The bad news is that he probably wouldn't be saying that unless he was pretty clear that the Administration was planning to escalate further.

Agreed. I can't tell you how much I hate to be arriving at this point, but we're getting perilously close to "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler" territory with this administration. Bush and Cheney seem dead set on sparking World War III.

Ed Markey is awesome.

Biden's posturing. I just can't believe we'd go to war with Iran--the public is more or less convinced (finally) that Bush is incompetent. And even if we do, it won't be WWIII--there aren't big powers to oppose us. We'll just get gnatted to death (really, diminished power).

I just can't believe we'd go to war with Iran--the public is more or less convinced (finally) that Bush is incompetent.

My worry is that the two parts of that sentence are completely unconnected. What does the public's opinion of Bush have to do with stopping him from invading Iran?

I'm starting to visualize a scenario which comes down to Pentagon leadership getting two sets of contradictory orders -- one from Bush, and one from Congress -- and having to decide who to listen to. If the conflict is clear enough, I think we'd win that one, but it's scary.

"identifying a 'Plan B' was incompatible with really committing to making this plan work"

Loony as it is, this is pretty standard coming from this administration. Remember how they didn't want to make contingency plans for if anything went wrong with the initial invasion of Iraq, because admitting there was a possibility of trouble would disturb their mojo? It's a good way of guaranteeing failure.

(But I haven't watched the hearing and am going on your summary. Which I will likely continue to do for the long term.)

My worry is that the two parts of that sentence are completely unconnected.

My worry is that they're connected, but in precisely the opposite relation as Tim intended. "Oh, nobody likes me, you say? You think you're smarter than me? FUCK ALL Y'ALL. I AM THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD. I WILL DO WHAT I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME."

Biden? Posturing? Say it ain't so!

Rice's statement and similiar statements by Bush have been identified as having come from high-concept action movies.

Bush has pretty firmly stated his conviction that he can ignore both public opinion and Congress. He's also let slip strong hints that he's making his decisions on Biblical grounds. I really think that Tim is overoptimistic.

It won't be WWIII exactly, but it could easily spread to several more countries, last for ten years, and disrupt oil shipments some of the time. This would probably mean that we'd have to stay involved -- going into Iraq was optional, but at some point we may have know choice. I believe that it was Alterman who said that chaos is the goal for the neocons -- they want to wreck things so bad that they can't be fixed, thus keeping the US at war indefinitely.

If Seymour Hersh hasn't been smoking teh crack, then there's a sizable group of people within the various services who would embrace ANY way of not having to attack Iran.

"High-concept Andy Kaufman President". Bush has welded two seemingly-incompatible movie cliches together, the stupid marketting gimmick and the crazed performance artist.

Well, this would be a nice time for a major leak if those people don't want to attack Iraq. Even today, after the provocation at the consulate, the only thing that's kept us out of war is the prudence of the Iranians. Provocations like that require just a few loyal soldiers. I think Emerson is right, the goal is chaos, and it's very achievable, thank you very much.

8: He does posture awfully well, though. If he just had a good puppet-master behind the scenes, he'd be an excellent Senator.

Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but the very end of this post seems to be the most important part, for me. "[Rice] said that identifying a 'Plan B' was incompatible with really committing to making this plan work" is entirely too charitable a way to characterize what she said. What she said was:

It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work.

Of all the wrong things I've heard politicians say, this very well may be the wrongest. I hope she is lying but a part of me fears that she was not, just this once.

The connectors are future elections for current Republican elected officials. Whatever the legal merits of arguments about Executive power, Bush will respond to abandonment by his Southern base. And, at least in the Near South (or whatever the term is), that (as I understand it) is starting to happen. (I think a lot of this is posturing by Bush, in an attempt to scare Iran into some visible concessions that the Administration can put on parade as the fruits of being "tough.")

Yeah, it was pretty frighteningly insane -- I just didn't have a transcript for the accurate quote. A followup question that I wish had been asked was "Please tell me you mean that the Administration has some idea what it plans to do if this plan fails, and you mean that you think it needs to be kept secret. Because if you really mean that you haven't speculated about what you're going to do if this plan fails, I'm calling a mental hospital and having you committed."

The connectors are future elections for current Republican elected officials. Whatever the legal merits of arguments about Executive power, Bush will respond to abandonment by his Southern base.

