Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhat Would It Take to Launch a War With Iran?
Iraq should have cured President George W. Bush of any further itch for starting a war. And yet there comes a rumble for an attack on Iran. Opposing this, the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation sends out emissaries, several of whom visited The Seattle Times.
Among them was Brig. Gen. John H. Johns (ret.), who was assistant commander of the 1st Infantry Division and a lecturer at the Army War College. Like other generals, Johns opposed the invasion of Iraq, and he now opposes an attack on Iran.
Is such an attack possible? It is Bush's last year in office. There is no time for a land war, and anyway, says Johns, "We don't have the ground troops to do it." But an air war is possible. Johns says it might destroy 1,200 to 1,600 targets.
Johns is not a spokesman for the government. Whether that makes him less credible will depend on your point of view. He lives near Washington, D.C., and socializes with retired generals and CIA officers and others from the security world. He speaks on behalf of a peace group. Take that for what it is worth.
Here is what he says: Last year, there was a push in the administration for an air war against Iran. The given reason was Iran's plan to build an A-bomb. Then came the National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran had given up on it five years ago.
Says Johns, "The intelligence community intended that to be public to lessen the president's chance of going to war. They wanted to avoid being complicit in another war. That's the story I get."
Johns says a struggle is under way in Washington, D.C. Those opposed to an attack include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those wanting an attack, he says, are the deputy national-security adviser for global democracy strategy, Elliott Abrams; Vice President Dick Cheney, "and the hard-line Israel lobby."
Bombing Iraq is how Israel scotched Saddam Hussein's A-bomb, in 1981. Israel is much admired for that, but preventive air attack is a high-risk strategy. It stirs hatred, and it has a large downside if it fails.
Diplomacy is lower-risk, especially if there is time for it. Johns goes further, arguing against an attack even if diplomacy fails. "Even if Iran got nuclear weapons," he says, "they're not going to commit suicide by using them."
There may be other pretexts for war. On Jan. 6 came an incident of Iranian speedboats zipping around U.S. Navy ships in a provocative way. It could have been another Gulf of Tonkin incident.
What would it take to have a war with Iran? Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times correspondent and author of "All the Shah's Men" (2003), was also part of the peace delegation here. He says it might just take a decision. "The possibility of an attack is real," he says, and notes that President Bush would not need a vote of Congress.
Air attack is an act of war. At least, Americans thought so in 1941. But despite the Constitution granting the war power to Congress, in Vietnam (1964), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (2002) our presidents have asked Congress for permission to make war only when they expected major fighting on the ground. Even to invade Iraq, George W. Bush said he did not need permission and asked for it only after Congress, and the public, raised an outcry.
In 1999, President Clinton conducted a 78-day air war against Serbia even though the House deadlocked 213-213 on a resolution supporting it, and the Senate never voted at all. Clinton didn't care; his position was that he didn't need permission for an air war.
What matters is not only the Constitution; it is the outcry. Government does what it can get away with - and in the last year of the Bush presidency, it is still an open question how much that is.
Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
32 Comments so far
Show AllAndrew Herman Said: "Capitalism in the current form of globaliztion is Homo sapiens'certain suicide."
VERY TRUE my friend. It's the greed for money and power that has pitted humans against each other. I was commuting home the other day from work and there was a university kid sitting next to me on the train reading a very thick economics book... and I couldn't help but think that the whole "science" of economics was a man-made catastrophe. One of the stupidest things that we ever did as a species. I just wanted to smack the poor kid and tell him not to fill his mind with such nonsense.
dcbeltway Said on February 20th, 2008 4:35 pm: "elmysterio don't blame us Americans–we aren't the ones in charge the puppet "decider" is."
Not true. The PEOPLE of the country enable their leaders. The fact that the US has been stomping around the globe for the past 100 years fomenting terror, and the US Citizens LET them, places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the US population. It's NOT just Bush... it's EVERY president since 1900.
People who gravitate towards power are running every country on earth. War and deceit are their way.
until we change this, we will never change
Neither the rule of law, nor democracy are the answer...in 1939 the majority from southern Germany were proHitler and Hitler was the law.
Even Gandhi once admitted that an economic system that is decentralized (somewhat capitalistic) is the most efficient way to acheive civil rights to protect individuals.
Therefore, lets imagine a system that guarantees individual rights yet provides freedom to develop and grow (Bush and company are going full-steam ahead in the wrong direction).
Capitalism in the current form of globaliztion is Homo sapiens'certain suicide.
When the generals and admirals are saying don't fight, it's nice to know that Draft Dodger Cheney is gung-ho
Profit is as profit does, there's hardly a need for prophesy.
