Odds on a war with Iran before 2013?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The Russian thing sounds pure bullshit, I have to say.  The Russians refuse to condemn Syria, and have made noises about human rights abuses by the rebels there.

I'd suggest bluff...though Turkey has been taking in refugees in large numbers, and the rumour is military defectors are being trained and sent back in to aid the rebel effort.  The Israelis think the Army may move in and set up buffer zones on the Syrian border, and allow the rebels to use those areas as bases for larger-scale assaults...which seems a reasonable conclusion.  The Turks can claim they are merely protecting their borders and protecting refugess per international law, whilst actually carrying out limited military operations to aid the rebels.

Thanks for th more informed view.

On an unrelated note, the American Embassy is very nice, a beautiful campus.

[Cain]

Uncomfirmed rumour

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-from-well-placed-well-informed.html

It appears that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain [monarchy], Kuwait, Oman are lobbying for an IDF (Israeli Defence Force) strike. [since they appear to have failed to persuade the US and Europeans to strike against Iran's nuclear program.]

If there is one thing that the Israelis and Gulf monarchies can agree on, it is that Iran sucks.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Uncomfirmed rumour

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-from-well-placed-well-informed.html

It appears that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain [monarchy], Kuwait, Oman are lobbying for an IDF (Israeli Defence Force) strike. [since they appear to have failed to persuade the US and Europeans to strike against Iran's nuclear program.]

If there is one thing that the Israelis and Gulf monarchies can agree on, it is that Iran sucks.

Would and Israeli attack improve relations between Israel and the other Gulf nations at all? Or would it be, "thanks for bombing Iran, but you still really suck."?

[Cain]

Probably the latter.  Though I'm not too sure how the Sunni monarchies view the Palestinian issue these days.  The relationship could possibly get warmer, though without official acknowledgement.  More likely, the removal of a unifying threat will cause them to have less in common after all, and go back to squabbling.  Israel does have its nuclear arsenal after all, and Saudi Arabia has covertly sought nuclear power before now.  Could be a new arms race, right there.

In the meantime, I don't think we'll see a war until Syria is dealt with.  And the current rumours are that a no-fly zone may be established via the UN, carried out by Turkey, logistically backed by NATO and given diplomatic and financial cover by the Gulf Co-Operation Group.  Take Assad out and cripple Iran's major ally first, before going to war.

[Verbal Mike]

My (perhaps not entirely informed) impression is that most of the Arab countries are basically just fine with Israel and the Palestinian situation, and they make a lot of noise out of it because it is a handy tool in deflecting attention outwards. This is, I think, also exactly the same vice versa, with Israel regarding the regional Arab countries. Iran is, of course, a slightly different story.

Apropos, it's worth noting that the Arab League made a serious peace plan offer to Israel last decade, which was simply ignored.

[Cain]

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/11/target-iran-washingtons-countdown-to.html

The Iranian people know what it means to earn the enmity of the global godfather.

As William Blum documented in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 1953's CIA-organized coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, guilty of the "crime" of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, may have "saved" Iran from a nonexistent "Red Menace," but it left that oil-rich nation in proverbial "safe hands"--those of the brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Similarly today, a nonexistent "nuclear threat" is the pretext being used by Washington to install a "friendly" regime in Tehran and undercut geopolitical rivals China and Russia in the process, thereby "securing" the country's vast petrochemical wealth for American multinationals.

As the U.S. and Israel ramp-up covert operations against Iran, the Pentagon "has laid out its most explicit cyberwarfare policy to date, stating that if directed by the president, it will launch 'offensive cyber operations' in response to hostile acts," according to The Washington Post.

Citing "a long-overdue report to Congress released late Monday," we're informed that "hostile acts may include 'significant cyber attacks directed against the U.S. economy, government or military'," unnamed Defense Department officials stated.

However, Air Force General Robert Kehler, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) told Reuters, "I do not believe that we need new explicit authorities to conduct offensive operations of any kind."

The Pentagon report, which is still not publicly available, asserts: "We reserve the right to use all necessary means--diplomatic, informational, military and economic--to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests."

Washington's "interests," which first and foremost include "securing its hegemony over the energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia" as the World Socialist Web Site observed, may lead the crisis-ridden U.S. Empire "to take another irresponsible gamble to shore up its interests in the Middle East ... as a means of diverting attention from the social devastation produced by its austerity agenda."

Recent media reports suggest however, that offensive cyber operations are only part of Washington's multipronged strategy to soften-up the Islamic Republic's defenses as a prelude to "regime change."

[Cramulus]

Jesus we live in spooky times.

All these actions are a part of Fourth Generation Warfare, no? We're watching the board being set up.

[Cain]

More 5GW, really, but I take your meaning.  There is a really, really large push for taking down Iran coming from so many quarters now.  The leaks of covert action are being reported daily, which of course makes you wonder how much more isn't being reported.  The Mullahs are effectively under seige.

