I'm becoming more convinced that some form of military action against Iran is coming.  Most likely with an Israeli attack, because then the US can get involved without all the icky coalition building.  I think it will be a complete disaster, and spiral way out of control.  The Iranians are just not playing ball, and I don't think they're likely to, as they've probably concluded that nothing they do to appease us will work.  

Generally there has been a gradual ramp-up of anti-Iranian rhetoric, and they probably have very little to lose by unsealing their nuclear research facilities. Honestly we should SPONSOR them making indigenous nuclear power (and monitor it carefully): that way they can run their country on nukes and we can continue to liquefy and export their enormous gas reserves!

I think the decision to form their own oil bourse was the nail in Iran's coffin. It is not possible for the US to live the lifestyle we've become accustomed to unless the dollar is the exclusive reserve currency of the entire world.

We shall see! We live in interesting times. I am selfishly thankful to be past the draft age because this one's gonna be a complete bodybag/bodycount type situation (not as if Iraq isn't!).

<rant>
Well, maybe, if the US would stop this incredibly stupid and self-defeating policy of regarding Iran as a rogue terrorist state and instead sit down with them and say "let's do some business", then maybe we wouldn't have this increasingly precarious situation. Bringing Iran into the world community as a bona fides member would do the whole world a lot of good.

I would remind all TOD readers that the US was the one who fucked them over to begin with a long time ago in the 1950's. When they overthrew the Shah, who was installed by the CIA, they had a revolution of independence in 1979/80--you know, like 1776, The Declaration of Independence and all that. They are an Islamic country (Persians, not Arabs) and their policies reflect that. Darius was the King of Kings (the Persian Empire) when Europeans were lucky to be eating something other than shit (~ca. 500 bc). I believe their extremist rhetoric and current actions reflect their feelings of being threatened, isolation and their own pride and self-esteem. Why not bring them in to sit at the table rather than making covert threats? Regarding their various Ayatollahs, those guys would fade into the background rapidly if the people in Iran knew there would be some bucks to be made and some prosperity. They like Disney, Coke and Britney Spears too.

And, oh, did I mention, they're sitting on a a whole lot of hydrocarbons over there and that they are geographically placed in almost the most strategic location on Earth? Screw it.
</rant>

Here's a couple of scenarios. I don't know if they would be described as "worst case." But they both sound pretty grim.

The author of the first article linked below, Michel Chossudovsky, is an economics professor at the University of Ottawa, and he says it's all over but the crying. The decision has been taken by the US and Israel that the attacks will go ahead at some point in the near future and everyone's just waiting now for the final superficial touch ups and wrangling at the UN to get some type of semi-legitimate cover before launching the attack.

The second article linked is by a USAF vet who has come up with what he sees as a likely scenario for how the first day of an attack would play out.  It seems pretty realistic to me, but what do I know. I am no military expert. However I do hear those Rusky Sunburn anti-ship missiles that Iran is equipped with are pretty fast and deadly.

Nuclear War against Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 3, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US,  Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister  Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."  Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action. (James Petras,  Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

Continued at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Chossudovsky goes on to discuss in the remainder of the article the different types of weapons that the US/Israel would likely deploy against Iran including small nukes as bunker buster warheads etc.

And then there's this:

Day One, The War with Iran

by
Douglas Herman (USAF Ret)

SNIP

The Iranian air force, like the Iranian navy, never really knew what hit them. Like the slumbering US sailors at Pearl Harbor, the pre-dawn, pre-emptive attack wiped out fully half the Iranian defense forces in a matter of hours.

By mid-morning, the second and third wave of US/Israeli raiders screamed over the secondary targets. The only problem now, the surprising effectiveness of the Iranian missile defenses. The element of surprise lost, US and Israeli warplanes began to fall from the skies in considerable numbers to anti-aircraft fire.

At 7:35 AM, Tehran time, the first Iranian anti-ship missile destroyed a Panamanian oil tanker, departing from Kuwait and bound for Houston. Launched from an Iranian fighter plane, the Exocet split the ship in half and set the ship ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz. A second and third tanker followed, black smoke billowing from the broken ships before they blew up and sank. By 8:15 AM, all ship traffic on the Persian Gulf had ceased.

US Navy ships, ordered earlier into the relative safety of the Indian Ocean, south of their base in Bahrain, launched counter strikes. Waves of US fighter planes circled the burning wrecks in the bottleneck of Hormuz but the Iranian fighters had fled.

At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later.

Continued at
http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

I tend to wonder myself, as a previous poster mentioned, whether or not Iran, Russia, and China have some plan up their sleeve to lure the US/Israel into some type of trap by acting to provoke them into a first strike. It does seem that Iran  has been  going out of the way recently to yank the chain of both Israel and the US.

I was wondering if it was possible Russia has given Iran some type of secret, super duper, bleeding edge technology that would be effective at downing the US and Israeli aircraft including the stealth fighters and bombers. However, it's hardly likely that even if such a technology existed they could get a system like this up and operational without the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies detecting it and blowing the whistle.  So what's the alternative explanation? They're just nutso and believe Allah will step in on their side and smite the infidels? Who knows?
 

Here is an extract and two links to
a) The legality of Iran's nuclear action and
b) An imminent (and probably nuclear) attack on Iran.

