Wasn't Baer the model for Clooney's character in Syriana?
"There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country."
As much as I hate to agree with a proponent of war with Iran, this would make some strategic sense. It wouldn't cost Iran much, in terms of either money or relations (the U.S. will assume Iran is interfering no matter what they do), to quietly fund Shia militias in Iraq. They could then step in with a carrot, funding actual non-corrupt reconstruction, with which their proxies would not fuck. Then the USG would get all blustery about "meddling" and look like assholes: Iran paints schools for teh win.
I vacillate about the probability of an attack on Iran. It seems sooo stupid that it is nearly impossible to imagine it happening. And then I remember I thought the same about the invasion of Iraq. And the election of GWB in '00. So who knows?
Iran paints schools for teh win.
Then the US starts bombing Iran and everyone loses. It's certainly possible that the Iranians have something like your scenario in mind, but given that we seem to be grasping at any excuse available to rattle sabers it doesn't seem likely to produce a favorable result for anyone in the long run.
Double + agree w/ SCMT.That is almost exactly my train of thought. Except, I also think "How can I personally profit from this?"
Okay shit, can we really think of a better way of stopping it this time? I mean, seriously, considering last time everything we tried didn't work. Like, really, what do we have to do?
Baer's autobiography See No Evil was the "inspiration" for Syriana. Funnily enough, I read it about a month ago. A good chunk of that book is spent talking about how he kept running into the IRGC when looking at various terrorist organizations in the Middle East (Hizbullah, the PLO). He uses trying to figure out who called in the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut in '82 as a hook for the whole story.
About two-thirds of the way through, the whole leadership team we've seen in Iraq (Chalabi through Talabani, at least) shows up when he goes to "Kurdistan" in the mid-1990s (as an aside, he excoriates Tony Lake for foiling a plot to overthrow Saddam with a military coup supported by the Kurds in 1995. I'd love to know the whole story behind that one). Interesting in a book that came out two years before we invaded Iraq.
While he does have an Ahab-like fixation on the Iranian government, he also shows that he has no love for the Bush administration, either.
So my feel is that he's not part of the "propaganda machine". He may have an ax to grind where it isn't appropriate, but he seems to have forgotten more about Iran than I've learned, and so I'd be willing to at least hear him out.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing one can do, I ,with limited capital, plan to invest in petrol futures. This is the most effective political act I can imagine. Let me know if you figure out something better.
Also, having now actually read the article, the tone I get is much more saying that if we don't like what we're facing now in Iraq, we're going to feel ten times worse if we wrestle with Iran. So let's make sure we want to do this (that is, stuff like arresting Iranians).
Also the second - I'm a novice in the Middle East, so pardon all errors and ignorance...
Decisions as to whether to go to war don't necessarily have anything to do with any recent event. They're usually part of some long-term strategy. Once the decision has been made, the reasons are found in something or the other that the chosen opponent does. Polish aggression against Germany in 1939 was only the extreme case.
One original Iraq War plan moved on to Syria and Iran after toppling Iraq. (Wolfowitz put up trial balloons to that effect). The original plan was seemingly predicated on quick success in Iraq, but now the idea is that failure in Iraq requires us to attack its neighbors.
Bush is so tarred by this war that at this point there's nothing he can do to redeem himself. If he spends the next two years doing exactly the right thing, he still will probably end up being regarded as the worst president in American history. So from his point of view, there's no real reason for him not to try a Hail-Mary escalation, no matter how small the chance of success. A lot of doves turn into hawks when the going gets rough, and Bush can make things rough.
I've been saying something like this ever since March (so has Seymour Hersh) , and I haven't been right so far. Everyone should pray that I continue to be wrong.
There'll be a candle burning for you. Emerson, in the first cathedral I come to.
Considering the U.S. record on intelligence and intervention, how can one seriously advocate an expanded conflict against Iran. Lets look at the record:
1. Our government ousted a democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosedegh, ostensibly to assure access to Iranian oil.
2. Iranian resentment against the overthrow of Mosedegh lead to the Islamic Revolution and the American Embassy hostage crisis of 1979, an act far more hostile to American interests than Mosedegh would have been.
3. In response to hostility from Iran's Islamic Revolution, our government decides to arm and supply Saddam Hussein as a counterweight in the region.
4. Based on "intelligence," The U.S. arms and trains the Islamic Fundamentalist Mujahedeen in Afganistan to fight the Soviet-backed Northern Alliance.
5. After 9/11, our government switches sides and decides to back the Northern Alliance.
6. There were no WMDs to justify a unilateral attack on Iraq.
So where is the "long view" driving U.S. intelligence and intervention. If anything, U.S. policies are based on expedient short-term gain at the expense of long-term stability. If U.S. intelligence has accomplished anything, it succeeds at making enemies faster than it looses friends.
5: I'm with you on the vacillation. If I were going to do something sudden in Iran about their nuke program, I'd pick someone like David Petraeus (or James Mattis) to run the operation, I'd move lots of airpower nearer, and I'd free up a bunch of highly mobile forces. OTOH, that's what I'd do if I were going to do what Bush says he's going to do.
Murdering Sistani? Not only have I not ever seen this alleged about the alleged apocalyptic cult, I do not at all believe that Iran would want to kill him.
I hate having to hope that Iran is more temperate than we are.
It seems sooo stupid that it is nearly impossible to imagine it happening.No, that's not it.
And then I remember I thought the same about the invasion of Iraq.Ah-ha. I figured that Bush was evil enough to manufacture a war with pretty much whomever he wanted, and also that he also lacked any inhibitions about using assorted wars to get re-elected. I didn't think he would be dumb enough to invade Iraq (and I was right about that, in 2002), and if he was dumb enough to invade Iraq, I didn't think he would be dumb enough to stay. So, I knew they were evil, I didn't realize they were that goddamned dumb, which makes them stupid AND evil.
So, I was WRONG! I decided, around December 2003, not to make that mistake again. If it's crazy, stupid and evil, there's probably a good chance that they'll do it, and an even better chance the D's will allow them to get away with it. Therefore, the MUST invade/attack Iran. If they don't invade/attack Iran, it's because they've come up with an EVEN DUMBER PLAN ('Nuke the Russians!'). I don't want to find out what the even dumber plan. No, sir.
And the election of GWB in '00.
m, wait til the real disaster strikes
The LA Times reports that the USAF is getting involved in securing the border with Iran.
The efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran, a senior Pentagon official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing future military plans.
What could go wrong?
You mean the "Almandine-Jihad" trail?
Do people walk along that on the soles of their feet?