Iran and the jaws of a trap-(alleged german (x) intelligence opinion piece no secrets)

Poor assessment-

It's all or nothing for all these "pundits".

1. Libya is a perfect example of where we didn't go this route. It's not all or nothing, it's about achieving desired affects on the target. This can be achieved without a massive ground campaign.

Bombing Iran can: Delay their program, create a sense of cause and affect. Iran even since the Ayatollah Khomeini was emboldened in it’s belief that terrorism is an effective means to shape the policy of the West. They learned that the West lacks resolve when dealing with a regime such as theirs and are even today operating under the belief that we will not really do anything. Creating a sense of “cause and affect” would be a desirable thing. Delaying their nuclear program will not require massive ground forces. The assumption is that we “take and old” Iran. Why?

Iraq is not tying us up as much as the media "wants" to make it sound like. Especially the USAF and USN are not under a lot of pressure and are in fact DOWNSIZING in manpower! They would be the primary component of a realistic military strike against Iran. Rotation schedules have over one year separation now. Some combat units have to date not been deployed at all! Retention is good and the anti-war pundit is reduced to pointing out the occasional one month laps when the Army does not make their goal to show how horrible and apocalyptic in is for the military.

There is a difference between a surge and a long run sustainment. What we have in Iraq today we could quiet literally sustain forever. In the Cold War we had twice that in Europe for over 40 years what we have in Iraq today. Short term 2003 was a stressful year for the Army. Iraq-330,000, Liberia-4,500, Balkans, Republic of Georgia, Afghanistan, Philippines, S. Korean, Columbia, Sinai, Sudan….. Short term we can take on even a lot more than we presently are. The point is that the argument that we are “tapped out” is simple minded BS who is believed by those who have no insight into the US military.

2. The writer’s assumption is that Iran would take more action in Iraq against us if we take action on them. Fact is, whether supporting Muqtar Al Sadr or other forces in Iran working against the coalition, Iran is doing ALL it can already. An attack on Iran would change the face in Iraq little, if any.

3. (long term) -A realistic scenario entails increased Special Forces activity in Iran. More IO, greater economic political isolation, more clandestine operations intended to foster “regime change” and set Tehran under pressure. (short term)- an intense bombing campaign which has two goals:

a. Break the kids toys and make him cry. Go after non-WMD sites of high value and payoff just to inflict maximum pain on the regime.

b. Have a sustained air campaign that targets the WMD development, production, logistics, C4I. Unlike 1986 in Libya or other quick bombing campaigns this needs to be a sustained campaign where we as in the Balkans bomb over quite some time, maybe even half a year.

4. The writer assumes that the US handled the situation in Iraq poorly and that the administration in the US learned from it’s mistakes. While they surly did learn, nothing Bush, Rumsfeld or anybody would have ever said would have changed the course of action for the Schroeder administration once they in 2002 chose to be against the war. After a Red/Green coalition was formed Schroeder could no longer reverse course either. The writer of this article places the onus of the political conflict between parts of Europe and the US on the Bush administration. That’s simply not the case.

5. What we need Europe to do is to play the economic and political pressure game. Militarily we will deal with Iran just as was us that took the lead in the Balkans or Libya. What needs to happen is Europe needs to figure out that the game is over. It’s all delaying games for THREE YEARS already. When it goes to the UNSC the delaying games and talking will continue; more smoke and mirrors. Of course China and Russia will be against any action and Iran will leverage them in its game. What all this is really boiling down to is this:

Does Europe through inaction accept Iran as a “de facto” nuclear power?

Unlike Iraq, the EU politician can't run and hide and point his finger at the US. They will have to accept responsibility and show color. What the Bush administration did learn from Iraq is that the "Realpolitik" of past is dead. Germany today is not a full dependable ally and pacing them in the lead of the negotiations forces "them" to draw the ultimate conclusions and justify them to their constituents,vs. playing a game where they in secret support us, benefit from our actions but pander to the anti-war and anti-US sentiments in their society as was the case with Iraq.