The extract below is from an article by a Professor Petras, a retired Sociology prof at NYU.  Full article is at  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20051225&articleId=1635

"..Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely un-productive".
More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005).
Iran also plans to build several other nuclear power plants with foreign help. This Iranian call for foreign assistance is hardly the strategy of a country trying to conduct a covert atomic bomb program, especially one directed at involving one of its principal accusers.
The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the Middle East.
Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by necessity use enriched uranium. The Iranian decision to advance to processing enriched uranium is its sovereign right as it is for all countries, which possess nuclear reactors in Europe, Asia and North America. Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of Iran's potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to scores of countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.
The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and focused on attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy ­ namely the production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched uranium with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an imminent nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and Israel. The Europeans, especially Great Britain, have two options in mind: To impose an Iranian acceptance of limits on its sovereignty, more specifically on its energy policy; or to force Iran to reject the arbitrary addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to propagandize the rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to create atomic bombs and target pro-Western countries.
The Western media would echo the US and European governments position that Iran was responsible for the breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then convince their public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to follow the US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve international sanctions against Iran.
The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor of sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or both countries would agree, given the importance of the multi-billion dollar oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two countries. Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and Israel would, on the scenario of the War Party, move toward a military attack. An air attack on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities would entail the bombing of heavily populated as well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life...."

The next link is to an article by Michel Chossudovsky published in January 2006.  Chossudovsky is a Prof of Economics at Ottawa University, Canada.  Chossudovsky details an imminent (March-April 2006)  attack on Iran.  

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Attacking Iran when oil is above $60? Wow, that would take some balls. Consider that the mere mention of these events is bullish for oil traders. If Iranian exports are halted, the sky is the limit for oil prices. There simply is no worldwide spare capacity left. Also what people may not realize is that it is not just the sudden drop in supply that will cause a price spike, but also the threat to the strait of Hormuz, destabilizing the entire ME, intervention in Iraq, etc. etc. In fact, an Israeli attack alone would probably be a disastrous mistake because it would require U.S. allowance for them to fly over Iraqi airspace. So, there is little distinction between an Israeli or U.S. attack. I believe worst-case scenario will be sanctions. Israel is not foolish enought to attack without a green light from the U.S., and the  U.S. doesn't need another Iraq to the second power (if the Iraq war by some accounts is expected to cost $1 trillion by the time its over, imagine how much a war with Iran would cost - forget the indirect costs of the increased price of oil).

Like Sina seems to be, I too am skeptical of the imminence of a US attack against Iran.  If I remember correctly, there have been "rumors of war" regarding an impending attack against Iran since near the beginning of 2004.  But so far, the rumors have all been false.  What makes the present juncture any different?  I'll believe it when it happens, not beforehand.

I'm sure my fellow TODdlers will point and laugh at me for saying this, but what the heck--it won't be the first time.

I honestly don't think the US will attack Iran unless Iran starts shooting first.  Yes, I know all about the war planning, and I know far more about the neocons' wet dreams of serial regime change in that part of the world (I'm a regular over at dailykos.com and as much of a political junkie as I am an energy geek).  But I think the costs in terms of oil hitting who knows how high a price, extreme friction with Russia, China, and likely the EU, and above all trying to fight a war with armed forces that have been stretched thin and abused by the Iraq debacle, would be so huge that even Bush and his minions can see it would be a Very Bad Idea.

One caveat: Before the Iraq mess started, I thought that Bush had at least the IQ of the average artichoke and wouldn't invade that country.  I was convinced that it was a bluff to get Saddam Hussein out of power, and that the rational people around Bush, like Powell, would make it clear to him what an unmitigated disaster it could turn into.

OK, this is the part where you point and laugh.

I would not have supported the war on Iraq no matter what Saddam had in the way of WMDs. But I was surpised that he didn't have ANY. He really did disarm. What did it get him? So there's a very big lesson there for anyone else.

It makes me want to puke when I see all the other powers pressuring Iran to refrain from processing uranium when they AND Israel got nukes up the gazoo. It's undoubtedly US pressure: you want some of the oil and gas too, don't you?
The bank IS going to get robbed---might as well join in.

Iraq is proving to be indigestible. It's beyond my imagination to think what the attack on Iran will open up. And yet it is coming. Things are becoming incredibly explosive.

This is just part of the normal rotation right?

122nd Fighter Wing to leave in the wee hours
From staff reports

Members of the Fort Wayne-based 122nd Fighter Wing are scheduled to leave for Southwest Asia about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday from the unit's headquarters on Ferguson Road. It represents the wing's largest single deployment since it was called to Chambley, France, in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis. This deployment is in support of ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) area of responsibility, which includes Southwest Asia. The unit will deploy fighter pilots, as well as maintenance and support personnel.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/13586753.htm

If I was an Iranian I would want some nukes. What Iraq and North Korea prove is if you dont have any WMD's you had darn well better get some. The US and the coalition of the but kiss wouldent have messes with Iraq if it had a couple of nuke's.

Sorry for double dip--but I also wanted to say that those who think rationality will prevail, that Iran won't get attacked, are, I think, overlooking a thing or
two. Remember the plan for Iraq---shock and awe---everyone would see and draw the appropriate lesson. Well, that totally failed and the world sees the Empire bogged down and are taking advantage of it to shamelessly pursue their
own interests.

So now there are two ways for the empire to go: one is reverse. But this would promote further shamelessness and cause the current crew to go down in flames. I don't think they are willing to go down in flames. I think they would rather risk that we all go down in flames. From their point of view, there really is no way out but to raise the ante. And it can't be raised with troops. It has to be nuclear. That's the tragedy that is unfolding.