What makes you think that? He never has to run for office again. Whose welfare do you think he's concerned with?

Bush will respond to abandonment by his Southern base

Why do you think this?

future elections for current Republican elected officials

Honestly, as the GOP starts to abandon him, I expect him just to get more petulant and stubborn. That's been a lifelong pattern with him. You disagree with him, he fires you. He's not running for anything again and Cheney isn't running for anything again, so he may feel even more emboldened to go his own way, GOP be damned.

What makes you think that? He never has to run for office again. Whose welfare do you think he's concerned with?

I don't really think Bush decides anything at all; instead, he's the sum of his supporters. He can't run again, but Karl--his biggest supporter--can and will. The South--and his lock on it--is going to be his cash cow and his guarantor that he'll have a significant voice in Republican politics. He cannot be the guy who put the South (or the near part of it) back in play. As someone Henley quoted today wrote, mostly the Administration's foreign policy seems designed to address domestic concerns.

If some imaginary administration had said that plan B will not be discussed, I'd completely believe that there is a plan B and that revealing it will change the payoff matrix in a bad way, but given this administration's failure to come up with a plan A even while attempting to carry it out I'm finding it hard to believe that there's a fallback anything.

On the other hand, there are strategic benefits to being batshit insane, so if the Iranians believe, as I'm starting to, that rationality doesn't help predict US actions, anything could happen.

It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work.

Most optimistic possible interpretation, but at least a genuinely possible one: "It's bad policy to speculate publicly on what you'll do if a plan fails."

I don't remember where I just saw this (in the context of puppet governments), but there's a difference between a puppet and a wind-up toy -- a puppet you control in detail, while a wind-up toy you set in motion, and then it does what it's going to do. I suspect Bush of being a wind-up toy in this regard -- I don't think he's controlled by GOP cynics.

22: That does make it sound better. Especially since that suggests that Rice knows the plan is probably going to fail, and knows everybody else knows it, so she's not going to let them know the next move in advance.

Then again: Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back: "Because it has to."

I suspect Bush of being a wind-up toy in this regard -- I don't think he's controlled by GOP cynics.

I think he's controlled by different cynics than you're used to, and that makes him seem like a wind up toy. (Excellent metaphor, though.)

"And even if we do, it won't be WWIII--there aren't big powers to oppose us. We'll just get gnatted to death (really, diminished power)."

There's a scene in Godfather II (and, geez, I haven't watched that in awhile -- maybe time for a refresher!) where Michael Corleone observes essentially a suicide bombing and on that basis decides to pull thhe family's business out of Cuba. He reasons that when people are *that* committed to a cause, even the gnats can take down the powers-that-be.

I think we all make a giant mistake in assuming that the U.S. is such an overwhelming superpower that we can essentially act with impunity. Such hubris may well prove our downfall.

Here's why I don't share your guarded optimism, Tim: I firmly believe that Iran has been the target all along. Invading Iraq was just the way to get the troops into place. Now, they thought that Iraq was going to be far, far easier than it turned out to be, that they could just install Chalabi as the new, pro-American Shi'ite strongman and that the Iraqis would be happy enough to see Saddam gone that things would run relatively smoothly. I suspect they thought they'd be in Iran already.

But this isn't some new adventure. It's the next stage of the original one.

Not mine, I just saw it someplace.

Anyway, I have to run to the airport -- my niece is getting married in Rochester, and I have a ring-bearer and a flower girl to deliver.

28: Pals before gals, LB. Stay with us.

Bush just doesn't seem to be thinking in electoral terms any more. He has a grand visionof some sort. In general it may have been true that he was a puppet in his own administration, but he gradually has figured out that he is The Man ("The Decider"). It's gone to his head.

The dominance of politics over policy has been an enormous problem with this administration, but I think they've gone into a new phase -- grand imperial plans followed by desperate flailing about.

Democratic Party pros of the Carville / DLC type also confuse electoral politics and government, trying to decide major policy stands based on voting trends. They're pretty transparent about it, which makes the Democrats seem weak and opportunistic. And dishonest too, because even after the voters stopped being hawkish DLC people (Marshall) continued to say "The Democrats cannot afford to be seen as weak on defense " blah blah blah. It's a really messy double or triple wammy, trying to win a policy debate on electoral grounds that turn out not to be valid.

Here, let me add to people's concerns. We are absolutely preparing to attack Iran.

