Posted on 08/23/2006 5:25:06 AM PDT by nuconvert
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
Interesting thoughts.
"This maneuver was nothing less than a low-risk exercise"
I think you're right, though this Romanian oil company dispute has been going on for a while and the company and Iran were in court over it a year ago. I'm not up on all the details, but seems to be another territorial dispute.
I don't think it was accident that it happened while Iran was having it's military exercises.
The Saudis are definitiely very uncomfortable with what's going on in Iran and have beefed up their military with lots of purchases lately.
There's no actual proof that Iran was behind it, but I have my doubts.
In my opinion, Iran is pursuing a policy of tough talk, that can be converted to a military option at any time of their choosing. I also opine that the duality of the Iranian approach is by deliberate design. I believe that Iran has decided to try intimidation first, assess the results in relationship to their policy objectives, and if need be, escalate violence in both effect and in openness, until the verbal threats are taken seriously enough for the intended audience to behave as Iran wishes them to.
That said, there are yet a pair of unanswered questions.
1. How far is Iran ultimately willing to go?
2. How far has Iran actually gone to date?
At one end of the spectrum, Iran may have expected to deliver its refusal to halt uranium enrighment to a post apocalyptic Western world, reeling from the effects of a terrorist attack yielding more casualties than 9/11.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who wonder, myself included, if the west wasn't deliberately warned of the UK terror plot, that the plot was never intended to succeed, only to inspire fear as a near miss, a heavy handed attempt at manipulation, giving credibility to other verbal threats.
It is clear that Iran is willing to kill human beings to get what they want, the Lebanese-Israeli war is proof enough on its own, with western deaths in Iraq as a result of Iranian plotting being additional confirmation.
It is also clear that for now, Iran is unwilling to exceed certain limits in maintaining plausible deniability.
There is a third variable, but it is so arcane I hesitate to include it with the other two, however, this is one of the determinants in the matrix and therefore I have to at least try.
3. How far, in terms of violence and plausible deniability, is Iran willing to go to achieve their objectives, not just today, but on a continuing basis, plotted as a curve with respect to time?
In other words, a trend line comparing Iran's willingness to accept risk right now, compared to yesterday, last week, last month, etc.
No matter how I view the UK terror attack plan, failed plot or planned threat-only, the trend shows that Iran is escalating the levels of risk it is willing to accept; in Iraq, recently calling openly for Shiite elements to attack western personel and facilities, in Lebanon, openly increasing efforts to re-arm Hezbollah, within Iran itself, as evidenced by military maneuver and missile tests, and in terror operations, whether threatened or poorly executed and interdicted.
Three months ago, there were no Iranian terror plots, and even if you are not convinced that Iran had a hand in this planning, there were no current military exercises, the arming of Hezbollah was not nearly as obvious as it is today, and the calls for attacks on westerners in Iraq were not as loud, frequent or public.
Delta T, "heat" plotted as a function of passing time, is increasing.
That said, I agree with, and to some degree sympathize with humor directed at Iran's failure to end the world yesterday.
They were not, and as of this minute, are not, ready to risk control of their country in an all or nothing offensive.
Iran is not coming at us, with everything they have, right this second. That's a good thing, even if it does change later on today, next week, whenever. Rest assured that the west is improving its stance across the globe, we are not wasting the time that Iran is giving us.
You may feel that our preparations are not being executed with all due haste, but there is a valid reason for this perception, it is deliberate. One reason behind this that I am willing to discuss openly is that we do not wish to challenge Iran right now. We prefer to make quiet preparations to counter any potential Iranian move, while confronting Iran diplomatically, through proxies in the Europe and the UN.
We do not wish to force Iran into war if our objectives can be achieved peacefully, but if they are feeling more and more cornered as time goes by, and well that they should feel this way because this is reality, we are not standing into harm unprepared.
Signs of increasing preparedness are being kept deliberately low key right now, but they are visible if you look for them. One example is the increasing troop strength in Iraq. There are many others.
If there is a false sense of security, at the operational level, it exists only within the borders of Iran.
Appears it's the PC thing to do, what with all the anti-Iraq sentiment going at the moment. Get on board to avoid war at all costs. We're going to pay the price for that.
Well if you put it that way....good idea.
Jeffers, again, I thank you for sharing your thoughts and analysis. Perhaps Iran is just biding its time, continually testing the waters, and hoping that a weak US administration gets elected in 2008.
We still have Ramalamadingdong to look forward to.
All valid and thoughtful points- yet I'm still far from convinced Iran had any ties to the UK skyboming plot. I'm still believing that Sunni and Shia terrorists, while sharing many of the ultimate goals, are somewhat competitive towards each other.
I may have mentioned this to you before- if so bear with me. My son (after adventures of all sorts in Iraq) tells me he sees the Shia as much more threatening, frightening as enemies, even though UBL is Sunni. His sense of it is that the Shia are REALLY convinced of their islamic jihad. They are "true believers" and thus fanaticaly dangerous. He sees the Sunni's more as racists- they just hate the infidels, whether Jews or Christians or anything not muslim.
He (son) may be mistaken- after all he did not have a complete picture of the ME- Iraq is but a slice of the pie.
As always- thank you for your insights :)
Hmm, I got August 29 on the ol' chronomometabob. Guess they didn't have the sack after all. So, everybody sing along!
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mahdi
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mahdi
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
I know a guy his name is Mahmoud,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
Chicken**** didn't wanna become pig food,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
I know a guy his name's Ahmadenijad,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
Ice hockey's got more balls than he had,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
I know a tool his name is Khatami,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
He won't get no virgins with a buttful of salami,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
I know a guy his name is Osama,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
With a jackal for a dad and a chimpanzee mama,
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mahdi
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mahdi
Hey Mahdi, Mahdi, Mo
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.