Twilight - "And lastly, (I too am a political junky) I really see no limits whatsoever to the lengths the neocons will go to, and no limits to the delusions.  Reasonable and rational do not seem to apply.  Truly, what will they do if they DON'T get control over Iran?"

I tend to agree here.  I do not think the Bush administration lives in the real world.  They badly miscalculated in Iraq when they assumed the populace would be welcoming the invasion like in France in 1944.  I am sure that they could delude themselves that much the same could happen in Iran.

I think that the real problem comes later.  Assuming after whatever time the USA pulls out of Iraq the Shia majority there is then free to make alliances with the Iran Shais who are not really close however could be a lot closer as they are both on the same side of Islam.  I think that the fear is that then this would be a hostile united bloc dominating 20% of the global oil supplies and threatening the rest.  There are no guarantees that a post USA Iraq is going to be either friendly or cooperative.

The thought maybe is to take out the threat before it happens.

Maybe I am naive but I don't think the US is the only driver of events in the Middle East.  President Ahmadinejad has recently publicly stated (at least it is reported as such) that 1. The Holocaust never happened.  2. Israel should be moved.  3. Israel should be wiped out.  Oil is certainly a secondary concern when the Israeli military ponders the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran in the near future.  As other writers here have menioned Ahmadinejad almost seems to be taunting Israel.  Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said concerning the Iranian statements. "Thank God Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second `final solution'."  I'm not sure what that means but this situation is getting a little scary.  

I've spent the last two years watching Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and other countries who feel threatened by the Neocons making a series of economic and military alliances. I believe they have a plan in place if Iran is attacked, and that's why I believe Iran has been trying to taunt the U.S./Israel into attack.

Iraq was the sucker punch that opened the resource war, but it was only chapter one, the first battle. When the U.S. got bogged down, the other countries had a chance to develop their counter-strategy.

I think the response will be much more sophisticated than simply blocking the Gulf of Hormuz; I think it will involve an economic and energy strangulation of the U.S.

We would definitely see gasoline and food rationing in the U.S. while the war raged. I'm not confident we would survive.

Another piece of evidence to support the thesis of an impending attack on Iran is that a month ago without explanation the Federal Reserve announced that as of March 23 of this year they will no longer publish M3 statistics.

This was truly a WTF moment, but given the background of a massive attack on Iran and the resulting severe economic dislocations it begins to make sense.

I don't want to believe the neocons are deluded and desperate enough to undertake folly of such grand proportions, but sadly have to conclude that they are.

The Wall Street Journal published a story a year or so ago regarding "hypothetical" plans for an invasion of Iran. They quoted an Army officer as saying that they were war gaming a scenario in which instead of taking over the whole country, they would just take over a portion and show what democracy could do for the country, the assumption being that the populace would then overthrow the government in the non-occurpied regions.  

Inquiring minds want to know:  what portion or portions of the country would we take over-- perhaps the oil producing regions?

My contention for some time has been that the Neocons have three goals in the Middle East--control of the oil reserves in:  Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

From the viewpoint of a close US allie in the southern hemisphere, beside oil going to $2-300 per barrel, world trade being dislocated and maybe armed conflict between China and the US- what do you think would happen to the pro-US governments in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? A military attack on Iran, especially with nukes, is armageddon territory.

Let's assume that the Bush Administration was aware of Peak Oil from day one.  And let's assume that they made the following predictions:  (1)  the federal debt will never be repaid (as the world economy implodes) and (2)  he who controls the remaining oil reserves controls the world.

A lot of people have been puzzled why a supposed "conservative" like Bush would turn out to be one of the biggest spending presidents (if not the biggest spending) in history.  If you are convinced that you are going to file bankruptcy, why not max out the credit cards?  

By cutting tax rates and encouraging every form of federal spending known to man, Bush juiced the economy and massively expanded the deficit.   Using our good credit rating, we sucked in billions and billions of dollars in foreign capital.  

What if Bush, in effect, is using foreign capital to pay for our takeover of the Middle Eastern oil fields?  At the appropriate time, we in effect declare national bankruptcy, perhaps by inflating our way out of debt.  We would be left with control of the Middle Eastern oil fields.

I'm not saying it's ethical, but the scenario has a certain cold-blooded rationality to it, and it explains a lot of Bush's actions.

There are several reasons,why we will see an Israeli attack on Iran by March or April 2006.This attack will be supported by US Forces. Eventually US forces are going to participate.
From the Israeli point of view, there are at least six reasons why they MUST act.

1. According to Israeli Intelligence, the Iranians will have the first weapon usable plutonium by march, as they are actually starting uranium enrichment now
   
2. Iran does already have ballistic missiles,capable of reaching Israel (Schahab 3), and ist trying to buy missiles in North Korea which are capable of reaching well into western europe (BM 25)
   

3.The destruction of Israel is clearly the main topic of Iranian politics (just hear Ahmadinedschad). Iranian WMD are thus an existencial danger for Israel. Israels trauma is an repeat of the holocaust. So they will not even take an chance of  it happening again.
4.Israel is very small. In just three agglomerations (Jerusalem,Jaffa,Tel Aviv) live 75 per cent of the Israelian Population. So, only three even crude nuclear weapons might destroy an immense percentage of its population.
5.Its own nuclear ballistic missiles (Jericho 3) are reportedly not save against a first strike hit.To avoid a use them or loose them situation and to stay on a conventional war level, it has at all cost to be avoided, that Iran and inescapable then, other arabic nations, are deploying nuclear weapons.
6. In December, Iran bought 29 modern SAM missile systems in Russia (Tor 1). These systems will endanger the survivability of Israels attack planes. I guess that these systems will be operational in several weeks.

