Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[rogermexico]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I'm inclined to be open to this line of thinking. The Arab spring, whether it was supported from early on by U.S. covert missions or not, would certainly encourage any U.S. administration to wonder if the cascade of regime changes might be pushed to include a few more problematic leaders. Indeed, there are those who argue that Bush was thinking along the lines of this when the war in Iraq was sold to the world. Personally, I think this gives Bush too much credit, but it is possible that such plans could have been in the works between the State and Defense departments for a long time, with planning beginning as early as the first Gulf War.

It would indeed give Bush himself too much credit, but I am pretty sure Wolfowitz and Cheney and the other elements of the neocon cabal stated this idea explicitly even before 9/11 allowed them to put their ideas into motion via Bush as the proxy. Maybe some googling can turn up the evidence.. I am too lazy to do it right now.

And although I have my doubts about the achievability of such, a non apocalyptic/theocratic Iran with nukes is a much better safeguard than relying on periodic bombing to stop nuke production. So who wouldn't prefer regime change if it could be effected?

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

in iraq, the u.s. invasion and defeat of saddam's army gave the shia population the opening it needed to take power. i don't see a similarly strong division within iran, nor a sufficiently large and well-defined opposition population.

[rogermexico]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

in iraq, the u.s. invasion and defeat of saddam's army gave the shia population the opening it needed to take power. i don't see a similarly strong division within iran, nor a sufficiently large and well-defined opposition population.

"US invasion and defeat of Saddam's army"

This is something quite different from encouraging regime change by bombing - this is full scale boots on the ground war and would need to be scaled up by quite a lot to do the same thing in a country the size of Iran. The Shia did exploit our toppling of Saddam to displace their Sunni overlords, but that's hardly the same as pro-US democrats throwing flowers at US troops and installing a pro US democracy - the fantastic vision peddled to us by the neocons. (And perversely, the new government is MORE oriented towards Iran as we all know. Allowing overflights to Syria by Iran as we speak!)

I actually see much more pent-up pro-western democratic urge in Iran than there was in Iraq. Iran has a cultural memory of the years before the '79 revolution as well as established western ways among its youth. I think spontaneous revolution there - Iranian Spring - is feasible, and the question is if it can happen before the Mullahs make their bomb and then go on to amplify the jihadist narrative to justify their own existence.

My concern is that a US/Israeli attack, even as it may set back their nuclear clock, will turn the liberal elements against us or more likely enable the jihadist narrative and thence further entrench the mullahs.

Regime change, however achieved, can be the only way to really solve this threat. They will get a nuke somehow from someone (pakistan) if they keep at it long enough.

[astonas]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

in iraq, the u.s. invasion and defeat of saddam's army gave the shia population the opening it needed to take power. i don't see a similarly strong division within iran, nor a sufficiently large and well-defined opposition population.

I'm seeing this situation as less an analogue to Iraq than as an analogue to the Arab Spring states: Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. I'm not sure anyone in the U.S. really wants another Iraq.

I'm also not an expert on Iran, but it seems to me that there must be a handful of people in the State department that are, and who could find motivations in Iran that could be encouraged. For example, Iran was, until the revolution, a comparitively open society, and I could imagine that there are those who might want to see that return. There may also be secular parts of society that feel repressed, and business interests that see opportunities in or after a conflict.

Again, lots of speculation here. But I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to imagine that the U.S., as a hegemonic power, has regional experts tasked with creating and updating plans to destabilize the governments of hostile dictators, so that these are ready if an opportunity presents itself.

This potential stroke could create such an opportunity.

Whether it's worth the risk is probably an unknowable quantity, even with access to all the information, which would certainly be classified. Hence all the speculation.

[FrankL]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It would indeed give Bush himself too much credit, but I am pretty sure Wolfowitz and Cheney and the other elements of the neocon cabal stated this idea explicitly even before 9/11 allowed them to put their ideas into motion via Bush as the proxy. Maybe some googling can turn up the evidence.. I am too lazy to do it right now.

And although I have my doubts about the achievability of such, a non apocalyptic/theocratic Iran with nukes is a much better safeguard than relying on periodic bombing to stop nuke production. So who wouldn't prefer regime change if it could be effected?