No-

Chirac is playing a very different game here. In 1996 France offered to put Germany under its nuclear umbrella which never was put under NATO control. Germany at the time did not act on this.

France is in a round about fashion making an offer here. Especially after Iraq 2003 (Which France saw as an opportunity) the confidence in NATO was damaged. Can the Germans rely on the US whom they backstabbed?

Is France going to nuke Iran? No! It's ridiculous! But this is about political maneuvering, building public support for ideas, exploiting a situation for ones own benefit.

France has long seen NATO working against their best interest and sees a Europe tied and dependent on them as an opportunity to expand their power base and influence. France is economically one of the most powerful nations but within the EU “core” as they like to see it, the only nation with nukes, force projection capabilities and the intel etc to be a major world stage player. While Germany is economically bigger, France would dominate German foreign policy once Germany commits to them. Tying Germany under their nuclear umbrella would be an ideal scenario for France. This is not about nuking Iran, rather about Frances long term European ambitions to become even more influential within the EU.

In the Cold War the French threw the US out. Many of our bases were actually to far forward and within rocket artillery range of the Soviets in Germany.

The French didn't place their nukes under NATO control for what single reason?

The French see Iran as a threat, but are also playing a game where they hope they can tie Germany closer to them. Germany without ANY strategic force projection capabilities, no nukes, no global Intel capabilities (France has its own mini version of our Echelon) would then massively grow in influence within Europe. One might as well say that France would end up dominating the EU foreign policy.

The French also saw Saddam as a potential threat. In fact Iran and Iraq are not much different! Iraq even fired long range missiles into its neighbors at wars begin that FAR exceeded the maximum range limit placed on them by the UN mandate (150Km). But this “minor” detail is coincidentally overlooked by the anti-war pundit in the US or Europe.

France sees NATO as an obstacle to their long term goals. When Schroeder said “Nein” in 2002 during the elections to a possible Iraq war, France quickly seized the opportunity. Of course France was also against this horrible war as they described it. Better yet, they polarized many within the EU to quickly take an anti-NATO position. Much of the state run French media all but declared NATO dead. “State run media” was pumping this out! The French were conducting a coordinated Information Operations campaign that directly targeted the US mission in Iraq. Even if there is an associated risk with their game, France is willing to play this. France will sacrifice collective security interests for their own personal gain. They have done this many times in the past which I pointed out earlier. France thinks “nationally” is “unilateral” and a “colonial” power that is still stuck in that mode of thought – literally. It’s funny when this nation that actively works against NATO accuses the US (The UN/NATO’s creator) of being “unilateral” reference Iraq.

It’s all a game for France where they see the ability to grow in influence and power by destroying an organization which has promoted peace and stability. Europe has NEVER in its history enjoyed a span of relative stability and peace as long as this (60 years now). NATO is the driving force behind this. While France accuses the US of “unilateral” behavior and idiots like Kerry and Michael Moore parrot this non-sense, France talks of a European “core” which excludes Poland, the UK and others. They threatened those nations who supported the US in Iraq and coincidentally offer their nuclear umbrella to cover Europe. Not NATO- no France’s nuclear umbrella! What a “multi-lateral” thinking state!

France is a bottom feeding sleaze. They’ll sell arms to just about anyone. While other stopped arms exports to India because they broke the agreement, France immediately jumped in and sold Mirage 2000. Who pushed so hard to have the arms export limits from the EU dropped reference China? In fact China said that they would guaranteed buy the Airbus A380 in return. Who can’t remember French built Roland missiles found in Iraq with serial numbers and dates still stamped on them that were POST 1991?

Is Iran a threat? Yes, but France is looking past that and sees something much bigger. Imagine running the EU foreign policy through Germany? In Iran’s case the French will work with us. Why? Because they can’t play the games they did under Schroeder. Merkel won’t play.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.