This certainly lends weight to the "attempt to provoke retaliation" interpretation of why we kicked down the doors of the Iranian consulate.

Jim Webb's question ("And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony, but my question is: Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?") is the big one here. What are the odds that Rice gives a meaningful written response?

At least we can stop hearing about RICE FOR VEEP 2008. Jesus.

27: Exactly. And about the only way stop the next escalation is for a few generals to resign in protest.

Are you people really saying that (a) the President et al want to be at war with Iran and (b) war with Iran has a probability of, say, higher than .3?

"pals" s/b "bros"

"gals" s/b "hos"

Get with the times SCMT.

As for the current situation, I'm wondering how long it will take before a majority of Americans join the rest of the world in seeing the US government as a greater threat to world stability than Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong-Il.

ogged, are your people safely placed geographically? How black can the humor here be if it ends up that I'm wrong?

"This certainly lends weight to the "attempt to provoke retaliation" interpretation of why we kicked down the doors of the Iranian consulate."

I addition to the consulate, I heard yesterday that skirmishes have already crossed the border into Iran, and it seems naive to think that they haven't. If Iran doesn't retaliate, then we can pass this off as "hot pursuit," can claim that we had no intention of violating Irans' sovereignty. If Iran does respond, and Iranian soldiers engage with U.S. troops, a large segment of the public will be supportive of any "counterattack." Escalation . . . full-fledged war.

FL, as I said above, we can't predict anything. But a lot of signs have been sent indicating that we plan action against Iran and/or Syria. Not subtle signs, lines in Bush's speech. There's the odd chance that this is a bluff or a diversion, and maybe the threats are aimed at getting some specific concession from someone.

A .3 chance of war with Iran strikes me as pretty alarming in itself, and I'd say it's higher than that. But this is uncertainty, not risk.

I really think that Bush has broen loose from whatever moorings he ever had and has gone non-metaphorically nuts with his executive / Commander in Chief / Decider function.

He **has** perceived that things aren't going well, but his solution will be to up the ante. His sense of godly mission keeps him strong, but I would classify it as a form of insanity.

I don't think we're all gonna die, but I concede things could very well get a lot worse.

Is the country's experience of this government going to change the understanding of Presidential Power or what?
Remember the old Richard Neustadt book by that title? Must have been a mainstay of AP/Honors/College Undergrad for years. Under all the case studies and contrasts in style, there was presumed to be a rationality, a basic willingness to engage, personally and politically, within the framework of laws and values.

Sometimes, when I was growing up, I would encounter in writing or public utterance a kind of prayer of Thanksgiving, that within limits all the presidents had been patriotic and decent, and that we were extraordinarily lucky. I remember thinking then, as a teenager, "So how long does our luck hold?—it's going to break sometime, right? What then?" I can even remember some speculative TV show, might have been a Twilight Zone, where a guy is granted his wish to be president, then breaks down because he's over his head, and can't make the decisions. But then, it was all a dream, folks.

Watergate seemed to answered my question by showing that a rogue president can be contained, and forced from office; it wouldn't be pretty, there'd be some risks, but it would happen. Iran-Contra looked like another example: beyond a certain point, these things won't be allowed to happen.

And I must admit, on some level I expected the same to happen here. I think that's the narrative underlying expectations for Baker-Hamilton, and much else. It's been difficult to put aside the belief that powers-behind-the-powers wouldn't have acted by now.

Just for myself, I am not enjoying the feeling of being in the passenger seat in a full-on game of chicken.

34: That "real men go to Tehran" idea isn't at all new. My guess is we'll pound them from the air, which is what we can do quite well with few casualties, and claim to have nailed a bunch of terrorist supply lines and training camps. If we don't have the ground troops to sustain the little "surge" in Baghdad, we certainly don't have them for an actual invasion of Iran.

So, basically, we're just hoping that Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmedinejad prove to be wiser than our leaders, right?

Well, it's a good bet that they are, so if that's sufficient, we're golden.

Interesting: we didn't detain people from a consulate or diplomatic misssion after all-- it was a "liason office" in the process of becoming a consulate. Or something.

ogged, are your people safely placed geographically?

My people are mostly in Khorramabad and Tehran. Who knows what that means if something happens.

44: Probably the closest thing to a consular authority around. And it seems we didn't bother to let the Kurds know. Are they still our allies, or has Oceania always been at war with Eurasia?

