclear eggs, radiating “don’t even think about” looks at its immediate neighbours. And Syria, which is also beavering away with atoms, has a far more potential unstable political structure than Iran. Not as much oil though.
So within the region, I’d rate Iran as just breaking into the top five for going crazy nukey.
Also, few presume these days that Bush really represents the majority will and desires of the American Republic. Why should we not feel the same way about Iran’s President?
The very dumbness I was criticising, staring me in the face.
The issue, Adrian, since it has escaped you, is not that the Iranian nation is stupid but that under their constitution they are effectively disenfranchised. They cannot choose their own leadership because the only candidates they can vote for are those selected for them by their self-selected religious rulers. I don’t think they deserve that fate.
I don’t think it is the business of the United States to export democracy to them by the barrel of a gun but I do distinguish between democratic states and dictatorships, whether those states are founded on a religious principle or otherwise.
You apparently can’t make that distinction and then accuse me of lacking intellectual rigour. What a joke.
Because one of our chaps is running the show. Musharraf is the very model of a modern Major General (well, full General actually, plus self-crowned President, a la Napoleon). He speaks excellent English, graduated from the Royal College of Defence Studies, and is fully apprised of the need to win the War on Mango Trees, one of which made an assassination attempt on him that came closer than any Islamic extremist has (hey, I’m just going by Wiki here).
In a way he’s just a distraction. Sure, his promises to launch a new and improved Jewish Holocaust are not exactly contributing to the minimisation of regional tension. But it’s not really about Ahmadinejad — it’s about the long term, the decades to come in which conventional war might turn nuclear, fuelled by religious fervour, poor command and control, and unstable deterrence.
Now for some scenario-ising. The year is 2020. You’re the Iranian C-in-C. You’ve joined the Arabs in a conventional war versus Israel. You have a few systems that can deliver a ‘physics package’ to Tel Aviv. But only a few. You don’t know whether those damned Americans are giving the Jews satellite imagery. Mossad has agents running around. You don’t know how precise their knowledge is of your air and missile sites; the IDF might be just about to destroy your delivery systems in one fell swoop. But you do know:
a) Israel is so small, your few devices might be able to destroy most or all of the Israeli arsenal,
b) if (a) turns out to be wrong, your country is so much bigger and can absorb so much more damage, that you’ll still come off ahead in the end, and
c) if (a) and (b) are both wrong, well, you’ll get your reward in Heaven anyway.
Whatcha gonna do?
At least in the west, we get to drink and drug, goof off, mock our leaders and fuck around a lot more. I feel better already now.
Hey GregM, thanks for proving my point. I didn’t realise that you actually have a sense of humour. Well done!
Elswhere, in another parallel universe, AM reports that Brendon Neslon has warned the Iraqi PM that Australian public’s support for the war was not open ended, and our patience could not be taken for granted.
Someone else with a keen sense of humour.
Tony Easley’s a real pro though-he read the script totally straight.
Shorter GregM: There’s nothing more democratic than a JDam.
Paulus
If Israel is irrational, it must be the company it keeps - its nutty neighbours. I do not think Israel’s ‘irrationality’ would extend to acquiescing to Persian nuclear capability.
Good to see you back, Generalfeldmarshal. Haven’t seen that omniscient eye for a while.
You’re quite wrong about the ‘rationality’ of nuclear deterrence, by the way. The Cold War stalemate was based on a shared irrationality; both of each side basing their policy of continuing a nuclear shooting war until it was finished, and of each side assuming the other was not a rational strategic agent. The reason the US endeavoured so hard to keep technical and numerical warhead superiority for so long was because they were working on the assumption that the USSR would, eventually, act.
Whatever that means for Iran-Pakistan-India-Israel, it’s something Allah, Jehovah, Jesus and Shiva will have to work out for themselves.
That’s a good line. I’ll probably find myself claiming that one as my own sometime in the future. I know you won’t mind.
But why are the Iranians after nukes? The rhetoric regarding Israel is troubling but it is more pandering to local prejudices than an indication of intent.
Ptobias’ comment makes a good point in that in 2001, Iran was willing to help in regards to curbing terrorist activities in the area. Then the US decided to reward Iran’s cooperation with placing them on the axis of evil and further compounded matters by ignoring an Iranian overture in 2003 in which Iran was willing to make significant concessions including recognition of Israel. The US, with all their wisdom of Middle East politics at their disposal, ignored the offer. The US was at the height of the hegemonic power and they blew it.
