Next target Tehran

The Guardian ^ | Monday January 15, 2007 | Dan Plesch

[maquiladora]

The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran to his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there is every sign, to judge by his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony Blair would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit British forces to the field.

"There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way," said NBC TV's Tim Russert after meeting the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and cruise-missile-firing ships.

Many military analysts see these deployments as signals of impending war with Iran. The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces, including British ships, train to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments through the straits of Hormuz.

[Perdogg]

I hope so.

[maquiladora]

Iran ping

[golfisnr1]

It would be worth it to see the Dems have a fit.

[Mr. Brightside]

Maybe Iran should have been hit before Iraq.

[Spruce]

Iran is the head of the Snake. The current regime there will not last beyond this year.

[norge]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[yldstrk]

I hope so too, and have been hoping so since 1979.

[Dog]

The media herd finally notices the deployment of the Patriots....and what it could signal.

[Man50D]

Many military analysts see these deployments as signals of impending war with Iran.

It will not be a War with Iran but will be another battle front in the war against Islamic terrorism.

[I see my hands]

"It would be worth it to see the Dems have a fit"

You won't have to wait for the Dems. Might not even have to wait beyond this thread.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Can't wait to see the Midget Iranian Hitler hanging from a noose.

[fifthestate]

I don't get it...why do they keep referring to Iraq as a "catastrophe" or debacle"?

It may be a mess. But Saddam's gone.

9/11 was a catastrophe.

[elhombrelibre]

My response at the Guardian should make them happy. My response is this. Let's hope so.

[mirado]

I have, since 9/11, suggested to the folks I debate on the ME that Iran should be dealt with. In fact, as much as I support the Iraq operation, I've often inwardly thought it should have been Iran, instead. But then, who am I?

[sgtbono2002]

If we attack Iran, we may not need the Brits, I have a feeling we will have to Israeli's.

[Cobra64]

The media herd finally notices the deployment of the Patriots....and what it could signal.

We figured all this out days ago. The Reagan going back out, 21k troops, Patriots...

[Enchante]

Leftist weasels like the putrid writers for al-Guardian are working devotedly to bring down western civilization. They think that their interests are temporarily aligned with the Islamo-fascists, both fighting against eviiillll capitalism and "neo-cons" (stupid term) in the USA. But the morons at al-Guardian would be among the first to go if the Islamo-fascists have their way. Always strange to see the political alliances forged by depraved leftists, ala the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 that unleashed WWII.

Now it is time to crush Iran's Islamo-Nazis before they become any stronger, any more dangerous.

[Mr. Peabody]

I will be delighted if we can put Iran and Syria in the same state of affairs as Iraq and Afghanistan are today.

[Southack]

What the media herd will pretend to not "notice" is that the EU talks with Iran failed. Instead, they will claim that it's GWB doing the warmongering (as if Ahmadinejad's provocative behavior and rhetoric didn't exist).

But President Bush is far stronger and wiser than the drug-addled news media. If Iran is a threat, then Iran will feel our military might.

With that said, please remember that President Bush has given EU diplomacy *years* to work. Time's up.

But, I would be *surprised* if we strike Iran directly. We've gone to an enormous amount of trouble to encircle Iran with U.S. and allied forces to Iran's North in Turkey, South in the Gulf with our Navy, to Iran's West in Iraq, and to Iran's East in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, we've approved new oil drilling in new areas of Alaska (e.g. ANPR). Federal oil drilling permits are up 75%. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filled to the brim on GWB's watch. Clean diesel from U.S. natural gas and coal has been mandated nationally, as well as tested in our B-52's in the past month.

All of the above makes me guess that we'll embargo Iran 100% from the land, sea, and air.

With all of the pieces in place, we started by going after the Iranian Al Quds brigade and munitions smuggling infrastructure inside Iraq. Then we stepped up our efforts by arresting Iranian diplomats. We turned up the heat again by increasing our forces (the Iraq "surge") and sending allied Iraqi forces against previously off-limits Iranian targets inside Iraq.

None of the above strikes me as accidental.

On the contrary, these are the steps that you'd take before blockading a powerful enemy. And you'd also pre-position adequate forces in other areas of the world (e.g. South Korea) where anti-American forces might think to take advantage of something big going on in the ME.

So will we keep the Straights of Hormuz open? Maybe...to our friends...but not to Iran.

As with our 1991 flanking attack that coaxed Hussein's Kuwaiti occupiers to move out into the open desert to fight, so too does it appear to me that we are prodding Iraq to come to get us.

And we're dug in. Ready. In force. With backup.

In the meantime, the blockade will strangle the Iranian economy, pressure the Iranian government, and give them a taste of the medicine that they foisted upon us inside the Iraqi insurgency.

Time to buy oil stocks and futures and options, though.