34(a): Absolutely.

34(b): Better than .5, at this point.

Here's my worry: if Bush attacks Iran without Congressional approval or a genuine Iranian attack (no prisoners-in-Polish-uniforms) ...

... then what if Congress *doesn't* impeach him?

What is left of the Constitution if that happens?

So, basically, we're just hoping that Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmedinejad prove to be wiser than our leaders, right?

Damn, Jackmormon, are you *trying* to make me cry?

Impeachment doesn't mean much, though. It takes 67 senators to remove a president from office, and we're nowhere close to that.

My guess is we'll pound them from the air, which is what we can do quite well with few casualties

Really, though? My understanding was that Iran has far more sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilities than, well, any country the US has fought with in a long time. Iraq couldn't get a single plane off the ground but the US had been degrading their air defense capabilities for a decade. Iran has subs in the Persian Gulf. I worry for the carrier groups floating around there.

re: 51

The US hasn't really fought a power like Iran for decades. I suspect US air power can still do a huge amount of damage, though.

51: Cruise missiles off subs? We've had some years to rebuild the stocks of those. In any event, the US Air Force is/was designed/built/trained to take on the best the Russians could put up in a full-scale war.

The kicker is that everyone else knows that too and has hidden all their good stuff. And of course, there are always surprises.

The kicker is that everyone else knows that too and has hidden all their good stuff.

Oooh, you make it sound so exciting! What crazy plot twists will happen next? Maybe the Saudis will attack Iran and we will just "support" them!

And Jack Bauer will swoop in and detonate the C-4 just before the Iranian bad guy has to push the button. Doot. Dit. Doot. Dit.

Honestly, my government should not take its foreign policy cues from TV, comic books, and Tom Clancy novels.

So we're on the brink of war, and there's not a hint of it in the news. Is it really possible that we're about to go to war, and just a few bloggers are saying anything about it?

It takes 67 senators to remove a president from office, and we're nowhere close to that.

Depends on whether Cheney turns against him or not. Is he still doing the will of Cheney?

Depends on whether Cheney turns against him or not.

??? Of course he is. This is all entirely consistent with what we know of Cheney's plans.

Is it really possible that we're about to go to war, and just a few bloggers are saying anything about it?

I'm certainly hoping not. I would much MUCH rather turn out to be delusionally paranoid.

Is it really possible that we're about to go to war, and just a few bloggers are saying anything about it?

Well, it isn't just a few bloggers. Seymour Hersh has been saying it for a couple of years now, and even former Bush administration members like Flynt Leverett are saying it now.

The speculation on this thread seems to be that a war with Iran would resussitate the Iraq war in the eyes of the American electorate. So what I want to know from our elder commenters is, did invading Cambodia have that effect on public perception of the Vietnam war? Was it intended to?

54: If it weren't exciting people wouldn't do it. Besides, optimists don't have a good grasp of reality anyway. If your *god* is calling the signals, what's to worry about? It's not as if the Iranians are any saner than our people.

(Maybe "invading Cambodia" is not an accurate description of the expansion of the Vietnam war into Laos and Cambodia.)

"Is it really possible that we're about to go to war, and just a few bloggers are saying anything about it?"

From the Washington Note:

"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.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country."

Contrast with the President's own words:

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

B-but Syria isn't even a member of the Axis of Evil! WTF?

It's not as if the Iranians are any saner than our people.

Yeah, they are.

I'm sure we're already fucking around in Iran and Syria. I'm also sure there is no plan B--I know I've said this before, but remember Rumsfeld refusing to talk about "what if" scenarios before we invaded Iraq? Same damn thing.

Am just keeping my fingers crossed for Congress.

keeping my fingers crossed for Congress.

Me too, but I'm pessimistic.

66 is right.

"Is it really possible that we're about to go to war, and just a few bloggers are saying anything about it?"

Biden seemed genuinely worried about it. I've also heard similar speculation on NPR's On Point.

The .3 chance of war with Iran is not the only bad thing that is happening though. I am just as concerned about the .9 chance of a direct confrontation with the Mahdi army in Sadr city and the chance of 1 that 20,000 more troops are heading for Iraq.

same damn thing

67, meet 5.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as most of you sound--I don't think the Dems are as dedicated to being lameasses as you guys do. Or at least I have a lot of faith in Pelosi's ability to put some steel in their spines.