Therefore, Israel must attack, as long as they still have a chance to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. Perhaps by May the time window for an attack will  be gone. Israel attacked the Irak reactor in Osirak in 1981, and they must do it again.

I wonder what a 'terrorist' attack on US soil in the next couple of month would do to move an Iran attack forward?

It would definatley play to the advantage of the Neo-Cons to have another 9/11 type event allowing for a smoother action against Iran to take place if the population was again willing to give up and allow anything for 'safety'.

There are just too many factors converging at once. Something has to give.

Coordinating a plan by the former Soviet Republics, Russia, China, and Iran, to draw the US & Israel into a strike on Iran is as likely, as successfully herding chickens. The Iranian President is simply a nut-job trying to rally the uneducated folks of the Middle East, and causing the west as much hate as possible.
The US & Israel are simply implementing contingency plans in case of an overt offensive move by the nut-job. Even Bush knows that the status quo is as good as it can ever be. The only way the nut-job can stay in power, without a revolution, is if there is an attack by the west against Iran.

Perhaps the 'game of global chicken' is planned to be played like this by Iran:

Heated rhetoric to the point of the UN vote.  Then Iran says "Ok, fine.  We, the Iran people need energy.  We have been shipping out energy from our lands, we are now putting an end to it,   Starting today, the oil is for us, not you.  We are launching a conservation program, will be raising prices in future years to encourage efficancy with the equipment that uses the oil.  And we are freezing all nuclear activites."

Cuts the pipeline for a few days, the attack happens anyway, then Iran is able to turn up the rhetoric "They attack for oil" and "Before the unilateral attack, the leadership of Iran  had a small faction who wanted nuclear weapons for peacekeeping.  Now the people of Iran are united in the desire for the atom for peace."  (Extra bonus points to use the exact phrases of past US statesmen WRT the atom for peace.  Extra-mega bonus points to say the quotes in English during the arabic speeches)   Perhaps run some Ads on the internet, along with ads on Mexican/Canadian media as added salt to the war of words wounds.

The economic loss to the US of A, along with loosing the diplomatic war of words won't matter much to Bush and Co....but won't help the citizens of the US.

Saddam played the martyr (not to mention WANTING sanctions to end) well.   If you can't REALLY hit back (strike the mainland of the US) and can only make local trouble, what other way can you go other than 'the martyr'?

Other than 'long term contracts' to 'keep oil cheap in America' and accepting the US dollar for that oil.....does anyone see an "out" for Iran/US conflict?

More than a year ago, James Fallows wrote in the Atlantic Monthly about war-gaming possible attacks on Iran.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
The gamers agreed the US (and/or Israel) could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but

The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal--but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

The bottom line was "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

BTW, if a conventional attack on Iran's nuclear facilities released a cloud of fallout, how would our friends in, say, India feel?

I think the Iranian leaders are crazy, like a fox.  They know that their population is very young, even by ME standards, I believe the majority of the pop is under 25.  These are young people that have only known the current regime, many of them weren't alive for the revolution.  They only know what life is like under the mullahs, and for the most part, they don't like.  The people of Iran have the most favorable opinion of the US and the West of all the people in the Muslim world.  Look at the pictures of the young women in Tehran and other cities.  They dress like Christian Amanpour, if she were they're age.  The wear a colored head scarf, nothing obstructing any part of their face, with Western clothes.  In almost every other country in that region the women are still wearing burkhas, abiyas, or traditional tribal clothing.
The last thing we want to do is to invade Iran.  Even if we just bomb them it will stitch the government and the young people together.  They will rally around the flag like we do in the US and every other country around the world.  If we want to overthrow the gov't there we should pump MTV, cutting down on some of the bumping and grinding, all over the country.  Just like Radio Free Europe, and the other Radio Stations we used during the cold war.  The good news is that many Iranians already have satellite dishes so we don't need to send any equipment for them to receive.

Iran breaks open the "seals"? Uh, oh...

Revelation 6 "1 I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" 2 I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest. Etc."

I see a distinct relation between rising heat for impeachment and heat on Iran. Further, given the great amounts of discussion in EU and USA about needed expansion of nuclear power production, the argument about Iran not needing to develop same is null.

Observation: The Cheney/Bush cabals use of the "fear factor" to intimidate has run its course; the Iran "threat" is their last card.

Further observation: It seems like everyone here assumes USA would "win" any military engagement with Iran. This is quite wrong, which is why nuclear weapons are to be employed if things went so far.

Last: China's national security from an energy standpoint is wholly tied to Iran's hydrocarbons, which led me to presume there's a secret defense pact existing between them that likely includes Russia since a similar pact between Russia and China already exists.

The Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld cabal have committed grave and massive war crimes; they know it, and those now calling for impeachment know it. The Rovian strategy is to create another crisis capable of trumping the now multiple challenges to the cabal's position/power. I find it dubious reasoning that attacking Iran will reinforce this. I think it quite likely to see a reversal of the "Seven Days in May" scenario, where the military unseats the president to prevent a war rather than to start one.      

Sorry guys, Im a newbie here and all that, but I just dont see Bush getting impeached and I have a hard time seeing a US led strike on Iran.

