Odds on a war with Iran before 2013?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.

Note: Greece currently depends on Iranian energy for 25% of its total energy consumption.  In other words, the Greek economy, already on the ropes, will almost certainly be in a full blown crisis within the next month, crippling the Eurozone and sending waves of panic throughout  international markets.

Why did the faceless idiots that run the EU agree to these sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Why did the idiots that run American foreign policy ask the EU to engage in such sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

What you have to understand, Cain, is that middle-America is now CONVINCED that we're going to have a war with Iran, and that nothing they do or say would stop it...That is, the ~40% or so who think we SHOULD try to stop it.

And there's no reason for war.  None at all.  Not even the flimsy pretext we had for Iraq.  It's all End Times bullshit in the heads of crazy yahoos and their even crazier/more cynical representatives.

[Cain]

This could rumble on for months longer yet.

Lets recall, it took 12 years to go from fighting to occupying Iraq, and then another 9 years to actually leave.

Occupation is off the cards, I am fairly certain.  It'd be the Libya model again - "kinetic operations" mixed with ground forces supporting local proxies and assassinating key military/regime figures, in hope of collapsing the regime.  Here, the local proxies would be the Sunni extremists, Jundullah, the MeK terrorists, some Baloch ethnic nationalists and anyone with a grudge against the regime.  Qatar, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would almost certainly also be involved covertly, too.

[Cain]

The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.

Note: Greece currently depends on Iranian energy for 25% of its total energy consumption.  In other words, the Greek economy, already on the ropes, will almost certainly be in a full blown crisis within the next month, crippling the Eurozone and sending waves of panic throughout  international markets.

Why did the faceless idiots that run the EU agree to these sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Why did the idiots that run American foreign policy ask the EU to engage in such sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

What you have to understand, Cain, is that middle-America is now CONVINCED that we're going to have a war with Iran, and that nothing they do or say would stop it...That is, the ~40% or so who think we SHOULD try to stop it.

And there's no reason for war.  None at all.  Not even the flimsy pretext we had for Iraq.  It's all End Times bullshit in the heads of crazy yahoos and their even crazier/more cynical representatives.

Yep.  It's pure idiocy.

Allegedly, there is some wranging going on behind the scenes in the Obama administration which suggests original thinking on Iran...but the President only barely controls the State Department and Pentagon, at the best of times (shit, it took a Rumsfeld to bring the generals to heel, and they eventually got their revenge for that.  And a Clinton runs State).  Equally, while I think the Supreme Ayatollah is a lot more circumspect and pragmatic than his detractors give him credit for, the institutional mechanisms and personalities of the Iranian State (ie the President, the Revolutionary Guard etc) are geared towards confrontation.

And Bibi is cackling in the background like a maniac, determined to achieve his Place in History, and prove he is the only one who can be relied upon to defend Israel.  Meanwhile, Europe doesn't even know what it is doing half the time, and its feedback systems for understanding its interactions with the world are utterly borked.

All the indicators are that this will end in bloodshed, because the vast majority of people who have a say in it are convinced it can end no other way.

[Cain]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA27Ak01.html

The decision on Monday by the European Union to phase out purchases of Iranian oil by July 1 is timed to US legislation that has the same deadline for sanctions against foreign banks that continue to do business with the Iranian central bank. However, European and US experts on Iran cite the fear of a new war as a key reason for the EU decision.

"The French administration is worried about Israel attacking Iran this year," a French researcher, speaking on condition of anonymity because he advises the French government, told Inter Press Service (IPS) on Wednesday.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague, answering questions on Tuesday in the House of Commons, said the new sanctions were designed "to lead us away from any conflict by increasing the pressure for a peaceful settlement of these disputes".

The EU decision reflects Israeli success in pressuring both the United States and Europe. Israeli officials have repeatedly called for "crippling" sanctions against Iran, suggesting that might forestall their use of military force against Iran's nuclear facilities - and collateral damage in terms of sharply higher oil prices and increased regional instability.

There is particular concern that Israel might act in 2012 out of concern that Iran is nearing nuclear weapons capability and in the belief that the Barack Obama administration would be obliged to support Israel in a US presidential election year.

Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated with Europeans a decade ago after the US Congress first enacted sanctions that sought to penalize foreign oil companies doing business with Iran, told IPS on Wednesday that the EU turnaround was "remarkable and stunning, given where they were on sanctions in general and Iran in particular".

Eizenstat credited the Obama administration's success in "multilateralizing" the dispute, building on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions initiated by the George W Bush administration.

Eizenstat, who co-chairs an Iran task force of the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think-tank, added that the current US government had benefited from a dual track policy of extending "the hand of friendship along with the club of sanctions".

Of course, historically, sanctions have been very good at avoiding war.


...

AHAHAHAHAHA.

If this the best they come up with to avert war, we might as well start launching the missiles now.

[Elder Iptuous]

Cain,
With war against Iran being apparently baked in the cake, do you think that there is anything that individuals who see this coming can do to spin the public perception positively ahead of time?  That is to say, demonstrate that a portion of the population sees that we are being herded in this direction and do not believe it to be wise or necessary? (to ourselves as well as the world at large)
I'm assuming there's not a whole helluva lot that Joe Q Public could do to actually influence whether or not it will occur, but...
It just seems like now would be the time to Do Something About It.


I've heard some speculate that we might be deploying the repurposed USS Ponce as an Afloat Forward Staging Base to provoke an incident from Iran for pretext, or as a false flag target that we (or Israel) can sink for the same purpose.  Think there could be any legitimacy to those concerns?

[Cain]

Not really, no.  Iran has been built up as a Hitler-esque Nazi Death Machine since about 1979.  That's 30 years of solid propaganda.

If you feel you have to do something, point to the example of Iraq.  "Everyone knew" they had WMD.  "Everyone knew" the occupation would be a cakewalk.  "Everyone" was utterly wrong on that score, and Iran is three times the size of Iraq, a lot more nationalistic and a lot more psychologically primed to see the US as enemies as well.

But it wont make a difference.  Foreign policy is the area where public opinion has about the least impact on decisions made.

Any and all military movements in the Gulf are suspicious, at this stage.

[Cain]

Good news

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak02.html

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders on January 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the US is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in US politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this autumn.

Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in either US or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive.

The substance of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis has become known, however, to active and retired senior flag officers with connections to the JCS, according to a military source who got it from those officers.

A spokesman for the JCS, Commander Patrick McNally, offered no comment on Wednesday when Inter Press Service (IPS) asked him about the above account of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis.

The message carried by Dempsey was the first explicit statement to the Netanyahu government that the United States would not defend Israel if it attacked Iran unilaterally. But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had given a clear hint in an interview on "Face the Nation" on January 8 that the Obama administration would not help defend Israel in a war against Iran that Israel had initiated.

Asked how the United States would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral attack on Iran, Panetta first emphasized the need for a coordinated policy toward Iran with Israel. But when host Bob Schieffer repeated the question, Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."
Defense Minister Barak had sought to dampen media speculation before Dempsey's arrival that the chairman was coming to put pressure on Israel over its threat to attack Iran, but then proceeded to reiterate the Netanyahu-Barak position that they cannot give up their responsibility for the security of Israel "for anyone, including our American friends".

There has been no evidence since the Dempsey visit of any change in the Netanyahu government's insistence on maintaining its freedom of action to attack Iran.

[Juana]

Hm. Do you reckon that we really would stick to that if Israel started shit?

[Cain]

Hard to say.  But even sending the message has to give the Knesset hawks pause for thought.  Bibi and his lackeys have been painting Obama as an anti-Israeli bigot and all round villain for quite some time now, the sort of person who would stand by and let Israel be destroyed.  Now Obama is saying he wont help if they start shit without his approval...well, because of the picture they've painted of him, they have to at least consider the possibility that it's true.

I still think a manufactured crisis in September or October is the option that Bibi is most heavily considering.  It has the maximum potential to either secure American assistance or get rid of Obama.  But this also suggests Obama's administration is aware such a trick may be in the making, and they presumably also are preparing some kind of countermeasure, for an Israeli attack.