And so here we are today. So you may not like Bush bashing but frankly his Middle East policy has been a disaster and deserves a bollocking. No-one is suggesting that Iran are pure innocents. The regime is detestable. But the situation and lead up is significantly more complex that “Bad Iran want to bomb Israel with their nukes.” Iran see nukes as a deterent. They have noticed that North Korea got away with it (and North Korea have indulged in rhetoric just as, if not more so, belligerent than Iran).
As for the Iranians themselves, I gather there is a significant portion of the population that would like to have more personal freedom and less religious intolerance. But don’t underestimate the power of nationalism to unit Iran if the US do launch a strike. If the US want to undermine the ruling powers in Iran then they are going the wrong way about it.
Deterrence really didn’t work either. There have been several incidents where individual judgement calls by competent lower/middle ranked officers were all that stood between one side twigging out and hitting the button on the strength of a radar gremlin. Both sides were in a constant twitchy paranoid state and their estimates of the other’s strength and motivations were informed by nothing resembling rationality.
Re possible Iranian/US cooperation in 2001. The Yanks blew it at Riga with the Soviets, in I think, 1921. End of any chance of rapprochement and a civilised world for 70 years. History, it seems, does repeat itself, lets hope, this time, its as farce.
Paul Burns: “The Yanks blew it at Riga with the Soviets, in I think, 1921. End of any chance of rapprochement and a civilised world for 70 years…”
But since the US wasn’t at all a world power in 1921, I’m not confident the claim (or the analogy) yields much significance.
Shaun: “in 2001, Iran was willing to help in regards to curbing terrorist activities in the area. Then the US decided to reward Iran’s cooperation with placing them on the axis of evil and further compounded matters by ignoring an Iranian overture in 2003 in which Iran was willing to make significant concessions including recognition of Israel. The US, with all their wisdom of Middle East politics at their disposal, ignored the offer. The US was at the height of the hegemonic power and they blew it.”
Well I’m hardly going to try making any sort of argument for the virtue, wisdom, or even baseline competence of any of the main players, the US included, in the perpetual Silliest Region On Earth (TM).
All the same, I’d view the Iranian overtures you cite with a great deal of skepticism, to the point that I’m not sure how persuasive your argument really is. For starters, you might explore the meaning of the word “hudna,” and how it’s used and understood, legally and tactically, by the peoples who historically apply the concept. Not to say there wasn’t a little more wiggle room for sanity than the main players have allowed, but there isn’t a broad king’s highway’s worth. And keep in mind too that theocrats, especially revolutionary theocrats, view the world very differently than secular states, or even big bad old-fashioned imperialists. And the first person to idly equate Bush with the mullahs on this score gets zapped in limerick form.
Paul,
Add to that the aftermath of Yalta - Truman and co. undid the work FDR had done to find a way forward with Stalin, partly because FDR wasn’t straight with his fellow Americans and then had the temerity to die soon after. This book gives an excellent history of the period that led into the Cold War.
To get back on topic, one thing that interests me here is that you have two countries, both of whom appear to have a populace that is more progressive and rational than their “elected” leaders. Yet, in both cases, the hard-liners have control. One is a beacon of democracy, and the other is not. But I don’t know that the majority in either country would agree at this point in time that their leaders entirely represent their views.
Ptobias
The key event that triggered the Cold War was Stalin’s lingering in northern Iran for longer than the six months agreed at the 1943 tehran Conference. Stalin’s moving troops south from Azerbijan coupled with his reneging on the Potsdam Agreement and declarations that ‘another war was inevitable unless Capitalism was destroyed’ did not help matters.
The White House’s resident Texan
Drawled out, with his South-West inflection
“Compare me with those clerics?
I’m half in hysterics—
At least I got in by election.”
…
The Ayatollah in Teheran
Declared, as appointees can:
“You’re all in deep trouble, you
Who equate us with W—
He’s finished, and I’ve just began.”
Liam, that was pretty amazing. I bow to you, sir.
Still, now I guess I have to try one myself, just to give it a whirl…
At least Bush, though in some ways moronical,
Doesn’t see through a scriptural monocle.
Still, we don’t like our choices
Since they’re *all* hearing voices:
“Pit the cannons against the canonical.”
Heh. Great last line.