Nearly all Americans are complicit in some manner with the MIC, which sets the course of corporate greed, by "virtue" of all of us living within an economic system that is primarily based on either banking, or production of weapons.
Because both of these industries collude to instigate wars for greater profit, we will only contine to be subservient to this immorality and unprincipled human suffering -- as long as we individually deny that the underpinnings of the system rest in each and everyone of us.
We each have the power to act responsibly to change the massive structure, as it directly rests upon each us, with each of our re-creation of greed to have more than our "fair" share - AS IF that justifies killing and human suffering. It doesn't, and never has.
We each need to become responsible (ability to respond) to being the cause of the world's suffering, through each of our flawed immoralities and human frailties. It is our underpinning principles (for justice, peace, security) and love for our children's future that must become foremost in our minds to make this change.
Today, we are being mislead with the promises of protecting our future through violence, blaming others, and unilateral (one-sided) aggression - which do resonate with our deepest desires to care and protect our children -- but this approach doesn't work (& never has).
The course that we're currently set upon is one with little future or hope, until we collectively declare what new future we really want, with what we all so disparately hope for.
PEACE, Let it be so.
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
It would take a leader we all trust to launch a war with Iran. It would also take a lot of drugs, because they'll need to kill hundreds of thousands if they want to bring Iran back into good standing with the Anglo-American Empire -- and keep our minds on something else.
The Dems launched the biggest wars in the 20th century: WWII (FDR), Korea (Truman) and Vietnam (LBJ), they may have "what it takes" to get us into WWIII. Hard to say if they've changed or not. I tend to doubt it.
Most of these comments talk about motive--but it seems to me that's not the real issue. A good many plusses for the psychopaths listed as proponents (Abrams, Cheney, Israeli right) exist all right, but the question is, can they pull it off? Not "will the media let them get away with it" , which has been more than amply demonstrated in the past decade, but can they make the military actually do it? I think it likely would have already happened by now if not for quiet words passed along by those who would recieve the orders to attack, that they will not go along with war crimes a second time, will not take actions that would finish the destruction of the US military, and of the US, that the Iraq war has begun.
At least, I sure as hell fervently hope so.
The classification of the Iranian Guard as a "terrorist" organization was sufficient, given the authorized "war on terror," i.e., perpetual war, for Bush and Gang to assert perfect justification.
In relation to Air Strikes, the precedent was set in stone when Reagan was permitted to bomb Tripoli, the Capital of a sovereign nation, with negligible outcry. I went to the only protest I could find and it was eight Communists that just wanted to raise awareness about El Salvador. Not an unworthy enterprise but... WHERE WAS EVERYBODY? In the San Francisco Examiner... weeks later, page three... two paragraphs... it was reported that Ghadaffi had NOTHING to do with the bombing of that Discotheque in Berlin. In fact it was a small outfit trained in Syria that was responsible. History gets rewritten even as it happens. Oh well, nobody liked that Ghadaffi anyway.
So it will go with Iran. We'll do it incrementally.
One primary purpose for the invasion of Iraq was the establishment of large, permanent bases. I said prior to Invasion we'd be threatening Iran and Syria within short order. Nobody on the Republican team believed me.
Well, here it comes. Pundits as diverse as Scott Ritter and Pat Buchanan are predicting a hot war with Iran prior to Summer.
If expanded incursions, regional intimidation and the PNAC agenda were among our true intentions for the occupation, why would they permit any impending regime change in the U.S. interrupt their aim for global dominion? Too much has been invested. They're going to shoot the moon.
These people are STARK RAVING MAD... and they will do ANYTHING, to include risking the ire of Russia, China, the Baltic Alliance and Arab States' populations.
So Dr. Strangelove diddled an Energy Lobbyist eh?
In order to launch an air war, they would probably want to have a good excuse, although, Iran has declared war on our dollar and pissed off the Fed and that may be enough of an excuse since our bankers run our government behind the curtain in the land of oz.
We could have Israel attack one of our air craft carriers, they have experience shooting at our ships without sinking them (eg USS Liberty), and we could then blame Iran. Our people are so stupid, and MSM would spin it in a way that most would believe it.
Much of their oil is near the Iraq border, so we would not have to occupy that much of Iran to gain control of it.
Oil would probably go to 200 dollars a barrel, that should please Big Oil.
Russia and China would be unhappy, and along with Kosovo independence this could start a Cold War or even a World War.
We would use up a lot of missiles and bombs and have to place new orders with our weapons manufacturers, like in 1999 in Serbia, we pretty much ran out of weapons to launch/drop.
Iran might then resume their terrorism activites from the 80's, which could allow us to resume our war on Terror against real terrorists and not the CIA manufactured AQ. It might give Israel an excuse to take over Southern Lebanon and invade Syria as well.
