The British think it's coming
(Telegraph) "Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt...."
(Guardian) "The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning."
(Both of these are very speculative, but very interesting reads.)
Later, Wes Clark does a little speculating on the Iran war on the WaPo editorial page.
And: (Telegraph) "Move troops to Iran border, Brown told.
(Observer) A speculation that Israel's attack on Syria was a "dry run" for Iran.
If nothing else, the drumbeat is growing. Do you feel it?
(Guardian) "The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning."
(Both of these are very speculative, but very interesting reads.)
Later, Wes Clark does a little speculating on the Iran war on the WaPo editorial page.
And: (Telegraph) "Move troops to Iran border, Brown told.
(Observer) A speculation that Israel's attack on Syria was a "dry run" for Iran.
Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.
If nothing else, the drumbeat is growing. Do you feel it?
12 Comments:
Yep. Looks like another war nobody will win....except the arms industry.
By Anonymous, at 9:17 AM
Yeah, this would be a Raytheon war. Missiles, jets, smart bombs. Big money.
By mikevotes, at 11:01 AM
The British think it's coming
And are getting the hell outa there!
By Anonymous, at 11:26 AM
"Yeah, this would be a Raytheon war"
For the first week... Shock and Awe, baby. Shock and Awe.
By -epm, at 11:34 AM
Why wouldn't Bush attack Iran? Because it would be unpopular? He's shown he doesn't care about that. Shattering the Iranian military would be his "legacy". No ground campaign, just air strikes and naval shelling. It's too easy for him to pass up.
Israel will do the same thing to Syria, and we'll undoubtedly lend a hand there, too. Again, just air strikes and shelling, probably on "suspected terror groups", but really on the whole military infrastucture. Olmert is already at 3% in the polls. What has he got to lose? He needs a "legacy", too, after the invasion of Southern Lebanon went so badly. The lesson is "ground war bad, air war good".
By Todd Dugdale , at 12:55 PM
Kvatch, yeah, how much good would their 5,500 troops do stranded down there in the 5 million strong Shia stronghold.
...
EPM, at least in the first wave.
....
Todd, that "wanting to do something before the end of the term" mantra is growing, but I would dispute the idea that it would be clean or easy.
The Iranians have a whole lot of ways to get back, and a US attack would likely galvanize the country around the current leadership.
I think that's a very interesting point regarding a "division of labor" with the Israelis going after the Syrians. Because of their long joint conflicts over Lebanon and the territories, it wouldn't be seen as one sided or provocative in the region as an Israeli attack on Iran.
On the other hand, the perception of a joint US/Israeli operation would have big blowback on the US because it would reinforce the perception of the US Israeli relationship more than anything done since the support in the wars 40 years ago.
By mikevotes, at 1:11 PM
"it would reinforce the perception of the US Israeli relationship more than anything done since the support in the wars 40 years ago."
And it's supposed to be a big secret?
By Anonymous, at 1:20 PM
No, it's definitely not a secret, but openly conducting war in conjunction with the Israelis is the most blatant possible expression.
By mikevotes, at 4:30 PM
True. I doubt if there'll be much outcry against it.
By Anonymous, at 5:00 PM
I don't know. I would think it would make the "friendly" governments jobs much, much harder.
Saudi, Yemen, even parts of Pakistan and Indonesia.
How could they cooperate without getting beaten at home?
By mikevotes, at 5:57 PM
You are thinking way too far ahead. You wouldn't be much good at invasions.
By Anonymous, at 6:15 PM
No, really, I'm not.
I haven't liked a damn one of them.
By mikevotes, at 9:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home