Not that Bush will actually *care* what Congress does or doesn't do.

It's not as if the Iranians are any saner than our people.

Don't judge all Iranians by Ogged. Many of them are quite sane.

61: As I remember it, public opinion in the US went the other way. Lots of demonstrations, the Kent State shootings, etc. Now that you mention it and in retrospect the intent seems to be the same as the "surge", it's to tire the other guy out long enough for us to get the hell out and blame the bad end on the South Vietnamese/Iraqi governments.

Can I just say that the 33% of Connecticut Democrats that voted for Joe Lieberman need to get punched in the brain?

Syria was miffed, and immediately formed the Axis of Almost as Evil.

72: It's the 2nd paragraph that feeds my pessimism, not the first. The problem isn't Democrat's lack of spine, it's their lack of available options.

77: Yeah. For the first time I'm actually wondering if impeachment might be something they might, and should do.

They should, but it wouldn't make a difference. The Senate won't convict.

I doubt we have the time to impeach.

I'd like to take this opportunity to revisit this post from right after the '04 election.

I really don't see what Congress can do, and I don't put it past this administration to invent an Iranian provocation, at which point, it's hard to see what anyone can do. The only thing I can think of right now that might head this off is if someone leaks their plan for a wider war.

66: My local source for all things Iranian, sitting close by, tells me Ahmadinejad has no support in Iran 'cause he's nuts. "Sane" is relative. I'll grant you that Iran has not invaded the Falklands to free it from the Brits. Yet. That's a good sign.

This thread is depressing me.

Funny.
Funnier.
Funnier still.

David Ignatius' column today says that the House is going to frame its vote against the surge as a vote of "no confidence" in Bush, and Rahm Emanuel predicts that it will pass with substantial Republican support. This sounds like a very smart opening move to me that might dramatically alter the rules of the game.

re: 81

That is a fine post.

"Sane" is relative.

Ahmedameenimexican might be insane, but the evidence for that I've seen is his habit of making speeches that are threatening, which sadly to say doesn't make him any nuttier than whichever government ran about declaring people Axes of Evil.

"We don't like him" doesn't mean "undeterrable." And if it's true that most Iranians think Ahmedachoogesundheit is nuts, then why can't we afford to wait this guy out? We have fifteen years before Iran has a nuke and is less deterrable. In fifteen years, people my age will be running countries. That seems like a lot of time to change public opinion/buy some favors/etc.

And once again, Ahmadinehad doesn't control the Iranian military, Khamenei does.

Or Iranian foreign policy, for that matter.

Apo, thanks for 84, I needed that.

That, too. But even if we were to take him as a spokesman for the people who do... why would he be undeterrable?

LB, here's a partial transcript. V. brief.

Wikipedia has a nice graphic of how government works in Iran.

Thanks, JM, that is good.

I get that, I really do. The Iranian President isn't Commander-in-Chief. But how much of what he says is dictated/influenced by the people who do run the military? How much of what he says reflects opinion in Iran?

I'm not trying to be annoying or stupid here. But if someone responded to a discussion about Bush's speech and remarks about Iran by saying "Don't worry. In the American republic, while the executive branch runs the war, Congress has to authorize it and fund it.", I would concede that technically they're correct, but practically, they're not.

What I don't understand is the practical part of Iranian politics.

Ahmadinejad's faction just got spanked in the general election for the Assembly of Experts. He has some not-insubstantial support among the Armed Forces, but they are supposed to follow Khamenei's orders.

If Khamenei really is ill, then I'm guessing the Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts would be the next bodies with popular legitimacy. (The public seems to have turned against Ahmadinejad very sharply.)

One thing I keep reading about Iranian politics is that there is a general idea that major decisions must be made consentually: that all of the various factions should be persuaded into comity before moving forward. I don't know to what degree we should count on that tendency, or to what degree it trends conservative, but if Ahmadinejad has really lost internal support, consentual governance would mitigate against his influence.

Caveat: I'm talking mostly out of my ass.

Khamenei has de facto and de jure control of the military. There are people who are sympathetic to Ahmadinejad, even in the military, but they still answer to Khamenei. There is a history of "rogue" operations by domestic security forces, and maybe it's possible that someone on the Iranian side could gin up a provocation, but actual war would have to be authorized by Khamenei.