[Elder Iptuous]

Hadn't heard yet about this explosion monday at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant, but this news piece says it was not an accident, according to Israeli intelligence...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-mysterious-blast-in-iran-s-isfahan-damaged-key-nuclear-site-1.398671

these things do seem to be coming with increasing frequency.

[Cain]

Asia Times correspondent Peter Lee has a good piece on Syria

http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/syrian-revolution-hijacked.html

The Syrian revolution—a broad-based, non-sectarian, democratic anti-despot national movement—has failed.

Mass demonstrations never materialized in Damascus and Aleppo. The military and security forces didn't crack. The Alawite on Sunni crackdown (Alawites form the backbone of the army/security forces/irregular goon squads) fomented sectarian divisions, with most non-Sunnis minorities cleaving desperately to the Assad regime. Prosperous Sunnis have presumably been hedging their bets by donating to the anti-government cause in recent days but have not explicitly abandoned the regime.

The Gulf powers and the West would have welcomed a Ba'athist regime collapse at the hand of domestic anti-government demonstrations.

That didn't happen.

As the peaceful democratic movement has faltered, there has been no move from the Western/Gulf powers to encourage reconciliation and reforms.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

[deadfong]

Kicking all the Iranian diplomats out of Britain - I'm wondering if this is a sign that the situation with Iran is a lot closer to a shooting war than I previously thought?  I mean, I doubt the British government could engineer the looting of their own embassy in order to provide a pretext for further isolating the Iranian government, but since it did happen, are they capitalizing on it to move up the timetable toward more overt action?

(Slightly off-topic, why is it always "college students" who loot Western embassies in non-Western countries?  Does anyone actually believe that?)

[Cain]

It was fairly obvious, however, that putting Iran under banking sanctions (the importance of which I explained earlier) would provoke an extreme reaction in the Iranian government.  It was deliberate provocation, in addition to attempting to undermine the regime's ability to fight a war.  That reaction was almost certainly expected and prepared for.  The FCO is one of the most intelligent and forward thinking of all British government offices...I'd like to hear what the Tehran Embassy thought in the days leading up to and just after the economic sanctions were declared.  Unfortunately, I don't have friends quite that high up in the Foreign Office.

Also no, no-one believes it was college students, unless they are all studying at "Tehran Paramilitary College".

The Russian reaction is going to be the one to watch for.  China is willing to throw Iran under a bus, but Russia has invested a lot more in the regime, and will likely offer expertise and arms...and probably loan the Iranian government the money to buy them, too.

[Cain]

Russia has reacted...and in a most unusual manner, also

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16210330

Russia has circulated a UN Security Council resolution aimed at resolving the crisis in Syria, in a move that surprised the Western nations.

The draft condemns the violence by both Syria's government and the opposition, but does not mention sanctions.

Western nations said the proposal was not tough enough but that they were prepared to work on the document.

The West has been pushing the council to act on Syria for months, but Russia - and China - vetoed such proposals.

Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the document urged an end to the violence, but did not mention any sanctions.

"The reaction of colleagues in the Security Council was very constructive," he said.

"They made a number of comments as to the text... and we said that we were looking forward to working with them, in order to adopt a text, a resolution of the security council, which will really bring about an end to violence and crisis in Syria."

The draft demands that "all parties" in Syria stop violence.

But it also includes a new reference to "disproportionate use of force by Syrian authorities", in what is seen by some analysts as toughening of Moscow's position towards Damascus.

The document also "urges the Syrian government to put an end to suppression of those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association".

Western diplomats said the current draft did not fully reflect the gravity of the human rights situation in Syria, but added that they would negotiate on the text.

In short, Russia is pushing for regime reforms, in hopes of preventing complete revolution.  Gosh, I wonder where they could have gotten such an idea from?

The problem is, Western governments (or rather, the "permanent party" of think tank creatures, military contractors, bankers, the Israel Lobby, intelligence agencies and so on that are embedded within the democratic political structure) are intent on revolution.

However, this could be the kind of warning shot that would make Assad scale down his violence and perhaps consider reforms.  I don't think that would actually stop the rebels by this point, but it would then legitimise a Russian backing of the government should the rebels break any terms of cease-fire or be seen as the belligerent party.  And Russian arms and expertise would certainly counter the influence of Ankara and Doha in Syria.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Quick question, Cain. Based on operation - pull out of Iraq by xmas. What is the most cost-effective use of those middle east assets? I was wondering if redeploying somewhere else sandy, nearby would be a lot cheaper than bringing them home and then maybe having to send them all the way back there in a years time. (no idea how these things work, really)

[Khore]

Do you know this video about Iran?

Ahmadinejad | 2008 Christmas message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b4Fkdx771g
Weird.