Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

|<<>>|392 of 714 Show listMobile Mode

War with Iran Looms

Published by marco on

It is not difficult to find patterns in small data-sets. In fact, one can see patterns in any amount of data—the trick is to find patterns that are useful in predicting the future. For example, the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, conquered it, installed a government, then proceeded to lose any semblance of control over the next four years. 16 months later, the United States invaded Iraq and repeated the pattern. The State department has not yet given up on Iraq in the same way that it has given up on Afghanistan, but that it because it is 16 months behind in the cycle. With most people in agreement that Iraq is an unsavable disaster, the Bush administration demands six more months to let the surge work its magic. Ten months after that and we can expect to see American duties dwindle to the significance of those in Afghanistan.[1]

Will this pattern continue with the upcoming invasion of Iran? In some ways, yes. As Iraq was falsely accused of having perpetrated 9-11, Iran is now being accused of “backing, financing, arming and supporting terrorism in Iraq”. As with Iraq, no evidence is offered because there is none; the accusation is not to be questioned on the grounds that is seditious to do so. It is even more seditious to consider it highly ironic that an invading force from an ocean away accuses a country neighboring the invaded land of “meddling”. Though the war drums for Iran are beating with almost the exact same rhythm that mesmerized us back in 2002 when they beat for Iraq, the war they promise will be quite different.

That Iran will be attacked is almost a certainty.

“The regime-changers, after all, are still in charge: Bush is a lame-duck, but he’s still the big duck, and Blair is leaving, but isn’t yet gone. Together, these two can do a lot more damage before they’re safely out of office – and, given half a chance, they will.”

Iran May be the Greatest Crisis of Modern Times by John Pilger (Antiwar) lays out the gory details. Pilger is an old hand at reporting in Muslim countries, having spent most of his career in the Middle East and Indonesia. When he says Britain is going in with the United States, it is best to listen carefully. That follows the pattern as well: those that know a lot about our empire and its wars know there will be an invasion months before it happens; media companies scream our surprise for us on the morning after it happens.

Though Iran stymied the West’s attempt to build a Gulf of Tonkin moment around the recently released 15 captives—A Provocation Backfires by Justin Raimondo (Antiwar) has more details on the likelihood of British culpability—plans for war move forward nonetheless. Where the pattern breaks down is in execution of the coming war. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US military might[2] thundered through deserts in immensely long supply chains of tanks and jeeps until they captured the capital of the country in question. Air support was a major factor, but ground troops carried the day—mostly because their was no material resistance. This is very satisfactory and tv-friendly war-making, pleasing to both news networks and an American public trained by decades of cinema to believe that American victories and happy endings are inevitable.

Though the sales pitch for the war in Iran is identical to that for Iraq, the war will be significantly different. Iran is three times larger, with a much larger military and much more difficult territory. The United States, despite its vaunted military, would be slaughtered in a ground war. That’s why there are, instead, “[f]orty-five cruise missiles are primed to strike.” That’s why “[c]ombat nuclear weapons may be used.” That’s why the millions of pounds of bombs dropped in Cambodia or over Kosovo—in what were the most punishing air raid campaigns to date—will be nothing compared the concerted onslaught carried out against the worst of the nations in the Axis of Evil.[3] No one expects the assault on Iran to result in a US-controlled government over it; it will be pure punishment for not toeing the line and kneeling before the master. And it will be America’s undoing.


[1] The end-state will not likely be the same because of the different natural resources involved. In Afghanistan, the main draw was a trans-Afghanistan pipeline (Wikipedia) that shows no signs of getting off the ground. Thus the reduced interest. In Iraq, on the other hand, the US has just completed negotiations that transfer nearly all rights to Iraqi oil resources to western oil companies. That means that there will be more to defend over the long term … and thus, the 14 brand-new military bases there as well as the world’s biggest embassy in the Green Zone. In effect, the land will be returned to the people to squabble over—much as is happening in Afghanistan—but the lock on resources will take more effort and thus, more permanent troop presence.
[2] Primarily US. The contribution of the Marshall Islands, as members of the Coalition of the Willing (best name ever), cannot be underestimated. And don’t forget Poland. You always forget Poland.
[3]

Some might still be convinced that Iran has earned a righteous ass-kicking. Call that humiliation? by Terry Jones (The Guardian) agrees, noting that the recent hostage situation showed the world who the real barbarians are:

“…allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world − have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head?”

Absolutely, abominably evil. It’s got to go.

Comments

#1 − Flunking Diplomacy

marco

It truly takes a master idiot to get Russia mad at us again. See Bush Flunks Diplomacy 101 by Fred Kaplan (Slate) for a rundown of the history behind Bush’s missiles in Europe.

“What the Russians really fear about this plan is the vast American presence that goes with it. The anti-missile interceptors—the same models as the ones now in Alaska—are gigantic, as big as the old intercontinental ballistic missiles and, like them, buried in substantial blast-hardened silos. To deploy 10 of them, along with a huge X-band radar system, will require an enormous military base, heavily staffed, apportioned with the usual complement of U.S. Air Force infrastructure and American amenities. … In short, the United States would be gaining a substantial foothold deep inside Eastern Europe, closer than ever to the Russian border.”

But, wait! Don’t they realize that we’re the good guys? That we beat them 15 years ago—fair and square—and that we’re all on the same team now?