97 -- what about the scenario where domestic security forces gin up a provocation, and the US responds by striking within Iranian territory?

I'm talking mostly out of my ass.

Your breath stinks.

Kobe!

88: And Bill Kristol & Chuck Krauthammer don't control the American military. Are you contending that a guy who got 17 million votes doesn't have some influence on policy?

Anyway, my point isn't really about him. It's that delusional thinking leading to disaster isn't limited to the US and the current administration. The Iranian nuke program (no matter how much one thinks it's morally or ethically or practically justifiable) is one example, and in the main, history books are just compendiums of all the others.

Yes, there's a lot of delusional thinking that leads countries to war, but the Iranian leadership, which is damned to hell for squandering Iran's oil wealth and human capital and for its stupid oppressiveness, nevertheless has a long track record of being prudent and savvy, so "Ahmadinejad is nuts" arguments don't have much force.

Plus, Iran stands to lose a lot more than the U.S. if the U.S. invades. The fighting will be in their backyards, not ours.

That diagram mostly confirms my suspicions that the current Iranian system doesn't really work very well. I mean that not in a "that's not a real democracy" sort of way, but a "how the hell can you get anything done" sort of way.

"Ahmadinejad is nuts" arguments don't have much force.

They well might with the US public. The equation is simple:
President + Nuts + Nukes = Threat

That goes without saying.

At a minimum, the Iranians seem to have more technical competence in foreign policy than we do. If, during the Bush Administration, we'd seen Iraq destroy Al Qaeda at great cost to itself, and no cost to us, then I'd be more inclined to trust Bush's judgment in FP than I am now.

I desperately don't want us to attack Iran, but I'm also curious as to what Iran does if we do attack. It's not clear to me that a straight up war is the way to go for Iran. Would our attack end up being bad for both the US and Iran, but good for Russia or China or (gawd forbid) Pakistan?

Oops, disappeared into my "job" for a while.

Impeachment doesn't mean much, though. It takes 67 senators to remove a president from office, and we're nowhere close to that.

This is what worries me. A first strike on Iran w/out a declaration of war would be SOOOOO blatantly unconstitutional, IMHO, that one would expect all but the wackier Repubs to get on board.

And I have little faith of that happening; the Repubs don't see themselves as "Congress." For a body w/ so many incumbents, there's not enough sense of itself as an institution rather than an arena.

Syria, btw, is the Hubcap of Evil.

Hooray, Senator Menendez is co-sponsoring Kennedy's bill! FWIW!!!!11! Lautenberg's phone is busy all afternoon.

Lautenberg was on WNYC this morning, and Brian Lehrer asked him about the raid on the "liaison office" in Irgil. Lautenberg punted ignominously, muttering something about it's being a positive step, maybe, but that he was checking it out.

That fucker.

I'm worried that the Democrats are being distracted by FP by their 100-hours pledge.

"by FP" s/b "from FP". Or something better-phrased.

They've already passed 4 bills of the six in the 100-hour package and they've only run down 23 and a half hours. What gives? Are they planning to throw in articles of impeachment as a surprise bonus?

"but I'm also curious as to what Iran does if we do attack"

I think Iran would take great casualties, but win it pretty quickly. Then they would have the Sunni Arab nations playing 4th Gen warfare in New Greater Persia, but no America, and help from Russia and China.

If Bush had done this in 2005, he might have had a chance. But he is fucking hated, and one way or another, he would be out of office and the Americans would be out of Iraq after taking any major losses. He blew it, even as a megamaniacal imperialist tyrant. "Follow the flag" and "support the President" is over, but I don't think Bush understand just how over.

Umm, this is not exactly a scenario to be celebrated. I would expect our part of the war to end, but follow us home. The ugliest events since WWII.

Hey kids!! Here is a just delicious idea!

Bush, secure of his place in history and the rightness of his cause attacks Iran, including with nukes. We lose a carrier and 50k troops in Iraq. Straits of Hormuz close. Oil hits $150

Then, mission accomplished, Bush & Cheney resign, making Pelosi the first woman President.

FL:Are you people really saying that (a) the President et al want to be at war with Iran and (b) war with Iran has a probability of, say, higher than .3?