The US has its hands full in Iraq and isnt going to risk further political/economic capital (not to mention fracturing fragile alliances with the Shias in Iraq) by spearheading an attack on Iran. They may well allow the Israelis to do it and even covertly support such a mission, but there will have to be some 'plausible deniabilitly'  as there is no way the UN or EU will support military action.

Let the Euros handle Iran their way, if the proverbial 'mushroom cloud' comes, then the US handling of Iraq will look like genius in comparison. In the meantime, the US can continue to dominate Saudi, Kuwaiti and pretty soon Iraqi oil exports and keep working in Iraq to create a functioning democracy, which is the thing the Mullahs fear most.

"Further observation: It seems like everyone here assumes USA would "win" any military engagement with Iran. This is quite wrong, which is why nuclear weapons are to be employed if things went so far."

On what evidence do you base this assumption?

Super War Preview

Highly amusing and also hard-hitting Jan '05 article discussing the prospect of war with Iran, focusing on the military aspects:

http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

Regards Chris  

What are the iranians going to do?

http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm

Let's see what the iranians do.

http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm

keep upwind
http://www.prosefights.org/buehlerpayne/buehlerpayne.html

The Iranians wouldn't use a nuke on Isreal for the same reason Pakistan and India don't nuke each other. He who nukes first faces swift retaliation from US missles. He who nukes first commits national suicide.
The plans for a US invasion of Iran are nothing but plans. The files of the Pentagon are full of plans for attacking every nation on Earth including Britain and Canada.
After being hoodwinked by stories of Iraqi WMDs the Congress and the American people just don't trust Bush and Rummy any more. The rising price of energy and GOP scandals have the White House worried that they will lose control of Congress in Nov. They failed to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan and have failed to win the peace in Iraq and Congress knows if they back another military misadventure they will fail to get re-elected.

"So what difference does it make if Iran has a nuc, if they used one first, Iran as a nation would cease to exist."  I think the situation will develop over time into a far more dangerous scenario than the above quote would have us believe.  A first strike using nuclear weapons against Israel using two or three bombs would result in the permanent destruction of that country.  The Israeli government cannot allow this to happen.  Even if someone would nuc Iran later (and this is a big if) that is of no comfort to an Israeli war planner.  Iran's present rantings about Israel's destruction are very inflammatory. I believe that it was Simon Weisenthal who, when asked what was the most important lesson he learned from the Holocaust, replied, "When someone says they plan to kill you, believe them."

"The evidence is the failed Iraq invasion.  If the U.S. can't control Iraq, how could they possibly control Iran, a very large country of 35 million people, and one with sophisticated air power and weaponry."

Define 'failure' regarding the Iraqi invasion. Do you mean the US 'failed' to invade Iraq and depose Saddam? Did the US fail at 'occupation'? Sure, there have been setbacks and diplomatic failures.. but all factions are engaging the diplomatic process as we speak. Yea, there's insurgent violence, but that =! failure. Occupation planning wasnt good at all, nor were the reasons for going to war, but its nowhere near the utter failure/disaster some people like to make it out to be.

On a further note, no one is talking about occupying Iran, just destroying their reactors. Do you think the US destruction of Iraqi resistance in the first few weeks of war was a disaster? Do you doubt the US's ability to conduct a massive aerial campaign against the reactors?

Also, like other recent posters, I dont believe the US is going to strike Iran first. I believe Bush is content to let the EU handle it, because they have no desire to fight or piss anyone off. Iran surely knows this, which is why they keep playing the EU 3 and then doing what they want anyway.

I dont think anyone is really worried that Iran is going to launch a nuclear Shahab-3 at Israel as soon as it has a functioning warhead. The Mullahs arent stupid and they well know that it would provoke a massive nuclear response from Israel (and possibly the US) that would reduce Iran to the stone age. They dont want that.

What is far more likely and what everyone is truly worried about, is Iran covertly supplying a Hizbollah or Al Quaida with fuel rods for a dirty bomb or possibly a functioning mini nuke, or even a smaller warhead rocket-lobbed in from Gaza or Lebanon. Then, Iran has accomplished its goal and has plausible deniability- a non state actor has done the job for them. Who is Israel going to retailiate against if the bomb hits them from a Hizbollah camp in Lebanon?

"oh really, since when?"

Since Europe lost its stomach for Imperialism. Hell, Europe couldnt even deal with Kosovo (right in their backyard) without Clinton's help. Do you really think the EU 3 would use force against anyone in non compliance with the UN? Doubtful, since their force projection capabilities are extremely limited. How many carrier battle groups do UK, France, Germany have combined? How many does the US have?

Secondly, the fact that the Sunnis are a large portion of Iraq's people will dictate that the Shia engage them politically rather than fight a really ugly civil war. Also, the US isnt leaving anytime soon, at least until the Iraqi security forces are ready to handle things. Probably be there the next 10 years.. or do you really think the US will allow Iraqi oil to go to everyone else? If you do, youre dreaming. This is an investment with an expected return. In addition, as long as the US has bases in Iraq, it can bomb the shit out of Iran on a moment's notice. Strategically and tactically, Iraq is central to the ME and the US isnt going to let it become an Islamic republic, period.

"Furthermore, a war with Iran, preferrable initiated as the result of a major domestic 'terrorist' attack, would satisfy any number of needs of the beleaguered Bush Admin. It would i) rekindle flagging 'patriotic' spirit among Bush supporters, ii) silence Congress into submission, iii) take attention off the debacle in Iraq, and iv) help innoculate Bush against possible impeachment action should the Democrats get back control of Congress this November."

