Varifrank: Nobody knows Nuthin…

Nobody knows Nuthin…

The specter of Iran engaging in the creation of atomic power has had my attention for some time. To me, Iran has always been the real target of the war on terror. Forget about Afghanistan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, Iran is the ‘home of the whopper’ when it comes to bile spitting anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-western governments and organizations. Iran is where it all started, for us anyway; you could make an argument that it all started with the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920’s but for the US, it all started in Iran.

Back in the later 1970’s, Iran’s government collapsed when the President, Jimmy Carter first dropped his support over the Shahs due to his “violation of human rights”, totally ignoring what the replacement organization would end up doing. Then after the government of the Shah fell, Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to come to the United States for cancer treatment. That all sounds fine, except that the people who took over Iran, the Proto-Taliban wanted the Shah given to them. President Jimmy said no, and the next thing you know they took over our Embassy, along with 444 of our citizens.

Our President then decided to talk, and talk and talk and talk. Every day, our country was humiliated. All over the world, our embassies became targets. It was a crappy time to be an American, just a few years before Vietnam had fallen, we had gone through a humiliating embargo at the hands of the Saudis because we supported Israel in 1972, and to wind up the 1970s, we sat on our hands while our territory was invaded in Iran.

Once the thugs that formed the governing power of Iran learned to enjoy humiliating a superpower, they never looked back. Overthrowing the Shah was just an appetizer, why not go all the way and overthrow the great Satan – the United States of America

So, for me, it’s always been about Iran. On September 12,2001 I was thinking, “ How do we get to Iran?” I wasn’t thinking Afghanistan, Iraq or anyone else, for me it was all about what was the most direct route to Tehran. It seemed to me that we could take over every other Islamic country in the world but if we didn’t touch Iran, we would not have done a thing to bring an end to Islamic fascism. It would be like trying to end Nazism without invading Germany.

Frankly I was shocked at our success in Afghanistan. If you had asked me in 2001 that we could even hope to have any success in Afghanistan, I would have thought it crazy. Afghanistan ate every army that ever went there; British, Greek, Russian, it didn’t matter they were all turned to wallpaper paste. So for me, our success in Afghanistan was a sign that things were not what they appeared. I had connections to Afghanistan; one of my coworkers was from Afghanistan. She was no fan of the soviets, but when you talked about the Taliban, her eyes would bug out of her head. “You have no idea what they are like” She used to tell me. She could never tell me anything about them without covering her mouth and running away to catch her breath from crying. She was right, I really didn’t have any idea, but I knew from her reaction, these guys were not clowns, they were serious, deadly serious.

So Afghanistan went much fast than I had anticipated. I expected that we would lose 5 to 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, and it never crossed my mind that we would establish voting rights, a government and a constitution in that country.

After Afghanistan, I wasn’t sure where we would go next. Of course, I kept saying, “ok, now lets go to Tehran”. The President didn’t see it that way. He saw the “low hanging fruit” of Iraq, a country that we had a lot of troops tied up enforcing the conditions of the cease-fire. Iraq seemed tough, Saddam knew we were coming, he wasn’t sure when, but he knew we were coming. I expected our invasion would cost us 5,000 troops and the occupation would take over 300,000, and it would include mass evacuation and lots and lots of refugees would flee the country.

It didn’t happen. We invaded a country roughly the size and population and terrain of California with 150,000 troops, the invasion lasted 7 days, and we lost 100 troops and there were no refugees or mass casualties. To this day, I don’t have a good reason for this except to say once again, the people who run the military know their business and I don’t know anything.

Now we find ourselves with two countries that share Iran’s border, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our navy patrols the Straits of Hormuz, checks all the shipping in and out of Iran on the ocean and by all the land routes as well. Iran is completely surrounded by US troops and Navy. I don’t know for sure, but we have to be doing over flight reconnaissance.

It’s in this environment that Iran decides that now is the best time to “go nuclear”. Why? Why bring all that heat down on you from the UN. Why take the risk of embargo from Germany, France, and the UK, not to mention the US.

And this is where the speculation kicks in.

What if…

We only know what we’ve been told as to the deployment of troops to Iraq. We only know what the Navy tells us about its deployment. We really don’t know how many troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan. They have no reason to lie, or do they?

What if the situation in Iraq is not what it seems? What if our deployment of troops in Iraq is very light on the day to day occupation duties, and it turns out that a large number of troops are ready for action elsewhere? What if they’ve already been withdrawn from Iraq and kept elsewhere for a mission that hasn’t started yet. What if the reason Rumsfeld has always been so reticent to increase the number of troops in Iraq is that he knows they are needed elsewhere, like Iran for example.

What if one of the factors in the sudden loss of jet fuel on the market is the US Military is putting as much as it can into strategic reserves.

I think the Iranian government knows its racing against time. The only way the leaders of Iran can put off their date with a hangman is to develop an atomic bomb right away. I also think we cant allow that to happen. So what do we do?

