Well first off, all the generals have learned the lesson of Iraq, which is you can't hold population centers. So the first order of business would be to get Iran to do something REALLLLY STUPID,, like cutting off oil to the west. This would be a political action, but would be required to carry out any successful invasion of Iran. The reason being, is that if we invade Iran, with the ultimate goal of disarming Iran, and implanting an Iraqi style government, it would be doomed to failure, and Bush and all the gererals know this. BUT, if the ultimate goal is to "restore the free flow of oil to world", then you have an achievable goal.

So right off the bat, the invasion of Iran will be an invasion to restore Iranian oil output, not an invasion to free it's people.

So after a lot of study of Iranian oil field locations, Oil pipeline and NG gas pipeline location, and looking at population densities and locations, I come to the very easy conclusion, that the areas surrounding the bulk of the Iranian oil infrastucture is relatively free of people and major cities.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_major_oilfields78.jpg

Looking at the Mid-East map

You realize that Iran is SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES, by areas controlled by the U.S. Iraq and Kuwait on one side. On the Other side you have Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on the other, Turkey. The only open sides faces Turkmenistan, which to be honest, I'm not sure which way they would turn in the event of an invasion. But my guess, is that in the next few months you'll start to hear more about them.

And most importantly The United Arab Emirates are directly across the straights of hormuz from Iran. And Dubai(remember that), is home to most of the US Gulf regions naval forces.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_pol01.jpg

So here is a look at the way I would cut off the rest of Iran, from it's oil fields. I would bring armor across from Iraq, and then bring light armor across the Straights of Hormuz. There would be a feignt of some sort towards the capital of Tehran, forcing much of Iran's heavy infantry and armor to form up around Tehran. But they would swing into Iran, and then head down towards the oil fields. Coming up from the Straights of Hormuz, would be the light armor, which would quickly cut the major roads leading into the Iranian Oil patch. With air cover from carriers, and the bombers from Abu Dabai, and Diego Garcia. You would be looking at a complete wipeout of Iranian defenses in that area quite quickly. With land based fighters coming in from Afghanistan, and Iraq, you could quickly plunge Iran into a "dark age". And any attempt to move armor from The south down to the oil patch would be met with pounding air power, just like the road of death in Iraq from the first gulf war. A-10 warthogs prowling the sky, looking for anything on the road to blow up.. Most of the oil pipelines leading to the North and to Tehran would be immediately cut. Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.

I would think the initial invasion portion would require less than 50 thousand troops, and pretty much all available naval airpower and Air Force bomber protection in the area. Things like the converted C130 Gunship would have to be in the area. It would take less than 2 weeks to militarily pacify the area, and then you could move into defensive mode. Which as any good tactician will tell you, is much easier. If you have a clearly defined area to protect, it's much harder on the invader than it is you. And in this case Iran would become the invading force not us. Once we have that foothold with no plans to expand outward to conquer the whole country, there will be no need for us to pacify an entire country. If you look at the resource maps of the middle east, with this move we would be in contol of all mid-east oil. From the Kirkuk fields of Iraq all the way through Southern Iran and the straights of Hormuz, accross and down through Dubai, the UAE and into Saudi Arabia.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_population_density_2004.jpg

Check and Mate

Robert NW Ohio

1. The booze is running out, but we'll come up with even better booze
   
2. The booze won't be enough, but we'll drink coke instead
   
3. The booze will be over, but we'll drink less
   
4. The booze is almost over, we'll have to kill each other so there is enough for all
   
5. The booze is over, the world is over, best thing to do is just shoot ourselves

I think you are falling into the trap of viewing the potential conflict between the US/Israel and Iran strictly in tactical military terms. This is one of the reasons the Bush regime screwed up so badly in Iraq. In that debacle the US has not lost a single 'battle' with the insurgents, but in spite of all our awesome military might, they are still there and appear to be getting stronger, while our problems are growing. Now why is that?

I have little doubt that the US military could attack Iran and split off a small chunk of the country, such as that oil-rich province everyone has been talking about lately. The real question is: what happens after we do that?  Do you really expect the Iranians to sit back and say "Okay, you win!" I'm sure they know what the US is up to and have several different contingency plans to make our life hell.  