In my opinion, the image of the leaders of Iran wanting to acquire nuclear capabilities to just go ahead and use them on Israel are a fabrication of the neocons/israel lobby. The Mahdi aspect of shia islam is similar to the whole judgement day stories in the Christian bible (as they both share a common ancestor).

However, I think that Israel and the US are afraid (for good reason) of two big consequences of a nuclear Iran:
1. (for the US) greatly diminished ability to take control of oil reserves in Iran if needed in the future
2. (for the west in general, but Israel in particular) a nuclear Iran would trigger a local nuclear arms race in the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. are very wary of Persia and definitely would not like to be open to possible nuclear intimidation by them. And these countries have the money to acquire nuclear capability.

You might wonder why they haven't sought nuclear capability yet with Israel being an unofficial nuclear power. I think maybe the fact that Israel denies their their nuclear capability and would solely use it as deterrent (the 'Samson option') might be just satisfactory enough for their arab neighbours to hold off.

Then again, as already mentioned here in this thread, the whole nuclear weapon idea might be a red herring used to enable regime change. However, I don't see that happening (and bombing Iran would accomplish the opposite)

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

"US invasion and defeat of Saddam's army"

This is something quite different from encouraging regime change by bombing - this is full scale boots on the ground war and would need to be scaled up by quite a lot to do the same thing in a country the size of Iran.

I reckon there's NO WAY there's going to be a land invasion of Iran...75 million people and 1.5+ million sq Ks....we don't have those kind of resources anymore.

The Shia did exploit our toppling of Saddam to displace their Sunni overlords,

But don't forget it took version 2.0 and 20+ years for it to happen. Version 1.0 done with a no fly zone and some covert support got ruthlessly smashed by Saddam.

but that's hardly the same as pro-US democrats throwing flowers at US troops and installing a pro US democracy - the fantastic vision peddled to us by the neocons. (And perversely, the new government is MORE oriented towards Iran as we all know. Allowing overflights to Syria by Iran as we speak!)

Which puts Iraq right in the middle(literally and figuratively) as a passive participant in these dangerous games. If they do not diplomatically oppose Iranian overflights and they can't militarily(no air defense until 2013) oppose Israeli ones that could be a bit telling if an Israeli attack on Iran occurs.

I actually see much more pent-up pro-western democratic urge in Iran than there was in Iraq. Iran has a cultural memory of the years before the '79 revolution as well as established western ways among its youth.

Does Iran actually possess much pre 79 revolution cultural memory?

The population of Iran at the time was less than half of what it is today....the vast majority of Iranians were born after the revolution. I wonder if it's more of the latter.

I would GUESS those with Pre 79 memories might be a rough equivalent of the US "Greatest Generation" having toppled the totalitarian Shah while concurrently stopping Hussein and the world from strangling Iran to death.

I would GUESS the fast growing youth of Iran MIGHT have potential to be the Iranian version of the Baby Boomers, but where are they in the development of things? I'd still think they are far closer to Kent State than the Clinton Inauguration.

I think spontaneous revolution there - Iranian Spring - is feasible, and the question is if it can happen before the Mullahs make their bomb and then go on to amplify the jihadist narrative to justify their own existence.

One concern I have about putting too much faith and an impatient western "we want it yesterday time line" is looking at the Iranian election protests on the last go around. I remember reading a post from an ethnic Persian/Iranian who was quite supportive of the protests but cautioned about getting TOO optimistic......he conveyed the belief that the protests were largely kept to the educated/professional/liberal middle class based on location(universities and neighborhood demographics of where outbreaks occurred. He felt the protests achieved very little in the way of participation from the more conservative poor/working classes making up the bulk of Iranian society.

Just anecdotal stuff but it seemed to make sense.......on the other hand...history has proven it doesn't require the majority of the population actively participating to effect change......it only takes a high single digit minority and for the majority to just wait on the sidelines to wait for which way the wind blows.

My concern is that a US/Israeli attack, even as it may set back their nuclear clock, will turn the liberal elements against us or more likely enable the jihadist narrative and thence further entrench the mullahs.

And that's my main opposition to an Israeli conventional raid on Iran........it will provide massive justification for an Iranian regime internal crackdown. As I stated in post before....an Israeli raid on Iran could actually be of great benefit to Iranian hardliners........it would be a fantastic opportunity to further entrench power and liquidate the opposition.