Iran might even try and destabilize Iraq, and the Shias in Iraq might resume their attacks even if they don't. This will help make sure we have to stay there longer.
We could even declare martial law, and suspend elections, and keep Bush/Cheney in power for awhile longer.
We could also nuke one of our cities, most likely one full of liberals and gays, and blame it on Iran and then just nuke them (the population centers are far enough away from the oil and gas fields to do this w/o risking anything of value)
All in all, looking at it through the eyes of the Neo-Zio-Cons, there are a lot of what they would call positives here.
I wouldn't bet against it.
"What Would It Take to Launch a War With Iran?"
Easy, why doesn't anyone else see it? Why the secrecy?
Very simply stated, any move toward impeachment, including meaningful investigations or the appointment of a serious independent investigator. In fact ANY criticism of power grabs including executive orders, signing statements, etc. leading toward the eventual responsibility of follow-up with impeachment WILL instigate a War With Iran.
And, believe this: Congress, as witnesses to the delivery of anthrax from this government, special delivery to their collegues, understands that message very clearly. (Just as they understand what a controlled demolition, or three of them in a row on a clear Manhattan afternoon in broad daylight, looks like.)
They have done it before (Iraq, 911) so be assured they can do it again. They are bad (as carefully demonstrated whenever possible by torture, murder and mayhem) and they want you to know and be afraid, ...be very afraid.
Let's not forget the possibility that the news could report US soldiers being captured.
Whether they were really captured or not, the Murdoch Media would scream for revenge. Iran could say continuously that they had no part in it, but it would not matter.
Another possibility: some zealot (on either side) decides to set things off. The shooting starts, casualties happen, and then there's no way Bush would take a step back and let things cool down (gotta stand tall, ya know).
Or if impeachment ever gains momentum, it could be Cheney's hole card.
He might just decide to take everybody else down with him.
So many ways it could happen.
Every author speaks of diplomacy, but diplomacy is off the table simply because it doesn't favour Big Oil or the defence contractors. Iran is about as much of a threat to the U.S. as Bangladesh is, but an attack on Iran would result in massive profits (even bigger than they are now!) for a handful of oil companies. Despite the fact that only 15% on U.S. oil is imported from the Middle East, the reality is that an attack would raise the price of oil everywhere. That means the oil already in the ground in the U.S. (that is owned by exclusively by American corporations) would reap tremendous profits.
As for defence contractors, they're already sucking every penny out of the taxpayers as it is. The MIC is already satiated and therefore an attack on Iran is not necessarily imminent.
The wild card is whether Congress, the White House and the Pentagon actually buy into the MSM propaganda about Iran obtaining and eventually using Nukes on someone. Many ignorant people believe what they read in Faux News and other corporate mouthpieces just the way white folks used to believe that school integration would result in all the white women getting raped by their black classmates.
May 2008 seems like a good time for the Iran episode of "National Suicide", starring George Wanker Bush as Ethan Edwards. It's six months before the presidential election and therefore enough time will have elapsed for such an air war not to hurt McCain's chances at the polls. The average American's attention span is as short as Rush Limbaugh's erection. May 2008, Uncle Sam, is Sweeps Month. So let's go kick some more inferior ass. It's about the only thing we're good at any longer. Come to think of it, we're not even good at that.
I remember reading that Iran has some pretty nasty state-of-the-art Russian/Chinese supersonic cruise missles in its inventory. Almost impossible to stop as they manuever wildly at unbelievable speed. If they really do have such stuff and quite a large number of older cruise missiles and mid-range guided missles, and they decide its time to use them or lose them... The Navy and our middle east military bases could be in for a shock. Then what do we do? Retaliate for the retaliation? I think Israel is largely out of their range, however.
Three guys in outboard motorboats cannot threaten U.S. guided missile cruisers or destroyers. Period.
"What Would It Take to Launch a War With Iran?"
Oh look, this IED fragment, from the bomb that killed our soldiers, says "Made in Iran!"
Those bastards.
or
The usual manufactured provocation.
¿ Perhaps the empowerment provided by perceiving ourselves to be responsible is exactly what Amerikinds need to galvanize our attention on the required changes ?
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
elmysterio don't blame us Americans--we aren't the ones in charge the puppet "decider" is.
Iran quietly opened it's new International Petroleum Exchange last Sunday. They're starting small, dealing in petrochemicals rather than crude oil... and they're trading in a variety of currencies, not just the Euro.
But whether the dominant reserve currency of the Gulf becomes the Euro, the Ruble, the Yen or the Yuan, the ascendancy of the Anglo-American PetroDollar is over.