The American people wont go for it this time and neither will congress unless Iran does something truly alarming. (like say, closing the strait of Hormuz) In that case, the US would likely have some EU coalition partners to help finance the venture.  

"Boy, there are guys watching too much Fox Channel"

And there are guys who would rather raise alarmist cries and talk about how the US is on the verge of defeat rather than face the reality that an economic and military superpower occupying a big, oil rich nation like Iraq for nearly 3 years with only ~2k casualties is a 'success' by any Imperialist metric. If the Iraqis really want the US to leave, their going to have to kill about ten times that amount of US soldiers.  

Oh look:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4610636.stm

US President George W Bush has said he wants to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis through peaceful means.

I think there's a difference between outright lying and acting on shitty 'intelligence'. Renember, almost all Western nations as well as the Clinton Administration were convinced beyond shadow of doubt that Iraq had WMD.

What this shows me is that Bush is content to continue to allow the EU 3 to deal with Iran, in order to give them a chance to show how 'enlightened' Europe can defuse the situation and how military attacks are not needed. With all the criticism from France and Germany over Iraq, I think Bush is thinking 'Ok boys, lets see if you can do it a better way'.

The British memo was leaked to cover their own asses for allegedly forging the Niger documents.

"What is generally agreed upon, a congressional intelligence-committee staff member told me, is that the Niger documents were initially circulated by the British--President Bush said as much in his State of the Union speech--and that "the Brits placed more stock in them than we did." It is also clear, as the former high-level intelligence official told me, that "something as bizarre as Niger raises suspicions everywhere."

"Conclusion 503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. "

From the Butler Report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

Also, the fact that traces of VX and Sarin were found in Iraq indicates that there was a program. Iraq violated the terms of the 91 cease fire repeatedly and some of the EU countries were complicit in the 'oil for food' scandal. Everyone has an agenda.

I already said a few posts back that the reasons for going to war were shaky at best and that the occupation wasnt planned well at all. No reason to dig up and beat dead horses, youre preaching to the choir.

Twilight - I'd like to hope my thoughts turn out true as well. However, any number of things could ignite a big conflict in the ME. Israel striking Iran, a big terror attack in Israel, anything. I think the Iranian president is a nutter and I think Israel would like nothing more than to annihilate the nuclear facilities. I dont think the EU 3 are going to leverage any of their diplomacy with threat of force, which is the only language the Mullahs understand. So I think we'll see a long, drawn out diplomatic impasse unless Israel decides to take their chances with an assault soon. I honestly do not think for a moment the US is going to do it this time, especially by itself, or with only the Israelis beside them.

I lean toward the idea that there won't be military action against Iran. 1)The US land forces in Iraq are near breaking point.The second half of this year is suppposed to be when  their condition becomes irrecoverable. 2)The insurgency is currently 'limited' to the Sunnis; the US position in Iraq would be at real risk of becoming untenable if some of the Shi'ites launched their own insurgency at the request of/out of sympathy for Iran. Remember that it was Sistani's implict threat to join hostilities that won Bush over to the idea of a democractic Iraq. 3) There would be a risk of the Iranians attempting to infiltrate Iraq with covert forces on seek and destroy missions.  It's difficult to say whether or not this would develop into a long term camapign. 4)The Iranians could harry gulf shipping and mine the Straits of Hormuz, a vital oil chokepoint, strangling supplies. Again, it's hard to know if these disruptions would be long term. 5) The price of oil would in any case rocket and stay high throughout the ensuing conflict. There might also be damage to mid-East oil production/transportation facilities 6)Iran would probably retaliate through missile strikes against Mid East US military targets and Israeli cities. 7)There's no real guarantee that US/Israeli airstrikes would actually take-down the nuclear programme, given that its sensibly subterranean and scattered.

Yes, the noises are ominous, if not bloody frightening, but I think that the risks attached are enough to deter any US-Israeli adventurism.

Iran is clearly a worrying and dangerous flashpoint, probably the most obvious one on the 2006 horizon. Given that, it is likely to be handled with extreme care by 'rational' nations - I include the US amongst them though that could easily change if a major terrorist attack occurs on US mainland or interests overseas.

For about 6 months I've been troubled by the feeling that things could go seriously wrong in that part of the world, also directly associated with Israel, in about late March 2006. The splitting of Likud and consequent Israeli election date of 28th March increased my concern. However, Sharon's stroke and other developments seem to have reduced the possibility from around 50% to maybe 25% so, hopefully, a direct conflict between Israel / USA and Iran will not occur.

From my (perhaps distorted) perspective I see considerable similarities between GW Bush and Ahmadinejad (Iranian president):

• both were elected courtesy of religious extremists and derive considerable support from that constituency
  
• both are viewed poorly by perhaps more rational sectors in their countries
  
• both demonize their external enemies
  
• their mainstream media provide poor coverage of events and views outside their country
  
• both are losing support within other sectors of their governments

Is what Ahmadinejad is saying really any different than Bush and his axis of evil rhetoric which tarred Iran?

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. However, it's hard to disagree with the conclusion of one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, that Iran would be insane not to develop them, surrounded by hostile and threatening nuclear powers, including the global superpower --which ... has a history in Iran that Iranians are unlikely to sweep under the rug as is done here.

