The USA has declared war on Iran and Syria

ESCALATION?

There's been plenty of speculation lately that the White House is gearing up for some sort of military confrontation with Iran. First there was his speech two nights ago, in which Bush talked about "addressing Iran and Syria" with a rather menacing undertone. Then the U.S. military raided an Iranian liaison office in the Kurdish city of Irbil and took a couple of Iranians captive--a move roundly denounced by the Kurdish regional government. Steve Clemons then passed along this bit of scuttlebutt:

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

Rumors are what they are, but it's a bit alarming for this sort of "speculation" to crop up all of the sudden. Flynt Leverett, a former member of the Bush administration's National Security Council, added his two cents:

The deployment of a second carrier strike group to the theater--confirmed in the speech--is clearly directed against Iran. Since, in contrast to previous U.S. air campaigns in the Gulf, military planners developing contingencies for striking target sets in Iran must assume that the United States would not be able to use land-based air assets in theater (because of political opposition in the region), they are surely positing a force posture of at least two, and possible three carrier strike groups to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft. Similarly, the President's announcement that additional Patriot batteries would go to the Gulf is clearly directed against Iran. We have previously deployed Patriot batteries to the region to deal with the Iraqi SCUD threat. Today, the only missile threat in the region for the Patriot to address is posed, at least theoretically, by Iran's Shihab-3.

Then yesterday, Joe Biden warned Condoleezza Rice that an attack on Iran would "generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate." Presumably Biden didn't just pull this comment out of thin air--he seems to be under the impression that the administration really might be crazy enough to launch an attack on Iran. When reporters pressed this point earlier today, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, basically dodged: "We can take care of the security for our troops by doing the business we need to do inside Iraq." That's not exactly a rousing denial.

The other day Jason suggestedthat advocates of withdrawal (or "redeploying") might be underestimating the consequences of leaving Iraq. I don't think that's really true, although I'm sure you can find such people if you dig around long enough. But it does seem true that pundits who "aren't sure" what to do about Iraq and so are implicitly endorsing the status quo are very badly underestimating the ability of this administration to make things much, much worse in the near future with this "surge" business. Right now all signs are pointing in exactly that direction.

--Bradford Plumer

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.

Dont you find the plot premise of "1984" and the present status uncomfortably similar?

Quote:

ESCALATION?

I highly recommend Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly", especially the section on Vietnam, for those advocating an attack on Iran and Syria.

Even better, I suggest they pick up an Atlas and examine closely the map of Iran. It is three times bigger than Iraq; 2/3 mountains rising up to over 16,000 feet, and 1/4 arid and inhospitable desert (remember what happened to Carter's Save-the-Hotages team?), the country is not exactly built for massive armed movements on land or, indeed, the type of "precision-bombing" the US managed to do in Iraq. Instead, think of Israel's war in Lebanon, with mountains a hundred times vaster and ten times taller. Plus a 70-million strong population, of whom over 20 million are military age men and boys. This is in terms of the country's sheer ability to defend itself. Not to mention Iran's capacity to make mischief throughout the region (ask yourself how much US companies have sunk in Dubai, only 100 kilometers from Iranian shores, and you will have an answer to the potential trouble Iran could cause if its vital interests are attacked by the US) and all over the globe.

NOT to mention that as we speak, the idea of an attack by the US (or Israel) for purported nuclear transgressions has already been mooted openly and dismissed by ALL of the allies and remaining friends of the United States, and strongly opposed by the Russians and the Chinese. The US is big, now, sure; the question is whether by willy-nilly attacking Iran, it would force otherwise rival powers around the globe to coalesce against it. And so to save a failing misadventure in Iraq and a miserable presidency, the US would imperil its long-term security interests from Shanghai to Murmansk.

Heaven help us because pretty soon nobody else will be willing to.