Well….

Everyone is of the opinion that we can’t invade –because we are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Everyone is of the opinion that after the failure to find WMD’s, we wouldn’t dare invade anywhere else again.

Everyone is of the opinion that Iran has too difficult terrain to invade.

So, what if everyone is wrong?

What if we aren’t really tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan? What if, now that Iran has violated its own word on nuclear development, the EU goes to the security council and a vote is given to ‘take action”. If the terrain of Afghanistan could be overcome so quickly, why couldn’t the terrain of Iran? What if the reason why fuel supplies are so low isn’t just because of China, but because of preparations for a big invasion?

What if the whole reason for invading Iraq was for preparation for Iran?

Remember, once upon a time, everyone “knew” that we would invade Europe at the Calais, and everyone - myself included - knew we couldn’t win in Afghanistan.

Remember, All military action is based on deception, and surprise is usually what carries the day.

I think we should be prepared to be surprised.

Posted @ August 11, 2005 01:27 AM | Current Affairs

I beleive the main reason we had to invade Iraq first, is that it was an unsettled situation that hed to be finished. The sanctions and 'no fly' zones were just not sustainable for much longer.

I doubt we'll see much overt military action against Iran. The populace is relatively IS friendly and ripe for rebellion, but probably wouldn't take invasion too well. I'd bet that we'll see a ramping up of efforts to incite a counter-revolution there. Iran already has all the machinery of democracy in place. All they really need is to eliminate the governing council and have real elections to parliment in order to have a free country.

I suspect we'll see Iran go from calm to overthrow in just the course of a few days, and that it will surprise everyone.

Posted by: Whelk at August 11, 2005 08:53 AM

Frank,

I think the reason we had to do Iraq first is much more practical. If you're a commander and you have just taken Afghanistan, how would you go about invaing Iran next?

Well, you'd be screwed. Afghanistan is a terrible staging area for Iran - the mountains between the two are going to be a bitch for ground transport. Afghanistan has no ports and you can't use ports elsewhere in the middle east, because there's no ground path from there to Iran (Pakistan is hardly any help, mountains there too, not much in the way of ports and a hostile citizenry). Logistically, you are simply hosed.

On the other hand, if you take Iraq first, Iran is screwed. They now have Americans on both sides. Iraq has good ports and you can move your armor in and stage it in the dessert, ready to roll right into Iran. Any buildup you want to do can be pretty covert, because you're moving tens of thousands of personnel in and out of Iraq every month anyway. There is plenty of space and time to build good airfields and you might even get a little intelligence help from the new Iraqi government (or, even more likely, from the Kurds).

I don't know if we're going to invade Iran or not, but the War on Terror has been prosecuted perfectly so far to make that invasion work. My speculation is that they wanted to leave the Iran option open - either to scare them or because they really were considering doing it.

Posted by: Rob at August 11, 2005 09:42 AM

Have you seen this?

http://allthingsconservative.typepad.com/all_things_conservative/2005/08/us_britian_warn.html

It's sort of starting to feel like fall 2002.

Posted by: AcademicElephant at August 11, 2005 12:05 PM

My wife sent this link to me saying you were a kindred spirit. Indeed. You may find a couple of posts of mine of interest. The first is Preemptive war against Iran and the second is A walk down memory lane.

And, may I just toss in that the "intelligence estimate" on Iran that says they're 10 years away from a bomb is pure bunk.

Posted by: Paul Hager at August 11, 2005 03:57 PM

Minor commentary - the functional phase of the ground war (the initial round of 'major combat operations') in Iraq was closer to 3 weeks than 1 day.

As far as an Iran invasion goes, is that the DC intelligensia would go nuts in the event of proper invasion of Iran. One thing, however, to keep in mind is that strain on the army and marines, notwithstanding, is our long-range strike assets (USN and USAF) aren't particularly extended. With Iran, we could pull as Kosovo-esque large-scale interdiction.

The big question arises from whether or not Iran is a major source of terrorist agitation. If so, then taking out Iran would (hypothetically) reduce insurgency in Iraq, and actually allow for an aggregate reduction in boots on the ground for counterinsurgency operations. On the other hand, if we're wrong, we're really, really wrong.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 11, 2005 04:25 PM

A) "It'll be interesting to see how this pans out."

I agree. Thats the essence of what I was trying to say. Iran stands right in the middle of the stage and yet everyone wants to look to the wings.

B) "And, may I just toss in that the "intelligence estimate" on Iran that says they're 10 years away from a bomb is pure bunk".

Im with you on that. I think its within the next 12 months at the outside, probably much sooner. Frankly as soon as the gaseuous separation plant is open, they are as close as I would like to see anyone get as they dont have to actually make a bomb to be dangerous.

Good comments all - thanks everyone.

Posted by: varifrank at August 11, 2005 08:34 PM