"No need to thank me guys, really, it was no trouble at all..."
Posted on 03/29/2007 11:44:39 AM PDT by maquiladora
You wouldn't be wrong to wonder if Iran hasn't lost its mind seizing the fifteen British marines and sailors, and in so doing, handing Bush a causus belli even he couldn't have imagined.
But then again you'd be missing the grim fatalism that has settled over Iran of late, the resigned belief that a war with the U.S. is all but inevitable.
(...snip...)
I called up an Arab Gulf security official and asked him what he thought about it all. He said the view from his side of the Gulf is that if Iran does not soon release the Brits, a war between the U.S. and Iran is in the cards. "I for one am taking all the cash I can out of my ATM," he said before he hanging up.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Translation: Don't you see, it's Bush that forced them to invade a foreign nation and capture hostages from the military of a foreign nation. They didn't have a choice!!!!!
But, they point out, it wasn't Iran that started taking hostages — it was the U.S., when it arrested five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Erbil in Northern Iraq on January 11.
Translation: Once again it's Bush's fault. He started this. Iran was peacefully minding it's own business and trying to improve diplomatic relations with Iraq, and Bush couldn't have that, so he abducted the diplomats.
A little question for Time. Are the "diplomats" that most countries send to another country when trying to improve diplomatic relations normally part of that country's elite military force, such as the Iranian Republican Guard?
Since Bush has provided evidence that the Insurgents have received aid from the Iranian Republican Guard, and these members of the Republican Guard did not have diplomatic immunity, isn't calling them "diplomats" a pretty obvious and blatant lie?
Also note that when our forces captured these members of the Iranian Republican Guard, they didn't invade a soverign nation and capture soldiers that were in the process of enforcing a UN mandate.
They are diplomats, the Iranians insist. They were in Erbil with the approval of the Kurds and therefore, they argue, are under the protection of the Vienna Convention.
The Kurds don't have the authority to grant diplomatic immunity. That would be like California inviting members of Castro's military to visit and arguing they had diplomatic immunity because the state government invited them.
Iranian grievances, real and perceived, don't stop there. Tehran is convinced the U.S. or one of its allies was behind the March 2006 separatist violence in Iranian Baluchistan, which ended up with 20 people killed, including an IRGC member executed.
The US has provided evidence that Iran has been involved in insurgent attacks and is providing material aid to terrorists that are killing American and British soldiers as well as numerous Iraqis.
Needless to say the Iranians are not happy there are American soldiers on two of its borders, as well as two carriers and a dozen warships in the Gulf. You call this paranoia? they ask.
The worlds largest state sponsor of terrorists is complaining that the US is trying to bully it, and Time is taking up it's cause as it's own?
The Bush Administration is doing nothing to allay Tehran's paranoia. With the largest buildup in the Gulf since the start of this Iraq war, it's actually fanning it.
And why would they be doing that? It wouldn't have anything to do with Iran funding terrorism, lending material aid to the insurgents in Iraq, and bullying their neighbors while at the same time working to develop nuclear weapons so they have a much better tool with which to either threaten or even attack their enemies through intermediaries?
If Iran developed nukes, provided them to terrorists, and they detonated them in a US city, do you think Time would call for going to war with Iran, or do you think that they would lobby for appeasement and warn that we can't risk Iran attacking with nukes if we invade?
My guess is that they only way they will stop calling for appeasement is if they are silenced by being the ones killed in the nuclear blast.
Add this to the rest of the bad news coming out of the Gulf, and things look pretty grim. The "surge," despite what some claim, has barely made a dent in the violence in Iraq.
That one is simply a lie.
Our Arab allies are jumping ship, apparently as fast as they can. At the opening of the Arab summit on Wednesday, Saudi King Abdallah accused the U.S of illegally occupying Iraq.
That isn't inconsistent with the level of support our "ally" Saudi Arabia has provided. The give us some help, but at the same time the maintain a level of anti-US rhetoric that they feel they need because their control over their own people is tenuous at times.
The day before, the leader of the United Arab Emirates sent his foreign minister to Tehran to tell the Iranians he would not allow the U.S. to use UAE soil to attack Iran.
You mean we can't put forces on the soil of one of the smallest nations in the region THAT DOESN"T EVEN BORDER IRAN? What a horrible loss to our cause should we need to invade Iran.
That leaves us with Kuwait and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to face Iran.
Well that covers most of Iran's western border.
We have the south covered by sea.
On the east we have Afganistan which Time left out.