First, I think we can be fairly certain that an attack on Iran (especially if Israel is involved) will result in the largely restrained Shiite militias in Iraq going into full attack mode against the US forces.  One military analyst I've corresponded with also thinks it's not out of the question that the Iranian's would launch a massed infantry attack into Iraq. Though they would suffer  massive casualties, it would tie down US forces for quite a while and plunge Iraq into total chaos. He also fears that our lines of communication coming up from Kuwait could be cut and thus leave large concentrations of US troops stranded.

Of course there would also be missile attacks on the Green Zone, US bases, and also probaby against Arab countries friendly to the US such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. How effective these would be is not known.

Then we have the problem of protecting the super tanker traffic going into and out of the Persian Gulf. It is not good enough for the US to secure the Strait of Hormuz.  Most of the Iranian coast has rugged terrain perfect for the concealment of mobile anti-ship missiles.  Even super tankers hugging the Arabian side of the Gulf would be mostly within range. It's hard to picture a moving target that's easier to hit than a super tanker.  Just one super tanker sinking would send world oil markets into total panic.

Nor are our aircraft carrier battle groups safe from the same sort of attacks. Regardless of a protective cordon on missile frigates, etc, just one or two cruise missile hits on the deck of a super carrier would so materially degrade its ability to continue its mission as to effectively take it out of action. If we do attack Iran, expect our carrier battle groups to leave the Gulf and take up a safer position way beyond the other side of the Strait of Hormuz.

Then we come to the biggest potential danger, and it is one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'battlefield'. And that is the reaction of the rest of the muslim world. Pakistan is a particular worry. Musharref is hanging onto power by his fingernails, and If the US/Israel attacks Iran, I think he is toast. Then what happens to Pakistan's nukes? And what if a country like Venezuela refuses to send oil to the US? What about a major oil embargo by countries furious at what the US has done?  It will be a total mess.

Of course, Iran will have its oil fields and related infrastructure all set up for demolition should it appear that the US will gain control. You can count on a total scorched earth policy, much like the Russians did with both Napoleon and Hitler.  It would probably take years to get Iran's oil back up to pre-war production.

No, if you thought that Iraq was a cake walk, wait'll see Iran!

Some people are structurally incapable of learning from their mistakes, and unfortunately many of them occupy high positions in the Bush regime.

The graphs on crude, gasoline & nat'l gas all show that we are well above the 5-yr channels.  Again illustrating the unlikelihood of sustained price spiking.

http://trendlines.ca/economic.htm#USAReserves

There will be both a new monthly extraction record & new quarterly global production record in 2006Q2.

Go to: http://eia.doe.gov/ and click on "This Week in Petroleum" over at the right, under "Publications and Reports". This should take you to http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

The second paragraph starts off, "As EIA predicted in its February 15 edition of This Week in Petroleum," with "This Week in Petroleum" highlighted as a link.

Click that link!

It takes me here:

http://looneytunes.warnerbros.com/stars_of_the_show/tasmanian_devil/taz_story.html

which is a page about Taz, the Tazmanian Devil star of the Looney Tunes cartoon show.

This is using Firefox, maybe it is specific to that browser. But not exactly something you expect to see on an official U.S. Government Department of Energy web site!

It really isn't a good idea to attack Iran. Mainly because we don't know how they will react. Wars, nasty things that they are, have a habit of surprising us and getting out of hand!

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq. It's population is far bigger than Iraq's. It hasn't been subject to seige like Iraq was. Iraq was a country vertually on it's knees prior to the invasion. Iran is far stronger than Iraq was. Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are very well organised, resilient and disciplined. It would be fatal to underestimate them.

One could not expect them to sit back and allow the United States to occupy their oil fields without a fight. The Iranians are Shias. The majority ethnic group in Iraq are also Shias. The Shia politicians in Iraq have, almost to a man, the closest imaginable links with Iran. Links of culture, religion and politics. An attack on Shia Iran would be rightly seen as an attack on Shia Iraq too. I believe the Shia would rise up in their millions, in a revolt that would make the current Suni resistance seem like tea-party! They could overrun the American army in Iraq or at the least cause massive casualties. What do we do then - nuke them?

One of the problems is, we've empowered Iran, by destroying Iran's great foe, Saddam and his Sunni army and his secular state. We've replaced it with a Shia pro-Iranian theoracy allied with Iran. This would be almost funny if it wasn't so disasterous.