…
“Partition Iraq into thirds”:
Say the smart foreign policy herds
But would a withdrawal
Do not much at all
But allow ganging-up on the Kurds?
Hee hee. I thought you’d go for “foreign policy nerds,” but then, there’s no questioning Art.
Damn, now I’ve got the bug. I’ve got work to do, so I need to make this short. I’ll try one more…
So, each side thinks the other’s earned payback.
Which makes us much too nervous to lay back.
While Teheran takes its two cents
From Islam’s jurisprudence,
Mr. Bush just hears voices from AIPAC.
Said Chimpo to General Petraeus,
“Now, boy, don’t you betray us,
Hummers, kevlar, and such
Don’t amount to much,
If the Ragheads in Eye-raq all out-pray us.”
I was thinking of the political scientists, such as Herman Kahn and Thomas Schelling, who did devise a theory of nuclear deterrence that was perfectly rational. I emphasise the word ‘theory’.
Precisely. Do you see the problem here, folks?
Deterrence is a construct that is perfectly logical in theory, highly questionable in practice. And yet it’s all that will stand in the way of Armageddon once Iran gets the bomb.
I just don’t have enough faith in the practical application of the concept that I’d entrust to it the future of an entire region, and millions of lives. That’s why anything — and I mean anything — must be done to stop Iran getting the bomb. Diplomatic means are highly preferable, but no measures must be off the table.
j-p-z,
One of the diplomats in Rega in c. 1921 was George Keenan (I think that’s his name) who formed his ideas about the Bolsheviks then. He was instrumental in the early 1950s in drawing up the State Dept. position paper that formed the ideological and diplomatic basis of the Cold War.
Ptobias, thanks for the book reference will check it out. You should check out Daniel Yergin’s “Origins of the Cold War: the Creation of the Military Industrial State”.
Re current topic: There’s no reason to suppose the Iranians weren’t sincere in their rapprochment with the US in 2001. They were probably very well aware, even if GWB wasn’t, that one of the main aims of Al Qaeda was and is the complete destruction of Shiite Muslim States, i.e. themselves, and, potentially, Iraq. The CIA certainly knew this. But Mad George was so intent on trying to punish Saddam for trying to poison his Daddy, he probably wasn’t prepared to listen to anybody.
Paul Burns: I don’t recall whether George Kennan (that’s the spelling) was in Riga in 1921 (the dates strike me as odd but I guess it’s plausible), but if he was, then I guess he got to witness first-hand the predations of a violent, tyrannical, ideologically (and historically) mad regime in action. Gee whiz, do ya think that influenced his opinion about things?
One of the reasons Kennan was so influential in the development of strategic containment (not the Cold War, it takes two sides to make a “war” and the Soviets were rather willing to dance) was that so much of what he said turned out to be true. The “Long Telegram” and “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” were accurate and insightful, and Kennan made a series of predictions about Soviet actions based on his theories and observations, most of which did come to pass. If Kennan was an architect of the Cold War, then he built something that prevented things far worse.
w/r/t yr insights about Iran/Bush, well, some of those things are plausible, I guess, but I don’t see history as a flow chart, certainly not one that can be reverse-plotted. Just because Mr. Bush has been consummately unwise, it does not make Iran the font of wisdom and trust.
j-p-z, as usual,delightful and funny.
Shaun Cronin and all:
We need to separate the two issues. [a]The failed presidency of Mr Air Guard AWOL. [b] A war between the U.S. and Iran …. and its allies.
[a] Don’t underestimate the Americans. They know they’ve got a born-loser and a bunch of crooks/puppeteers running the show. They realize now that Pelosi and the Congress have squibbed out on getting rid of Bush and Cheney and so have failed in their manifest duty. My guess is that a lot of patriotic intelligent Americans are now compelled to work out how to save their country without it looking like a coup-de-etat; too many good people have been hurt for Bush and Cheney to be allowed to remain in power. The concept of Liberty and the national memory of the Civil War are burned so deeply into the American psyche that a military take-over, with Americans shooting Americans, would be intolerable so I reckon that whatever happens will be short, sharp, bloodless and decisive - with an immediate resoration of normality.
[b] A war between Iran - and its allies -and the United States looks inevitable, no matter who is in the White House. If, by some miracle, Bush is still president, it will be a war launched by stupidity and its conduct will be even worse than the invasion of Iraq, with massive American casualties and the utter ruin of the U.S. economy. If launched by a competent president, it will be well-planned, well-resourced and well-led but it will still be a struggle to the death; a struggle where Iran is the battle-ground and where the main enemy of the U.S. will be Iran’s allies rather than Iran itself.