Pakistan has been somewhat cooperative in the past, but is still pretty fractured, so I wouldn't expect much by way of help. Some of the warlords there might harbor some Iranians that flee if we happened to invade, but I wouldn't expect much organized support or opposition.
We don't exactly have Iran surrounded, but we have a number of fronts we could attack from including multiple land based fronts.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down
Anyone wonder why the CIA has shown itself to be nearly useless in gathering good intel in the middle east?
"No need to thank me guys, really, it was no trouble at all..."
I recall that in the 60s, there was a standing offer from Time magazine to pay anyone who could find an error in spelling, grammar or usage a $10,000 reward.
Please reread post #29.
Note that the casualties in Lebanon were sponsored by Iran through its proxy Hezbollah.
Payback's a B*tch.
The US is doing a good job provoking Iran. Imagine how we would react if fleets Iranian warships were staging war games 3 miles east of Washington. Heh.Please reread post #29.
Note that the casualties in Lebanon were sponsored by Iran through its proxy Hezbollah.
Payback's a B*tch.
I did go back and look at all those horrible photos. And thought about the people who actually committed the crimes -- and their motives. You know, in my view, I think the Saudis are behind this whole world crisis (home 'o the hijackers). I see their hand in just about every one of those photos.
Iran has been at war with us for several decades.
I emphatically agree that Saudi Arabia speaks with a forked tongue, and has instigated both actions and, worse for the long run, an entire network of hate filled maddrasses and mosques, throughour the world, including our country.
One of my most common posts on FR is "I loathe the Saudis."
But on this day, the Mullahs deserve Payback.
None whatsoever.
L
If Iran wanted to call out the US, I'm sure they could have kidnapped Americans instead of Brits.
No, this isn't "paranoia," this is theater.
Brits should declare it an act of war and call on NATO to support it. Lets see the Demons refuse the call by NATO.
Kind of hard to fake being insane cult, or infiltrating a government hostile to blue eyes.
If Israel learned its lesson (not to be like the US demoncrat party) it'll last a few days and Israel will be raised in stature among the other Arab muslim states for ridding the region of a war-bent lunatocracy.
Nice summation!
"Is a U.S.-Iran War Inevitable?"
I'd say no. Iran is playing the international community (or whatever you want to call it) too skillfully.
No. I still think that the students and their supporters must take control of their own destiny. It's their fight, not ours.
"I was struck by:
>Add this to the rest of the bad news coming out of the Gulf, and things look pretty grim. The "surge", despite what some claim, has barely made a dent in the violence in Iraq.<
With nary a fact or a figure to back it up. Bias, what Bias?"
How about the writer saying we're left with Kuwait and Malaki against Iran? Like we need either country and what the hell does the Kuwait have to do with this at all?
"War with Iran is impossible with Dem control of both houses. They will never, ever support it. Then again, Bush might just sign the withdraw from Iraq bill and withraw the troops through Iran."
Yeah but Bush can bomb the shit out of Iran and take out most of their military and all of their nuke development and those carriers in the gulf aren't sitting their for nothing. Don't need Congress or House for limited action. This is better then doing nothing.
"You know, the more I think about it, in a sick way, maybe leaving Iraq is our only choice. The brick-crapping that will go on in the capitals of Europe as they contemplate Iranian hegemony on their doorstep may finally drive the point home that at the end of the day, Europe is a much closer target than the U.S., so start sending troops or prepare to fight them on the Continent. At this point - and I can't believe I'm saying this - but we're taking all the casualties, our own Congress makes a meaningful war with Iran a near-impossibility, and we're being told everything is our fault. Fine. Let's leave. Let Spain contemplate the rebirth of Andalusia at the end of a medium-range missile launched from Iranian controlled Baghdad. Let them contemplate daily Islamic rioting in Paris and London and Berlin. The Riviera can become the new Gaza Strip. Let them contemplate their complicity in the nuclear destruction of Jerusalem, (God forbid) the sacking of the Vatican, and the end of all that made Western Civilization great. This is what they want. Maybe when they're busy everyday cleaning up broken glass and dismembered bodies on the Champs-Elysees, they'll realize who the enemy is. Clearly, CLEARLY none of these countries (except for Britain and Australia) would ever come to our aid if the situation were reversed."
We would need to be energy dependant for your fortress america plan to work. It is the largely the real reason Iran is so ballsy. Meltdown of our global markets would be a real problem.
Yes, and its about time we answered them.
This is the same drool that TIME et al. smeared on America's face during the Cold War. Somehow, it was our obligation to soothe the "Russians' historic paranoia" so as not to stumble into a shooting war. We used to get this horsepiss from geeks like Strobe Talbott all the time.
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.