[Cain]

When I took part in war-gaming an Iranian nuclear weapon crisis scenario, one of the things which came up was the idea that Al-Qaeda assets, captured by Tehran and kept in prisons after being caught fleeing from Afghanistan in 2001-2, might be released in the event of an invasion.

Now, this was in 2006, when Al-Qaeda was still scary, so it made a certain amount of logical sense.  Furthermore, the UNSC had just passed a resolution to disarm Iran of its nuclear arsenal, and this was while US troops were still in Iraq in large numbers.

However, the scenario the WSJ lays out makes less sense than what a bunch of 20 year olds were able to come up with

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197421440415962.html

U.S. officials say they believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

The men, who were detained in Iran in 2003, make up al Qaeda's so-called management council, a group that includes members of the inner circle that advised Osama bin Laden and an explosives expert widely considered a candidate for a top post in the organization.

The assertions are likely to amplify tensions between Washington and Tehran. A Senate committee on Thursday moved to intensify sanctions to force Iran into negotiations on its nuclear program, while Tehran has largely defied pressure. This week, Iran prevented U.N. nuclear inspectors from gaining access to sites and scientists, according to diplomats.

Skeptics caution that intelligence on Iran's activities is limited and worry that some policy makers might use provocative reports to justify military action against Tehran. Iran has denied any connection with al Qaeda.

U.S. officials believe there have been recent indications officials in the Iranian government have provided al Qaeda operatives in Iran limited assistance, including logistical help, money and cars, according to a person briefed on the developments.

In an invasion, sure.  All bets are off.  When its an invasion, you throw open the prisons and give the worst of the scum in there free access to the amoury.

But before then?  Lets face it, these guys have been locked up for a long time.  Very little access to the outside world.  Do they even know what is going on?  Futhermore, Al-Qaeda is in tatters - most of the old guard are dead or holed up somewhere in Pakistan, almost as isolated as the Iranian prisoners.  Their resources have been seized by governments around the world and vicious factional groups who don't recognize the authority of the leadership in Pakistan are hardly likely to welcome some old-timers from back in the day.

Also, Iran has Hezbollah, who are actually and legitimately scary.  Hmm, use the scary, dependable assets who are ideologically sympathetic and materially linked to you, or use the people who've been out of action for years, are part of a hostile network and whose abilities are suspect at best?  It's a no brainer.

[Cain]

Russia and China vetoed intervention in Syria.  For those at home still keeping score, I did say after Libya, the next time NATO wanted to intervene, Russia and China would say no.

Watching Susan Rice (US Ambassador to the UN) lose her shit on Twitter over the whole sordid thing almost made it worth it.  Remind me again why anyone would expect Russia to back the overthrow of the government which is leasing it the Tartus Naval Base, the only Mediterranean base for the Russian fleet?

[Cain]

The Syrians are apparently doing everything short of razing Homs to the ground and salting the earth.  Not surprising, really.  Homs is the location of a major oil refinery, and so part of the critical infrastructure the Syrian state needs to ensure its survival.  The Israelis bombed it back in the 70s, during the Yom Kippur war, which should give you an idea of how important it is.

[Cain]

Rumour is American officials are privately blaming the Damascus car-bombing on Al-Qaeda, and suspect they had a role in the assassination of Syrian general this morning.

If this is true, then it would not be a huge leap to suspect possible Qatari involvement as well.  They were quick to back, train and arm Al-Qaeda linked militants in Libya, and the GCG has been calling for some kind of action in Syria.

[Juana]

And this increases the probability of war with Iran?

[Cain]

Maybe, maybe not.

Current thinking is regime change in Syria is a sop to Israel, to stop them from pushing too hard for war with Iran.  On the other hand, success there also suggests a higher probability of success in Tehran, and so more support for an attack.

Also, most Syrian and Lebanese Sunnis are much more supportive of Al-Qaeda and suspicious of Iran than anywhere outside of Iraq.  Putting in a regime in Damascus less inclined to crush Sunni radicalism may free up such groups for bolstering Sunni organisations in Iraq - aside from removing Iran's key ally in the region.