(Noam Chomsky, well worth a read, here: http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/ahmadinejad_iranian_nuclear_weapons/  )

IMO Iran has a valid case for developing nuclear power. It also has an arguable case for having nuclear weapons while Israel has them (though I think Israel's case is more justifiable). Few outside Iran and parts of the Islamic world would be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons while they elect presidents / governments, like Ahmadinejad, with apparently dangerous views - but that argument could be made against other countries, too ;)

The case for a strike against Iran in the short term (within the next 3 years) is a poor one, its downside risks are much worse than the downside risks of continuing diplomacy. Consensus seems to be that it would take 3 to 10 years for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, much can change in Iran, USA and world, during that time.

I'm not sure how much the proposed non US$ oil bourse in Tehran (opening in March 2006) might be influencing US policy. Some argue it will cause problems for the US$, some argue that effect would be trivial. I think it will have some effect but mostly symbolic, but more important is what the US administration thinks.

The holding of huge amounts of US$ financial assets by foreign individuals, countries, corporations, is a serious imbalance and potential problem. It is most likely to become an actual problem due to other events, but at such time it will become a very serious real problem for the US. At some future point several years hence China will probably wish to destabilize the US$ by selling its US$ reserves but meantimes will diversify a little with the vast amounts of US$ flowing into China from its US trade surplus. Paradoxically this may mean that China keeps its US$ holdings static or slightly increasing so that it has a sufficiently powerful lever for the future.

Jim Willie has just done a wide ranging article covering oil and energy supplies, recent Chinese energy supply contracts, potential ensuing conflicts. It's very well worth reading for a global overview of important recent energy developments and possible future energy / geopolitical trends:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2006/0113.html

So, in conclusion on the Iran situation, I think and hope Bush and other world leaders are wise enough to avoid this escalating into overt military conflict. If conflict happens there would be an immediate spike in oil prices of close to 50%, where the price goes after that would be dependent on how the conflict pans out but the odds are it would result in at least a short term shortfall of global supply.

I would look elsewhere in the mid east for conflict in the coming year, Syria seems to be coming up fast on the rails.

One of our brilliant sources makes a very sage observation: Don't be surprised by war with Iran around the time of the dark moon this month.
http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Lunar cycles January 2006.
http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/

btw ... fwiw Iran was reported to have received 3 stolen nukes in the 1991 period (CIA report via Time Magazine back int eh mid 90's) and another 6 to 9 in the 1995-98 period so they may already be a "nuclear power".
http://mutters.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=3596&st=0

Keep in mind that Buehler reported on the phone that these guys have nukes.
http://www.prosefights.org/baltimoresun/shanebowman.htm

You guys just don't "get it". First: The Iranians are playing ball. HARD BALL! Second: The Iranians are not interested in "appeasing us" or the US" either. Third: The Iranians did not destabilize the US government nor support a United States "Shah" for 20 or so years. Forth: The Iranians are not the ones with ongoing military actions in Mexico, Canada or Bermuda. Fifth: The Iranians have never invaded a forign country to acquire oil. Sixth: China buys 20% of its oil from Iran. Seventh: Iran buys basically 100% of its military supplies from Russia. Eigth: Boycotts DO NOT work on countries that DO NOT buy 100% of their manufactured goods, plastic kitchenwares and cheap knitted sweaters, baby clothes and T-shirts from China and especially those countries that have their own energy sources securly locked up. Ninth: Doesn't anybody read the financial websites? The foreign banks have already dumped a lot of USD. Why do you think the Euro stopped going down (.82 USD) then headed up (1.35 USD)? Do you think Europe started producing more. Hell I live here. Nobody increased nothing! We're just living on the increase in the Euro's we were basically forced to accept to begin with. Now we see the brilliance in that operation. You want links as "evidence"... Fine try http://www.saxobank.com or any foreign currency site where they give commentary on the money exchange markets. Tenth: Iran did not invade anyone under the pretext of pure lies. Scott Ridder knew and told everyone who would listen that there was nothing going on in Iraq. He was there as a weapons inspector and should have had some clue. George had never been out of the US and everyone believes him???? Eleventh: The Iranians never gave nuclear weapons to Castro. Twelve: The US military can not even remember as far back as North Korea, Viet Nam, Somilia, Afganistan and last week in Iraq and some idiot is saying they learned their lessons and know how to deal with Iran??? OK lets see YOUR "evidence link"! Thirteenth: The US Strategic Oil Reserve has a supply that will last about 20 days if its not too cold in New York and Chicago. That's gonna' get you all through a crisis. Man, the SPR is a threat only to the New York Stock Exchange! Fourteen: Somebody doesn't think the US Administration is foolish? He/she obviously hasn't been outside of the US lately, maybe even ever in their life. Fifteen: Somebody is on the right track, but still missed the boat. China is trying to lock up mideast oil. Don't you remember they tried to buy Unical? Guess where they have a lot of reserves...Azerbaijan. They were trying to buy the reserves right out from under BP-Amoco's nose. BP is counting on filling the Baku-Tablisi-Ceyhan 1million BBL/day pipeline with Caspian oil. The US Government squashed that, saying they "could not tollerate a foreign company mixing in with such an important US domestic market." What a laugh! Its strategic man, not domestic. China wound up buying a Canadian oil company, also with reserves around the Caspian. On I just can't waste any more time on this, but I'll leave with these thoughts, 1.) What the US can use as a threat is refusing to repay its loans to international holders of US Government Bonds. (Of course that will be likely to affect some domestic holders.) 2.) The US can increase trade restrictions against China and Japan. (Of course that will raise prices in the US as potential manfacturers struggle to renovate their lost production capacity and rehire lower wage workers. 3.) The US can invade Iran. (Of course unilaterally at great cost both politically and economically. The true cost of the Iraq war was recently estimated to amount to the trillions. Can you afford another one.) 4.) China does not have to "call back" its treasury bonds. It can sell them on the open market. They have more than pleanty to tide them over the low prices that would create havoic in the US and make oil instantly UNAFFORDABLE even for the richest Americans. China is under US pressure to increase their currency value so they are facing a loss on their USD reserves in either case, but used as even a temporary strategic weapon would spell immediate disaster in "capital" letters for the US economy. In the meantime, they can comfortably increase market share in India, Japan and Europe. 5.) China (and Japan) is/are facing a loss of wealth in US Dollar denominated US Government Bonds in the future, just as over the past 5 years they have taken a 50% loss in the value of their Dollar denominated assets as measured against the Euro and Gold for example. Until the 60 billion USD foreign trade imbalance and the US Government Domestic Budget Deficit come into line, foreign bond holders will continue to eye the Euro and Gold as more valuable investments. Have you looked at the price of gold over the last five years? The Chinese hold US dollar assets not because they "NEED" to, its because they "HAVE" to, from an economists perspective. But please note that they would NOT need to from a military strategist's perspective. If they are willing to accept a loss in USD denominated assets, they are free to do so. What would happen if Saudi Arabia stopped buying Boeing 787's? Do you think the Saudis have found Boeing so technically superior to Airbus or they simply don't want to buy from Air Bus??? The Saudi's have USD because they sell oil in USD. The Saudis have to pay extra just on commissions to change USD to Euros, then buy Airbus on top of that. The US Government is pretty much forcing them to buy Boeing in an all out attempt to keep the USD propped up. Qatar however I note is buying Airbus. The question is, Will Americans accept a loss in the value of the USD. Will Americans like having the world refer to the new bills as the, 'United States of America Peso". And China IS NOT the only creditor nation the US has. Did somebody forget about Japan? I think there is something like about 3.5 or 4 Trillion USD out there now. If its 4 trills, at 4.5 % simple interest per year, thats equal to an 1800 USD/year bill for an average American family of 2.8 persons IN INTEREST ALONE with nothing going back to pay down the loans. Americans Wake up! The tables have turned. You can do NOTHING now. You have no diplomatic options. Who talks turkey with an idiot? You only have the nuclear option! Therefore, You are the world's defacto terrorists. A former American and proud of it.

