The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, November 18, 2004
The Coming War with Iran?
INDC Journal makes this a relevant question:
The Next War is Already Here (It's the Same War - UPDATED)
A startling report:
In the summer of last year, Iranian intelligence agents in Tehran began planning something quite spectacular for September 11, the two-year anniversary of al Qaeda's attack on the United States, according to a classified American intelligence report. Iranian agents disbursed $20,000 to a team of assassins, the report said, to kill Paul Bremer, then the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq. The information was specific: The team, said a well-placed source quoted in the intelligence document, would use a Toyota Corona taxi and a second car, driven by suicide bombers, to take out Bremer and destroy two hotels in downtown Baghdad. The source even named one of the planners, Himin Bani Shari, a high-ranking member of the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group and a known associate of Iranian intelligence agents.
The alleged plan was never carried out. But American officials regarded Iran's reported role, and its ability to make trouble in Iraq, as deadly serious. Iran, said a separate report, issued in November 2003 by American military analysts, "will use and support proxy groups" such as Ansar al-Islam "to conduct attacks in Iraq in an attempt to further destablize the country."
Make no mistake, people: we are at war with Iran, a conflict that's very similar to our direct engagement of Chinese infantry and Russian pilots during the Korean War. Considering this portion of Iran's recent "agreement" to halt nuclear development ...
The agreement also commits both sides to combating terrorist activities, including those of Al Qaeda and the Iranian opposition group known as the People's Mujahedeen.
... what does information about their current support of terrorist groups operating inside Iraq (including the activity of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) tell us about the true intentions and ultimate course of action by the mullahs? Their nuclear program will continue in covert increments under the nose of UN scrutiny. Even the IAEA admits the possibility of past covert effort:
But the agency, known as the International Atomic Energy Agency, did not totally reject the view of the United States and the three European countries that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying it could not rule out covert activities.
Iran's nuclear motivation hinges on the clearest possible avenues of self-interest:
A. Blackmailing the West into providing beneficial agreements (trade and otherwise) by threatening nuclear development.
B. The exponential increase in prestige provided by the eventual obtention of nuclear weapons. This includes an Islamic counterweight to Israeli nuclear dominance of the region, a guarantee against attempted external overthrow or conventional retaliation against acts of aggression (the Doctrine of Extended Deterrence), and a new solidification of fundamentalist authority at home.
C. The ultimate use of nuclear weapons on the United States or Israel via a terrorist proxy.
"A" will become a short-term reality as the Iranians delay and obfuscate certain actions while reaping the rewards of WTO membership and other trade concessions. If Iran's program remains unmolested by unilateral military action, "B" is the likely mid to long-term scenario and goal of the Iranians, a massive bargaining chip that presents them with new authority in the region. A nuclear umbrella will give the mullahs freer reign to conduct aggressive destabilization operations in Iraq, as well as more open action against Israel. "C" is a scenario that many analysts might label as unlikely in light of Iran's state self-interest, but represents an unacceptable risk, especially in light of the fact that Iranian officials have overtly declared the intention to carry out nuclear action against Britain, the United States and the entire "Anglo-Saxon race."
The NY Times would label my analysis as that of a "hard-liner;" I'd call it a practical glimpse at nasty reality.
(US News link via Ace)
UPDATE: Post slightly edited for clarity.
UPDATE: Captain Ed has another startling bit of news:
A group of Iranian exiles claim that the Khan network of Pakistan has already given the Iranian mullahcracy the necessary plans for nuclear weapons as well as a small amount of weapons-grade uranium, making the Iranian claims of developing nothing other than a peaceful nuclear-energy program suspect[.]
UPDATE: Colin Powell says the Iranians are definitely developing a nuclear bomb and the missile capability to deliver it.
The Next War is Already Here (It's the Same War - UPDATED)
A startling report:
In the summer of last year, Iranian intelligence agents in Tehran began planning something quite spectacular for September 11, the two-year anniversary of al Qaeda's attack on the United States, according to a classified American intelligence report. Iranian agents disbursed $20,000 to a team of assassins, the report said, to kill Paul Bremer, then the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq. The information was specific: The team, said a well-placed source quoted in the intelligence document, would use a Toyota Corona taxi and a second car, driven by suicide bombers, to take out Bremer and destroy two hotels in downtown Baghdad. The source even named one of the planners, Himin Bani Shari, a high-ranking member of the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group and a known associate of Iranian intelligence agents.
The alleged plan was never carried out. But American officials regarded Iran's reported role, and its ability to make trouble in Iraq, as deadly serious. Iran, said a separate report, issued in November 2003 by American military analysts, "will use and support proxy groups" such as Ansar al-Islam "to conduct attacks in Iraq in an attempt to further destablize the country."
Make no mistake, people: we are at war with Iran, a conflict that's very similar to our direct engagement of Chinese infantry and Russian pilots during the Korean War. Considering this portion of Iran's recent "agreement" to halt nuclear development ...
The agreement also commits both sides to combating terrorist activities, including those of Al Qaeda and the Iranian opposition group known as the People's Mujahedeen.
... what does information about their current support of terrorist groups operating inside Iraq (including the activity of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) tell us about the true intentions and ultimate course of action by the mullahs? Their nuclear program will continue in covert increments under the nose of UN scrutiny. Even the IAEA admits the possibility of past covert effort:
But the agency, known as the International Atomic Energy Agency, did not totally reject the view of the United States and the three European countries that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying it could not rule out covert activities.
Iran's nuclear motivation hinges on the clearest possible avenues of self-interest:
A. Blackmailing the West into providing beneficial agreements (trade and otherwise) by threatening nuclear development.
B. The exponential increase in prestige provided by the eventual obtention of nuclear weapons. This includes an Islamic counterweight to Israeli nuclear dominance of the region, a guarantee against attempted external overthrow or conventional retaliation against acts of aggression (the Doctrine of Extended Deterrence), and a new solidification of fundamentalist authority at home.
C. The ultimate use of nuclear weapons on the United States or Israel via a terrorist proxy.
"A" will become a short-term reality as the Iranians delay and obfuscate certain actions while reaping the rewards of WTO membership and other trade concessions. If Iran's program remains unmolested by unilateral military action, "B" is the likely mid to long-term scenario and goal of the Iranians, a massive bargaining chip that presents them with new authority in the region. A nuclear umbrella will give the mullahs freer reign to conduct aggressive destabilization operations in Iraq, as well as more open action against Israel. "C" is a scenario that many analysts might label as unlikely in light of Iran's state self-interest, but represents an unacceptable risk, especially in light of the fact that Iranian officials have overtly declared the intention to carry out nuclear action against Britain, the United States and the entire "Anglo-Saxon race."
The NY Times would label my analysis as that of a "hard-liner;" I'd call it a practical glimpse at nasty reality.
(US News link via Ace)
UPDATE: Post slightly edited for clarity.
UPDATE: Captain Ed has another startling bit of news:
A group of Iranian exiles claim that the Khan network of Pakistan has already given the Iranian mullahcracy the necessary plans for nuclear weapons as well as a small amount of weapons-grade uranium, making the Iranian claims of developing nothing other than a peaceful nuclear-energy program suspect[.]
UPDATE: Colin Powell says the Iranians are definitely developing a nuclear bomb and the missile capability to deliver it.