Regime change, however achieved, can be the only way to really solve this threat. They will get a nuke somehow from someone (pakistan) if they keep at it long enough.

So I reckon the "solution" is to push hard for internal change in Iran.

Contain them as best we can economically(even though oil is highly fungible and as EJ stated the embargo will be next to impossible to enforce......BUT it will hurt.

Continue with the significant investment in funding internal opposition to Iran's government(much like in Poland during the Cold War to shatter the Warsaw Pact).

If/when a more cooperative and less hostile government comes to power negotiate fairly for the removal of nuclear weapons much like in post Apartheid South Africa.

One thing I find simply amazing is that it is taking so long for the Iranians to develop a basic nuclear capability.

If you read about the history of South Africa's nuclear program they managed to put together a viable first generation nuclear capability paired with modern delivery systems in approximately 10 years......on a shoestring budget.

I have my serious doubts that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

Considering Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's deep connections(Saudis funding Soviet Afghan insurgency thru Pakistan, Pakistani military seconded mercenaries throughout Saudi military, and Saudi economic assistance of Pakistan) I would think the Saudis would simply leverage their relationship with Pakistan to buy nuclear weapons from the Pakistanis.....or the Pakistanis might quietly offer a nuclear armed IRBM battery run by Pakistani mercenaries on Saudi soil for some huge lease fee.

The Pakistanis have done some crazy/dodgy things in the past.....but I would be stunned if they managed to play both sides of the Saudi/Iranian escalation.

[rogermexico]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

In my opinion, the image of the leaders of Iran wanting to acquire nuclear capabilities to just go ahead and use them on Israel are a fabrication of the neocons/israel lobby. The Mahdi aspect of shia islam is similar to the whole judgement day stories in the Christian bible (as they both share a common ancestor).

However, I think that Israel and the US are afraid (for good reason) of two big consequences of a nuclear Iran:
1. (for the US) greatly diminished ability to take control of oil reserves in Iran if needed in the future
2. (for the west in general, but Israel in particular) a nuclear Iran would trigger a local nuclear arms race in the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. are very wary of Persia and definitely would not like to be open to possible nuclear intimidation by them. And these countries have the money to acquire nuclear capability.

You might wonder why they haven't sought nuclear capability yet with Israel being an unofficial nuclear power. I think maybe the fact that Israel denies their their nuclear capability and would solely use it as deterrent (the 'Samson option') might be just satisfactory enough for their arab neighbours to hold off.

Then again, as already mentioned here in this thread, the whole nuclear weapon idea might be a red herring used to enable regime change. However, I don't see that happening (and bombing Iran would accomplish the opposite)

Nuclear arms, like handguns, are used to good effect most often without burning any powder. I don't expect Iran to willy-nilly use the weapon by setting it off, but it provides the same leverage a handgun has in a robbery.

I should also add that the part you bolded is the narrative that the mullahs use to hold power. I did not take a position to say how deeply or even if they believe it themselves..

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

In my opinion, the image of the leaders of Iran wanting to acquire nuclear capabilities to just go ahead and use them on Israel are a fabrication of the neocons/israel lobby. The Mahdi aspect of shia islam is similar to the whole judgement day stories in the Christian bible (as they both share a common ancestor).

However, I think that Israel and the US are afraid (for good reason) of two big consequences of a nuclear Iran:
1. (for the US) greatly diminished ability to take control of oil reserves in Iran if needed in the future
2. (for the west in general, but Israel in particular) a nuclear Iran would trigger a local nuclear arms race in the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. are very wary of Persia and definitely would not like to be open to possible nuclear intimidation by them. And these countries have the money to acquire nuclear capability.

You might wonder why they haven't sought nuclear capability yet with Israel being an unofficial nuclear power. I think maybe the fact that Israel denies their their nuclear capability and would solely use it as deterrent (the 'Samson option') might be just satisfactory enough for their arab neighbours to hold off.

Then again, as already mentioned here in this thread, the whole nuclear weapon idea might be a red herring used to enable regime change. However, I don't see that happening (and bombing Iran would accomplish the opposite)

I don't see it as a red herring.