1a> I'm saying that the President said he wanted to be at war with Iran back in 2002 and every single leak since (and there's been a shitload of them) has indicated that the President of the United States wanted to go to war before he left office, full-stop. I don't mean leaks to D's, I mean leaks to every 'conservative' in the land. Full stop. Ergo, the probability of the US going to war with Iran was 1.0.... or 0.9 if you factor in Bush having a heart attack or losing the election or something.

1b> Timing: for maximum safety, Presidents try to go to war (or engage in warlike actions) just after an election (not before, when it might screw things up), or when there is a scandal and they need a distraction (see Clinton), and when the weather is right. That means, for a war of choice, war during an non-election year. For Bush, those years were 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007. (I was watching like a hawk for a new war in 2005, but all they did was talk. No troop movements.) In the Near East, the weather is bad during the summer, so that leaves January-April, and September-November.

Note that conducting an offensive in a war you're already in (Iraq) is the sort of thing you want to do just before an election, since you can make it sound like you're winning, whether you are or not.

January-April is farther away from election 2008 than fall, AND Bush is running out of time with respect to the D congress. The time is now.

Ergo, the probability of war with Iran before say, June 1st is...0.9. Again factoring in everything including Bush being struck by lightning.

2a> When they're going to start a shooting war, they start moving shit around long beforehand. Every war I've seen has started out like that. They started moving shit in September.

2b> To fight Iran, they need extra troops, planes, and they need extra naval assets to deal with the Iranian navy. We're still shy a coupla carriers and some planes. So you watch to see if they move anything else.

3a> Bush might be a fool, and he might be primitive, but he's not actually stupid in the sense of having a low IQ. He is very very good at propaganda. You would expect to see a large propaganda burst about how the Iranians are the evilest people ever, and lookie here: we're in the middle of a propganda burst. Said burst will continue to intensify, if they're going to war.

3b> Nobody has said a word that I've seen, but has anybody noticed that we had lots of reports of possible terror attack in 2004, and almost nothing in 2005 and 2006. And now, suddenly, there are all these reports appearing of 'gas smells' and the like coming from all directions. I am not saying that reports are being manufactured. I am saying that it takes little effort to stop issuing press release reporting what turn out to be false alarms... and then later decide to report every potential false alarm that comes along. And reports of possible terrorist activity scare people.

4> I expect to see
a> additional naval assets moved to the Near East
b> additional Air Force assets moved to the Near East
c> many more reports of Iranian-American clashes
d> additonal reports emphasizing that the Iranians have got the bomb LATER THIS AFTERNOON
e> a halt to shipping through the Persian Gulf about a week to ten days before the balloon goes up. At a minimum, Saudi, American and Kuwaiti vessels will stop moving, possibly in response to some sort of Iranian 'mining incident'.

5> Syria signed an alliance with Iran. So if the US goes to war with Iran, in theory, we're also at war with Syria. The US will not attack both countries at the same time. Nothing prevents the Israelis from going to war with Syria. (I have a ref. but I gotta find it.)

6> I do not expect to see
a> any American aircraft carriers remaining in the Gulf at the time war um, 'breaks out'
b> the US use thermonuclear weapons; there's no reason to
c> Congress prevent war

m, that covers it

(I have a ref. but I gotta find it.)

I love this story! Israeli warning: Syria preparing for war

Shorter Israel: "How dare the Syrians commit an act of aggression by preparing to defend themselves against an Israeli attack!"

But also 'War within 10 months' and Syria warns of 'resistance' within months.

Yep, WorldNetDaily is ready to attack.

Random and old but good Google Moment: "All the nations called into the Middle East will drink of God's wrath, in their turn. America's Illuminist leaders have heard God's siren call, and are apparently ready to commit American troops in Europe to the Middle East. Truly, we are at the End of the Age.

Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference."

m, illuminati!

Damnit, you people are entirely too informative (cf. the "In Country" thread). I have things to do, so stop making me not be able to stop reading.

Does anyone have a response to Paul Starr's argument that, "The great danger that all parties face is that the conflict in Iraq, which is already becoming a proxy war between Iran and the Sunni states, will turn into a full-scale regional war -- Iran against the Arabs. That risk, however, is America's remaining source of leverage. Because a U.S. withdrawal could draw them into a war against each other, all the neighboring states, including Iran, have an interest in stabilizing Iraq."?

I'd like to believe it, both because it means WWIII and/or IV might not happen and because I could support a complete, quick pull-out with little ambivalence.