I hope and pray that I am wrong …. and that Iran and the U.S. can sort out their differences by negotiation rather than by war.
j-p-z and Liam:
b.t.w. Ex-USNavy science fiction writer Robert Heinlein warned us all: Beware of those who recite their own poetry in public places; they may have other nasty habits …. [ho-ho-ho; exits stage right].
j-p-z,
I’m pretty sure it was 1921 Kennan was in Riga. He cwas pro-Tsarist from the beginning of the Russian Revolution, even before the Bolsheviks took over, All this is from memory, but the accurate details are in Yergin’s book, which I read 27 years ago, and no longer have on my shelf.
I agree with your comments re the Iranians, but might suggest they were probably very, very nervous about falling victim to Al-Qaeda themselves, and so open to co-operation with the US, in a way they hadn’t been since the Islamic Revolution. But Bush blew it by including them in the Axis of Terror.
If George Kennan were in Riga in 1921, he would have been 16 or 17 at the time.
More likely, at that period of his life, he was staging pantie raids from Princeton University upon some nearby women’s college.
Katz,
looks like I goofed. But there was a very strong connection between American diplomats in Riga who were pro-Tsarist and in no mind to consider favourably tentative feelers about co-operation from the Bolsheviks. Yergin has all the details.
Paul, no one liked the Soviet Union back then, Churchill proposed and did his level best to strangle it at birth (his words), no Western nation wanted to engage with a state that was openly commited to their overthrow. There wasn’t anything exceptional in the US’s attitude to the Soviet Union in that regard.
Katz, j-p-z,
Even though its off the topic a bit, more about Daniel Yergin’s Origins of the Cold War.
I remember it well. It was a reference I looked into while researching my honours thesis on Jack Lang in Federal Parliament for background to the Cold War. Before then I’d mostly done Australian, early modern European and Chinese and Japanese history. I’d come across very little American historiography, and I was immediately struck by the difference (back then) between American v. British/Australian historiography. I was gob-smacked. The book was intensely readable and highly enjoyable. I still consider it one of the best histories I’ve ever read. End of diversion.
Paul Burns:
Agree. The Australian government could have opened a dialogue with the Iranians on this but instead chose not to do so.
Graham,
That JWH didn’t open a dialogue is no surprise to me. It soon became clear after 9/11 that we were going to go along with Bush’s (not the Us’s) opportunism in using that terrible tragedy as an excuse to even family scores, and strike out at everyone the Republicans were paranoidc about.
On of the advantages we’ll have, if Rudd gets elected, is that we’ll no longer be automatically going along with every paranoid delusional fantasy that comes into GWB’s head. But since Howard and Bush are both clearly unbalanced, I don’t think we could expect any better from them.
This Iran/US spat really scares me because of its potential to become a major disaster.
Says Ahmedinejad:
The ball is back in your court, Mr Bush.
Paul Burns [sorry about delay in responding] and Ptobias:
Labor might be less enthusiastic about getting tangled up in a foreign ruler’s get-rich-quick schemes …. but will they get either the time or the opportunity to change things? I expect conflict to erupt within weeks or even days - and well before a federal election could be held.
I agree that there may be movement on Iran before the election, although my hypothesis about the timeframe is “months or even weeks.”
September is Progress Month in Iraq. After APEC, Bush has to head home,
writereceive the report from General Petraeus, and then get Congress to approve the supplemental funding he wants for Iraq. If he is able to get the funding through with relatively little pain - which seems possible, given the weak-willed displays from Congressional Democrats (and Presidential candidates) so far - then chances are escalation with Iran will follow after he has secured the resources for ongoing deployment.If the Democrats press the issue and won’t fund without fixed benchmarks and/or timetables for Iraq, then my concern is that escalation with Iran will be brought into the mix sooner to justify the ongoing commitment of money and troops to the Middle East.
I’d feel a lot more comfortable with all of this if there was coherence and consistency in the foreign policy approach - but the contrast between the relative openness to diplomatic work with North Korea (albeit with some tough talk thrown in) and the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” approach to Iran suggests that there are motives that extend beyond the nuclear issue.
To those who thought claims that the surge in Iraq is working sound a bit premature or difficult to believe, read Paul Krugman.