This exchange was supposed to start three years ago. Do you supposed they have started now because they feel that U.S. military retaliation is no longer a plausible threat?
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB21Dj07.html
What would it take? Easy. Clinton/Obama leading McCain in the polls and a prospect of war crimes trials. War with Iran equals no election. Its a $1 trillion get out of jail card.
The fact that the US is publicly debating attacking Iran is disgraceful. What makes you Americans think that it's perfectly alright to attack other countries when they don't submit to your demands? Just proves that the US is a rogue nation.
We are already at war with Iran with clandestine infrastructure attacks and millions thrown at anti-government forces inside the country. Dead-eye Dick will do whatever the Hell he wants. The Democrats (especially Reid and Pelosi) have proven themselves to be useless war crime-enablers. I'll tell you one thing, when we hit Iran the Russkies and Chinese are not going to just sit there and watch. The Russian military has made that very clear. Can you say, "kiss your ass goodbye?"
Our only hope is Fallon at Centcom and other high military officers that might refuse the insane order to launch.
At least I will be able to stop worrying about global warming
I believe that the saner heads will prevail and Bush will not attack Iran. If he did, he would need a draft and I think that Americans would not stand for that.
All those "soccer moms" who supposedly voted for Bush to protect their children? Well, those children are draft-aged now, and Mom still wants to protect them.
Try to get those kids forced into the military and watch middle aged women go wild!
Will there even be an election in Nov? If so guess who will win or as many have stared to relies it is not the Prez who runs the show at all. Get use to war, invasion over and over for ever USA. Till Israel boarders are in Baghdad as Iraq is the new Gaza/prison.
"Those wanting an attack, he says, are the deputy national-security adviser for global democracy strategy, Elliott Abrams; Vice President Dick Cheney, "and the hard-line Israel lobby."
Gee, these guys, all of them signers of P.N.A.C's doctrine of global imperialism, being in favor of attacking Iran? Imagine that! These chicken hawks are just itching to to start a war with Iran, not because of the so called threat of nookuler weapons, but for regime change Same goes for Syria.
" Even to invade Iraq, George W. Bush said he did not need permission and asked for it only after Congress, and the public, raised an outcry."
Who gives a rat's ass what Preznit Bu$h sez. The fact is the Constitution sez different! Ony one problem. Congress will do as they did in the past and go right along with him. They will bitch and moan about it publicly, but in practice they won't do a damn thing.
Look folks, this azzole has committed the supreme war crime once already and he obviously has no reason not to do so a second time. What does he have to lose? Just like a spoiled child, which he most obviously is, he has tested his boundaries and found no resistance when he pushed the first time. The only way you change a spoiled child's behavior is to provide for consequences when said chid misbehaves. Same goes for this particular brat. Congress sez impeachment is off the table, even though the process of impeachment was custom designed for a rogue fools such as BU$hCheney. This makes them guilty of warmongering by proxy.
Can you spell R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N, or do we the people also become guilty of warmongering by proxy...for a second time? Even if Congress refuses to impeach, there remains the opportunity to prosecute these clowns after (and if) they leave office. Will it happen? Nah.
One answer is the pro-war American Enterprise Institute(AIPAC's U.S. big brother and partner) sponsored piece in today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/opinion/20gerecht.html?ref=opinion
Attack Iran, With Words
By REUEL MARC GERECHT
Published: February 20, 2008
"FOR those who believe — as I do — that the clerics who rule Iran must never have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the United States' course of action ought to be clear: The Bush administration should advocate direct, unconditional talks between Washington and Tehran. Strategically, politically and morally, such meetings will help us think more clearly. Foreign-policy hawks ought to see such discussions as essential preparation for possible military strikes against clerical Iran's nuclear facilities..........."
Kernel could be right. As a long shot silent factor, though, I believe Laura Bush will counsel her husband against doing any such thing. It's not the graceful southern-tradition way to make an exit from grandeur.
annabelle-There will be no occupation. If we attack, we bomb only. If the Iranians refuse to bow down and kiss the ring of the American President, then surely they deserve a bit of a dust-up from ten thousnd bombs or so.
Easy question. All it takes is an election this November to make up Bush`s mind? about when to start military action of some kind to save the "American People" from a newly discovered terrorist threat. It is all up to the Decider to direct the future course of our country. Forget the war of the Dems, they will both be sidelined by McCain who will be the only candidate equipped to handle the grave danger.
"What Would It Take to Launch a War With Iran?"
Hmmm, let's see, eh, McCain in the White House?
And, just who will finance This war? We bomb the daylights out of Iran and then what? Another 100 years occupation? Do we really think we can occupy the entire world?
"What Would It Take to Launch a War With Iran?"
Ah, ah, ah, a surrender document signed by W?