Now, it seems the US, having finally realised this, now wants to change horses in mid-stream, by dumping the Shia and supporting the traditional ruling-class the Sunis! The American ambassador in Iraq has been trying for over three months to reverse the results of the Iraqi election, by calling for a government of national unity. This means giving power to the Sunis at the expense of the Shia who won the election! Naturally the Shia say no, we won the elsection why should we share power with the Suni minority?

The whole thing is a complicated mess. We've opened up Pandora's Box and we haven't a clue how to go forward. But how do we stop the conflict in Iraq spreading and escalating into a full regional conflict? With Shia states and Suni states getting dragged in? It is going to be difficult, requiring a level of intelligence, sophistication, knowledge and luck, which I don't believe the current Bush administration has.

I recon the administration is split about what to do. Pulling out of Iraq is a really big defeat, worse than Vietnam in my opinion because the stakes are higher. Maybe Iraq would fall apart even if we pull out? We've destroyed so much in Iraq that maybe it simply can't be put back together again. This of course would be disasterous for the region and somebody would have to step in and restore order. Who would that be?

The alternative to cutting and running is escalation. Sending hundreds of thousands of extra troops and before that even attacking Iran and smashing the emerging Shia super-state. Clearly escalation and another war with an unknown outcome is also fraught with danger for the US. I wouldn't want to go there! Will desparation on the part of the Bush administration be the deciding factor. I know some of you will talk about Bush bashing etc. However, it's valid in this case because after all they got us into this mess and they chose to destroy Iraq as functioning state.

The whole situtation reminds me of Shakespeare's play Macbeth. Towards the end when Macbeth is surrounded by his enemies and he knows the game is up, he ponders his choices. None of them are good. Macbeth seas himself standing up to his waist in a rever of blood. What should he do, go backwards, go backwards to what? He can't undue all the killing he's done. Should he wade forward towards certain defeat? What a choice to have to make. Macbeth, being a tragic hero and a brilliant soldier, decides to keep his armour on pick up his trusty sword, and go forward across the river of blood to face his foes like a man face to face and go down fighting and take as many of his enemies with him on the way! I really wish we could send Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out on the same mission and leave the rest of us out of it!

But seriously, I don't know how you can have intelligent people gathered together and not eventually get into the 911 discussion/debate. It was a watershed event that must never be forgotten. OOOPS... maybe I just committed a "hate/thought" crime by borrowing the "never forget" mantra!

Its very refreshing to have people thinking and have a good number of them questioning authority and the official "party line".

In some distant land many years ago, these same people would have surely filled the ranks of the gulags.

1.  In the oil producing area of Iran (the Southwest), the dominant population is Arab not Persian.  And they aren't happy with Persian domination.

2.  Iran's plan to block the Strait is not to use regular naval ships, but small fast boats loaded with 1 or 2 mines.  But they have hundreds of them.  In 6 hours, the Strait is blocked for months.

3.  The Israelis have subs in the Indian Ocean loaded with cruise missles, both conventional and nuclear.

Is it possible to interconnect the energy grid so that demand is able to be met throughout the entire world and no electricity is wasted?  I don´t think we(the world) would go for it because of security, however I am still curious of whether constructing a worldwide grid is possible/inexpensive to implement and would it produce surplus/cheap electricity?

Where else can it go? Why all the preparation? Why all the commotion? We've been there before, haven't we?

One other thing is clear: it will be disastrous. The empire failed to instill shock awe in Iraq even though it clearly intended to. What can it do to restore credibility by instilling it this time? This is what is truly horrendous to contemplate.

-------------------------------------
WORLD TRADE CENTER

There is no precedent for the burning and collapse of the high-rise steel-framed World Trade Center towers and neighboring 7 World Trade Center.
This catastrophe will alter building design and municipal building codes.
-------------------------------------

Posted above the fire hydrant in the fire fighting display room on the ground floor of the Museum of the City of New York, seen after I put out a fire in the adjoining men's room.

Open threads (and others, LOL) often drift off into very active sub-threads about current hot subjects or issues that arise. The increased activity at TOD makes individual topics a bit unwieldy. I suggest some possible solutions:

• Start specific topics as need arises
  
• Have open 'suggested topic' threads for ideas for the above
  
• When specific threads get too big create follow on threads
  
• Provide edited in links to prior and follow on threads in the headers of topic specific threads
  
• Ask posters to stay on topic within specific threads
  

Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit.

