Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

(1) If the number one enemy in Iraq IS Iran (in the honest appraisal of the American Commanding General and Ambassador on the ground), and

(2) If Iran's overt actions in Iraq are, in truth, again escalating and again costing more and more American and Iraqi lives,

Should the Commanding General, the Ambassador and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs not be allowed to point out this truth -- and indicate that countermeasures were, in all honesty, being considered?

Would such truth-telling not make a diplomatic solution re: Iraq and Iran more viable?

The alternatives would seem to be that (1) everyone is lying or (2) telling the truth to the American people -- and to the people of Iran -- makes a diplomatic solution more difficult?

you missed the point, Bill. it's the overall picture. the more important factors are:

1. the Bush admin has been intent on confrontation from the start
2. there has been little-to-no diplomatic engagement with Iran
3. one of the only people int he admin who was publicly against war with Iran was drummed out

your two call-outs are trivially true in the context of the broader picture.

The brains behind attacking Irag back in 2003 must have thought of attacking Iran as well, otherwise, there will be no peace in the Middle East or the world for decades to come. Iranian nation's psychic have extreme desire to fulfill its desire to recapture "the greatness of the Persia empire" centuries ago. The majority of the Irianian feel that way. After the destruction of the mullahs of Iran, the entire world will live in peace for centuries to come. The U.S. no longer need to protect this world from neurotic/irrational leaders in this world. After the defeat of Iran, this great nation can cut down on defense spening for decades (centuries) to come!

It seems that Bill C. has it correct.

1) After taking our embassy diplomats hostage in 1979, for any US administration to be intent on confrontation with Iran "from the start" makes some sense since Iran commited an act of war against the US in 1979 and continues to do so to this day via proxies

and because 2) "I am convinced, Captain, the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong the engagement" - Mr. Spock ... Diplomacy only works from a position of strength and with no viable military threat against Iran, diplomacy only helps Iran gain strength, WMD's and allies.

Someone is going to need to deal with Iran's regime unless WMD-armed, covert, proxies targeting us here and abroad is preferred.

The biggest danger? Action against Iran getting tangled up with Operation Iraqi Freedom FUNDING by Congress. The best way to lose Congressional funding of OIF, and lose in Iraq, is to expand the war effort into Iran. So, should we just let Iran keep filling our bodies bags?

OK everybody. Rah Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah!

IW forever! ;-)

david: that's crazy talk. Tom believes, and many of us with him, that what the Iranians want, and the Chinese, and all of us, is not some return to former imperial greatness, but a better way of life. if we will engage Iran and tempt their people with globalism, we can break this thing without a hard kill. in fact, Tom believes attacking them will only galvanize them against us when the population generally likes us.

further, there will be, for the forseeable future, the need for a robust American Leviathan and SysAdmin, if nothing else to keep everyone else from reaching for that spot. draw down on those roles and watch nature abhor that vacuum.

Well, I'm going to come at this a little differently Sean. How many times have we seen naval build ups in the Gulf? Yearly, twice yearly some years? Without seeing some more stuff I'm not buying. I don't think we're hitting Iran any time soon. It's just not in the cards. a) Air strikes don't buy us what we want which is an Iran playing ball on increasing security in the region in terms we can handle. b) Air strikes against nuc facilities piss off too many of our kinda-sorta-sometimes allies(like Pak and India), and strikes against training camps and the like fall under the 'hot pursuit' doctrine I think(don't quote, but I'm fairly certain), and so were always on the table and should be. c) We don't have the Joint capabilities to do Iran in a way that doesn't squander what the airpower buys if we want to roll in, depose the Mullahs, and do the Second Half properly. We don't have the forces to do the 1st half properly right now.

I'm just not seeing it. It'd be stupid to do it now. In a year or two when Iraq's got more of it's own forces on line? Sure. Geography sucks, but I could buy that at that time. If there were a coalition formed(two years ago there's supposed to have been a very int'l flotilla, nothing happened). Timing is bad. I'm not buying the line that the 'neocons' are insane and would do anything, even the most ridiculous, simply because they're tools.

Maybe the Doc has some stuff he's heard that he can't talk about, but without that I'm not buying. Too many things are out of place for me to believe it right now---like how much of our stuff's sitting broke because we haven't fixed it.

Not alarmist, just probably wrong. Like the, what, two times Hersch has said attack was immenent. And not bad wrong either. Everyone's wrong once in a while.

ry: i hope Tom's wrong! in my mind, i have been arguing more the overall package in this thread. prediction: Tom will keep sounding the alarm until january and hope there is no attack.

did you see Galrahn's post? http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/fleet-positions-itself-for-war.html

ry,

naval buildups? How about perspective...

Since June 2004, there have been a total of 8 ships deployed to the Persian Gulf that were outside of the usual rotations. 4 were for humanitarian reasons (earthquake in Pakistan), 4 were to provide extra security for the surge in Iraq.

There has never been a "naval buildup" in the Gulf for Iran, its a media myth. Everytime one strike group replaces another, the newspapers run a headline, and within days the numbers flatten back out. Heard about 2 carriers in the gulf recently? The Truman is nearly to the Med on the way home, so much for that "warning" to Iran by Gates, it last a whole day.

David, two sets of questions:
1) Where do you come up with "The majority of the Irianian feel that way."? EVERY people, the US included, has its share of conservative types who dream of a semi-mythical golden age where all was perfect. What reason do you have for thinking the Iranians have more of those types than most?
2) What makes you think that the US's problems go away when Iran goes away?