SO IF YOU WANT TO GET IT TOO, READ ON

Sadaam got knocked off because he was going to start selling oil for Euros instead of US Dollars.  He had already changed over 10 billion of US Dollars in his UN Oil for Food reserves for Euros, EVEN THOUGH THE EURO WAS GOING DOWN AT THE TIME!  When did  the Euro start to go up, you ask?  Same time Sadaam exchanged his account.

Why is the Iran issue coming up now?  They supposedly don't have nuclear weapons yet and probably won't for another 5 years.  North Korea DOES supposedly have about 5 nukes right now at this very moment, but are they the topic today?  Hell no!

Iran will START SELLING OIL for EUROS on 20 March 2006!  Just a month and a bit left.  Expect "something" to happen before then.  In the meantime, buy Euros, gold, gasoline, water, canned beans and whatever else someone will sell you for worthless US Dollars.

This is hardball.

Now do you "GET IT" too?  If you're still having trouble, ask George Bush Sr.

In October the Gold price track broke away from the Euro, probably under at least a temporary unsustainable high pressure economic force of some kind. Interestingly, after a sharp downspike in the price of oil, which has since resumed its climb as well as the Euro having gained some in value. I believe the catylist was the record US foreign trade deficient which reached over 2 billion US Dollars per DAY, which has reduced slightly since then, but really hasn't noticably slowed down very much at all. I think that the US Dollars that were previously used to buy Euros started moving from buying Euros and moved directly into buying Gold. Perhaps it was also oil trading money that came out of oil and went to gold. Whatever caused it, there's a lotta' people and probably some foreign government banks behind it. Looks like all pressures are back on full up for the Euro so get ready to ride a series of strong updrafts while the USD goes into a long painful downward spiral OR USD intrest rates skyrocket. The alternative is to get out of your USD denominated assets, especially those with variable interest rates attached to them right away... now!

mqk1 mqk2 mqk3 mqk4 mqk5 mqk6 mqk7 mqk8 mqk9 mqk10 mqk11 mqk12 mqk13 mqk14 mqk15 mqk16 mqk17 mqk18 mqk19 mqk20 mqk21 mqk22 mqk23 mqk24 mqk25 mqk26 mqk27 mqk28 mqk29 mqk30 mqk31 mqk32 mqk33 mqk34 mqk35 mqk36 mqk37 mqk38 mqk39 mqk40 mqk41 mqk42 mqk43 mqk44 mqk45 mqk46 mqk47 mqk48 mqk49 mqk50 mqk51 mqk52 mqk53 mqk54 mqk55 mqk56 mqk57 mqk58 mqk59 mqk60 mqk61 mqk62 mqk63 mqk64 mqk65 mqk66 mqk67 mqk68 mqk69 mqk70 mqk71 mqk72 mqk73 mqk74 mqk75 mqk76 mqk77 mqk78 mqk79 mqk80 mqk81 mqk82 mqk83 mqk84 mqk85 mqk86 mqk87 mqk88 mqk89 mqk90 mqk91 mqk92