Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

At Crucial Juncture, Iran Seeks Edge on U.S.

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page A19

"...Internal political shifts have also changed the dynamics of the U.S.-Iran standoff. A year ago, Iran's president and the majority in parliament were reformers who wanted to end the mistrust between the two nations.

But conservatives took control of parliament this fall, after many reform candidates were barred from running in February elections. And conservatives are expected to do whatever it takes to win the presidential election next spring, Iranian analysts say.

So rather than spur political change, Iranian analysts warn that U.S. military action on suspected Iranian nuclear sites could backfire, echoing the impact of Iraq's 1980 invasion. The eight-year Iran-Iraq war reignited Iranian nationalism and allowed fundamentalist clerics to consolidate their hold on Iran just when the Islamic revolution had begun to wobble.

"If America uses military means against Iran, even if it attacks only one point, the result here will be a rise of militarism in Iran -- and the suppression of any democratic trend," said Mohsen Mirdamadi, a ringleader of the embassy seizure 25 years ago who later became a pro-democracy member of parliament. "This is a problem for reformers," he said.

Iranian officials contend that Bush's reelection, strongly backed by conservative Christian groups, also redefined the standoff.

"The problem America has with Iran is not political, not economic. It's religion, now that the new conservatives . . . are behind Bush," said Mohammed Hashemi, a U.S.-educated member of Iran's Expediency Council, a body that weighs in during deadlocks between parliament and a top clerical panel. "U.S. policy toward Iran is based on a religious war."

Full Article Here

JustWonders
Forty percent of the troops in Iraq are national guard and reserve troops. And they are being held in service beyond their enlistment date. In addition the same troops are being rotated in and out of Iraq. Does that sound to you as if we have plenty more around to call up? Where are they hiding in the pentagons pocket? Our military is stretched tighter than a drum.

I also read that enlistment's and probably reenlistments, if they rescind the stop loss directive, will be hard to come by. Particularly in the guard and reserves.

Regarding the Guard and reserves I was struck by the ages of some of the people serving in Iraq. It would seem that many are over the, I will call it fighting age.

In WW2 they drafted if memory serves to 44 however, realizing that they were too old to fight those over 37 were released. Not so in the Bush army, there are 40 and 50 year olds. Why because the need every body they can muster. .

Au - how many reversists do you think we have in total? I mean both those deployed and those not yet mobilized together?

Apparently not enough or they wouldn't be rotating the same troops in and out of Iraq. I will say again the American military is stretched like a drum.

The next step will be a draft.

I did some quick checking. As of 2003 there were more than 1.2 million reservists. As of January 5, 2005 there are approximately 188,000 mobilized, but this includes ALL branches (not just the Army National Guard).

You can discount any other than the Army and marines. There are no sea battles to be fought on the sands of Iraq or Iran.
Did you perhaps get a picture of the ages of these reservists and how many are not in the active reserves but subject to the eight year recall.

Wars are not fought by old men and women.

Hey...it might not be too bad.

I understand the intelligence community has determined that if we invade Iran...the people there will greet us as liberators...not invaders.

"The will strew flowers before the feet of our fighting forces," an unnamed source says.

New McDonalds and KFC customers.

A bit of hyperbole, Just Wonders, I agree. I did not mean that the entire Army National Guard has been sent to Iraq. It is still true, as Au1929 says, that our defenses are stretched waaay tight. I also wonder why we still use that euphemism 'Defense Department.' Wouldn't it make more sense to go back to the old designation of 'War Department'?

Ahhh...well, you had me goin' there for a minute, LOL. (About the entire ARNG being in Iraq)

MerryA... haven't you read your Orwell and your Huxley?

GroupThink and NewSpeak!

Evidently this was discussed on Hardball. Caught some discussion of it tonight on Scarborough (hosted by Robertson, again) Mark Bartlett, said his committee had turned their paper over to the president advising to stop Iran from having a nuke program, and yes, by force if needed. The discussion also included having the people rise up and overthrow...

Unbelievable. (almost)

Not up to date on the current Iranian government. Anyone have any political insights regarding Iran?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=420027

I have a theory

So don't I JW

It is hard to know how seriously to take this. It is the nature of governments to plan and I am certain that somewhere in a file in the Pentagon there is a plan the invade Baffin Island. As a set up for hard ball negotiations this might not be a bad move. Then again it might backfire and make the situation worse. This administration has a habit of throwing it's' weight around and the problems it is having in Iraq may make an invasion threat less credible than it thinks it is.

What would that be, JW?

Yes, what I heard today was that the failures of our two current ongoing wars have actually boosted Iran's confidence and they don't consider us a threat. So, as far as blustering, I don't see that as much of a working plan.

This sentence from the ABC report is what caught my eye. Of course, I think we're at that point where any administration - Republican or Democrat - would be foolish to not have intelligence gathering all they can about Iran's nuke program. I remember that Drudge report of a few weeks ago with info about Iran's progress on a delivery system.

So what better way to get the message to Iran than to leak it to Hersh and wait?

I didn't see an issue with Abu, I think they gave the Sgt. a to harsh a punishment.

Here's the official response from DoD........not exactly dissing Hersh's main point (just a few general swipes).

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050117-1987.html

Gen Wayne Downing on Hardball said he is amazed thtat the things Hersh has been able to dig up over the years, implying that his report is credible.

Your theory sounds sound to me, JW.