If I was an Iranian of the same age I would have experienced the following over the last 30+ years:

*repression by a US supported dictator using SAVAK to liquidate opposition that had close ties with CIA/Mossad
*revolution to overthrow US supported dictator
*war initiated by neighboring Iraq, where the US/Israel acted to shape the battlefield to maximize the losses on BOTH sides
*WMDs used against Iran, and even with high profile efforts to send WMD victims to Switzerland to raise their profile, the US centric media world largely ignored it
*US Navy shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner and the captain of the ship was awarded a medal for it.

(There's also a LOT of asymmetric attacks committed by Iran and/or it's proxies against Israel/US as well)

North Korea and Pakistan are excellent examples of how countries can be perpetual state sponsors of terrorism, much like Iran......but the key different being that North Korea and Pakistan both possess nuclear capability.

If I was Iranian, I'd want nukes too....not to be used against anyone......but in hopes of being left lone.

Attacking Iran's efforts to build nukes would probably see me wanting that capability even more.

If I was Saudi/Qatari, past performance is indicative of future performance I reckon.

No offense, but when have they ever achieved a consider technological challenge with only indigenous resources(beyond just cash)?

I'm not aware of any top of mind.

I think their SOP in dealing with an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon would be to call Pakistan to buy/lease nuclear weapons....likely mounted on IRBMs capable of reaching all of Iran.

Pakistan's economy and the losses it will see in revenue from the fast shrinking US/ISAF mission cash cow could be quite vulnerable to the influence of Gulf Oil Money.

Not only would it provide the potential for substantial economic support and ongoing income stream from a "nuclear lease", but would offer Pakistan a means to exert it's own influence and control over the region and stay "top of mind" as global focus quickly shifts away from Afghanistan/Pakistan and towards Syria/Iran.

It allows Pakistan to both profit and stay relevant.

If there was any particular place in the world right now that I'd like to be a fly on the wall would be Balochistan that strategically straddles both Iran and Pakistan and is in close proximity to the Straight of Hormuz.

Balochistan has been a serious thorn in the side of BOTH the current Iranians AND Pakistani governments.

I'm sure that has not gone unnoticed by both the US and Israel.

[FrankL]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I don't see it as a red herring.

If I was an Iranian of the same age I would have experienced the following over the last 30+ years:

*repression by a US supported dictator using SAVAK to liquidate opposition that had close ties with CIA/Mossad
*revolution to overthrow US supported dictator
*war initiated by neighboring Iraq, where the US/Israel acted to shape the battlefield to maximize the losses on BOTH sides
*WMDs used against Iran, and even with high profile efforts to send WMD victims to Switzerland to raise their profile, the US centric media world largely ignored it
*US Navy shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner and the captain of the ship was awarded a medal for it.

(There's also a LOT of asymmetric attacks committed by Iran and/or it's proxies against Israel/US as well)

North Korea and Pakistan are excellent examples of how countries can be perpetual state sponsors of terrorism, much like Iran......but the key different being that North Korea and Pakistan both possess nuclear capability.

If I was Iranian, I'd want nukes too....not to be used against anyone......but in hopes of being left lone.

Attacking Iran's efforts to build nukes would probably see me wanting that capability even more.

If I was Saudi/Qatari, past performance is indicative of future performance I reckon.

No offense, but when have they ever achieved a consider technological challenge with only indigenous resources(beyond just cash)?

I'm not aware of any top of mind.

I think their SOP in dealing with an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon would be to call Pakistan to buy/lease nuclear weapons....likely mounted on IRBMs capable of reaching all of Iran.

Pakistan's economy and the losses it will see in revenue from the fast shrinking US/ISAF mission cash cow could be quite vulnerable to the influence of Gulf Oil Money.

Not only would it provide the potential for substantial economic support and ongoing income stream from a "nuclear lease", but would offer Pakistan a means to exert it's own influence and control over the region and stay "top of mind" as global focus quickly shifts away from Afghanistan/Pakistan and towards Syria/Iran.

It allows Pakistan to both profit and stay relevant.

If there was any particular place in the world right now that I'd like to be a fly on the wall would be Balochistan that strategically straddles both Iran and Pakistan and is in close proximity to the Straight of Hormuz.

Balochistan has been a serious thorn in the side of BOTH the current Iranians AND Pakistani governments.

I'm sure that has not gone unnoticed by both the US and Israel.