This is hotter than the interior of our Sun, which is about 15 million degrees Kelvin, and also hotter than any previous temperature ever achieved on Earth, they say.

They don't know how they did it.

(Why on The Oil Drum - here's the payoff)

One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma's ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.

(Interesting, over unity....somehow)

Well the program is surfacing now:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

over on the very left hand side for "Coming Up" it has:

We Were Warned: Tomorrow's oil crisis
Saturday, March 18 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET

It won't be until next week that we will get more details about the program.

Just as well it didn't run in Feb - that could have been during the Olympics.

There is discussion of the program here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/01/sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: All right, Frank. Give us a preview, though. You've been doing a lot of digging into this story.

SESNO: That's right.

BLITZER: We're a nation addicted to oil, according to the president.

What have you learned?

SESNO: Deeply addicted. OK? And here in United States alone, we burn nearly 21 million barrels of oil a day. That's 25 percent of total world consumption.

Sixty percent of it, nearly 60 percent of it is now imported. The president was talking about that. We're using more every year.

So we have been looking into some of the technology that might get us past all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SESNO (voice-over): First, hydrogen vehicles. In Detroit, I saw GM Sequel, an amazing piece of technology. No internal combustion engine at all, hydrogen creates power to turn an electric motor. But it would cost you $1 million today, and hydrogen isn't close to commercially available, so this one's way down the road.

A better bet, fuel from plants, leaves and agriculture trash. This is cellulose ethanol. We saw them making it from wheat straw at a demonstration plant we visited in Canada.

It's not made in the U.S. yet. But there's promise here, and Detroit is actually making some flex fuel vehicles that can run on a mix of 85 percent ethanol, just 15 percent gasoline.

Plug-in technology could take hybrids to maybe 100 miles a gallon. The rechargeable battery takes you the first 35 miles or so, then regular hybrid technology takes over. It's not available yet, the batteries need work, and hybrids are more expensive.

By the way, there is new oil out there, unconventional oil it's called. I visited Canada's oil sands. They have 57,000 square miles of them, putting Canada right behind Saudi Arabia in oil.

They don't pump this stuff. They mine it, then extract oil from the sand. A million barrels a day. It could be three million a day in 10 years.

But here's some perspective. World demand, driven by the U.S. and now China and others, is predicted to leap by 30 million barrels a day.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SESNO: So, Wolf, you can see that even with all of this promising technology -- and there's some great stuff out there in the pipeline, if you'll pardon the pun -- it -- we're in a race. We're in a race against world consumption. It's going to require a major national commitment, a major global commitment to get past the era of oil.

BLITZER: the president's critics are already saying what was thunderously missing in his speech last night on this subject was a call for conservation, for lowering the temperature, you're getting higher mileage cars, all of that kind of stuff.

What do you make of that?

SESNO: Well, it really was very interesting. It was glaring by its absence.

You know, we have talked to a lot of people, CEO of oil companies. We talked to John Brown, the CEO of BP. What does BP call itself now? Beyond Petroleum.

And folks over at Chevron who say the era of cheap oil is over, they all say we have to have conservation, much more efficient usage as a key part. There are three parts of this if you're going to get beyond this oil crisis that we're at right now: major new extraction, pull out what we can, major new technology. The president talked about that, and a major push on conservation.

You can find more stuff by googling "We were warned" and "oil".  The thing was screened on Monday at GMU:

http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/7978/
http://www.broadsideonline.com/article.php?date=03-06-2006&section=news&article=sesno.txt

I will repost this in the next open thread - people probably won't notice it here.

This week an Angry Reader Writes:

"I hope it does hit Fast and Hard
and in one year (homoSap)is BK and wondering what happened.

That sound mean etc - but the fact is That Much faster we stop the waste by Critters like him - unnecessary parasites left over from the Golden Age of Delusion.

Honest to godzain'tMighty - I'm not "ready" either but I want it now and I want it as hard as mother can make it.

No more having to play pretend or have to try to convince deliberately ignorant morons (hens or cocks guarding nest or picking Daily Lint furiously) anymore -

THERE you want proof you dumb motherfuckers - THERE now you have proof.  Go eat your credit card dumb fucks all."

----------------

((( ...Mother says, "You betcha baby, you betcha, just let me rinse off here first little onezzz..."  )))

Excerpts are here.