I agree that there's perfect reason for Iran to want to acquire a nuclear weapon.

But consider the possibility that they only want 'nuclear capability'. In other words: develop the technology to build nuclear weapons, but only build them if it is absolutely desired and necessary. This is very similar to what a lot of countries in the rest of the world have already achieved: e.g. Brazil, South Korea, Japan and very probably Germany.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Here's something that will change the dynamics around Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Word is that a deal with Gazprom is quite close to being inked after a 2 year courtship, and the endorsement of Putin and Netanyahu at their summit in July.

Gazprom to set up Israeli unit

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" reports that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields.

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" quotes Israeli officials as saying that Russian gas giant Gazprom JSC plans to set up an Israeli subsidiary that will help develop the country's offshore natural gas reserves, especially Leviathan...

...The sources said that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields, the sources said. Gazprom has already expressed an interest in exporting LNG from Israel. All future international tenders issued by Israel in the gas sector would be open to Gazprom and other Russian companies...

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Here's something that will change the dynamics around Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Word is that a deal with Gazprom is quite close to being inked after a 2 year courtship, and the endorsement of Putin and Netanyahu at their summit in July.

Gazprom to set up Israeli unit

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" reports that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields.

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" quotes Israeli officials as saying that Russian gas giant Gazprom JSC plans to set up an Israeli subsidiary that will help develop the country's offshore natural gas reserves, especially Leviathan...

...The sources said that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields, the sources said. Gazprom has already expressed an interest in exporting LNG from Israel. All future international tenders issued by Israel in the gas sector would be open to Gazprom and other Russian companies...

this was referenced by bill in the "persian spring" thread. the announcement of the israeli-russian joint venture was followed shortly by iran initiating legal action against russia for failing to deliver its advanced 300 series dual use [it's both surface to air and intermediate range surface to surface] missile system. hmmm..

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

this was referenced by bill in the "persian spring" thread. the announcement of the israeli-russian joint venture was followed shortly by iran initiating legal action against russia for failing to deliver its advanced 300 series dual use [it's both surface to air and intermediate range surface to surface] missile system. hmmm..

The Russians have a long history of dodgy behavior when it comes to foreign weapons sales.

Algeria and India would be to quite substantial examples besides Iran were the Russians have been contracted to do one thing, and delivered(or failed to deliver) another.......and that's with less outside political pressure lobbying against delivery.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Here's something that will change the dynamics around Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Word is that a deal with Gazprom is quite close to being inked after a 2 year courtship, and the endorsement of Putin and Netanyahu at their summit in July.

Gazprom to set up Israeli unit

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" reports that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields.

"Oil and Gas Eurasia" quotes Israeli officials as saying that Russian gas giant Gazprom JSC plans to set up an Israeli subsidiary that will help develop the country's offshore natural gas reserves, especially Leviathan...

...The sources said that Gazprom's Israeli subsidiary will focus on drilling as well as gas transmission from the country's offshore fields, the sources said. Gazprom has already expressed an interest in exporting LNG from Israel. All future international tenders issued by Israel in the gas sector would be open to Gazprom and other Russian companies...

Any idea on whether or not the offshore Israeli oil/gas finds are substantial?

I've read speculation it's a pretty big find.....but hard to take ANY oil/gas finds in recent years with anything but a bag of salt.

[flintlock]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I don't think there's much chance of a bombing...but if it does happen it wouldn't be the first time a President in political trouble started a war to divert attention from the problems at home.

And I remain convinced that this latest escalation happened because the Iranians were caught doing something on this side of the Atlantic...

That was my first instinct as well. Some sort of espionage? Terror plot?

[EJ]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

That was my first instinct as well. Some sort of espionage? Terror plot?

It's easy to over-think these things.

Why did the US invade Iraq when it did?

So many theories.

For the oil. To avenge Bush Sr. And so on.

But the timing. Why then?

Quite simply because Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the US one time too many in a politically charged atmosphere after 9/11.

The US had threatened Saddam repeatedly, but nothing happened.

The military re-eminence of the US cannot be challenged without a response or the US risks being perceived by its enemies as a paper tiger.

When the US attack finally came Saddam was quite obviously unprepared as indicated by his rural hole in the ground hiding place.

Israel threatens and in response rather than back down Iran increases nuclear program activity in full public view.

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.