The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Iran Strike Rumors heating up
From Pajamas Media today, an indication that the US or Israel (or both) are contemplating an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities, sooner rather than later. The Pajamas Media post contains lots of great links from all over the blogosphere. All of the rumors seem to be coming from an article that appeared in the German Der Spiegel from "informed sources". But this is not the first time recently that such rumors have popped up.
One wonders if whether there is indeed fire where there is so much smoke. The views seem to be mixed on this question. Personally I take Bush at his word when he stated that he would not allow a nuclear Iran. It is going to be a VERY interesting year indeed:
The speculation that a military strike against Iran might be in the works is growing after the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article in which it also quotes reports in the German and Turkish media.
Dean's World: "While I would love to believe that we're on the verge of taking Tehran by force, all it really looks like is that they're planning to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Ah well, we can always hope for more..."
Protein Wisdom: "Seems unlikely on it’s face, but at the same time, President Bush has been adamant that he will not allow Iran nuclear weapons, and it seems plausible that even our NATO allies see limited military action as the only option for stopping them at this point. Of course, if we’re hearing about it, Iran is certainly hearing about it—so we could be witnessing the beginning of a more orchestrated hardline stance toward Iran that circumvents the (increasingly irrelevant) UN Security Council altogether. [...] For their part, Congressional Democrats are already calling for an investigation into whether or not Bush lied about the threat from Iran’s imminent nuclear weapons capabilities."
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: "So it all comes down to a leak (intentional, no doubt) to Der Spiegel which is high on innuendo and low on actual useful facts. Yep, it’s a plant alright. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t planning an attack, since it should be pretty damn obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that negotiations aren’t working one little bit and time is running out — FAST. If we don’t, the Israelis will do it alone, because they have no choice."
Decision '08: "This strikes me as largely true in the particulars but probably false in the conclusion; I don’t think these things add up to a U.S. strike - at least not in the near term. Instead, my best guess is the U.S. is trying to build up a credible threat of a strike to bring Iran to the table and the Europeans into more of a pressure role. However, the unnamed German military official has a point, and it’s one I’ve made often myself; the time to take on a potential nuclear power is before said power actually gets the bomb."
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog: "This is NOT bluster to scare the Iranians. The United States in concert with Israel will prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear capability."
Thomas Joscelyn: "In any event, if this is true: Three dossiers detailing cooperation between Tehran and al Qaeda? It looks like Langley has started to shed its blinders when it comes to the realities of tactical cooperation between groups that are supposed to be ideologically incompatible."
Say Anything: "This seems like more of an attention-getting tactic by the Bush administration than any real ramp-up for war in Iran. That the media is reporting on American special forces missions into Iran tells me that the information was probably leaked intentionally to the press in an effort to show Iran, and the world, just how serious America is taking things. Also, it is interesting that we’re going to NATO instead of the UN Security Council. This is probably a good thing as the UN Security Council (with members China and Russia likely to refuse any authorization for force or sanction against Iran) is a worthless option at this point."
Power Line: "Given our current commitment of forces to Iraq, it's hard to believe that a military strike against Iran is a realistic possibility, whether such a strike would be a good idea, in principle, or not."
Belgravia Dispatch: "I'd take all this with a massive grain of salt, and also point out that some of this leakage may be purposeful (so as to remind people in Teheran a military option does remain on the table, and so try to put a bit more muscle into the Euro-troika's languishing diplomatic efforts on Iranian non-proliferation). Also, Der Spiegel, shall we say, has a tendency to engage in hyperbole when it comes to journalistic narratives about the rampant militarization of U.S. foreign policy and such."
Flopping Aces: "[Y]ou definitely get the feeling something is afoot. Bush has given Europe two years now to negotiate with Iran, especially when they claimed we don’t negotiate well. What has that gotten the world? Nothing but Ahmadinejad’s continual screaming about the destruction of Israel and hey guys, you know there really wasn’t a holocaust. Oh, and don’t forget they continue to buy as many ballistic missiles as they can [...] What’s upsetting, and should not come as a surprise to any of you, is the fact the media cares little that broadcasting stories of this nature hurts our chances of success. Imagine if the NYTs gets the details of the strikes, it will be page 1 news the day before D-Day."
Captain's Quarters: "[O]ddly enough, although Der Speigel doesn't mention it in their article, one of the clearest indicators may be Teheran's sudden reversal on the Russian offer to process their uranium for the Iranians. Until this week, Iran rejected the offer outright, saying that Iran had a sovereign right to process their own uranium for peaceful purposes. Without much explanation, though, the Iranians changed course this week and endorsed the Russian proposal in concept while asking for clearer details on the Russian plan."
Martin's Musings: "While the validity of the report is uncertain, it doesn't hurt for Iran to get the message that its efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb and continued threats to Israel is going to stop, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Thus far, Iran has showed no signs of backing away from its thinly veiled nuclear program. As a result, any preliminary preparations of military action led by the United States should come as no surprise."
Starboard: "So, Porter Goss decided to blurt out that Turkey should be prepared for possible air assaults against Iran and Syria? This just doesn't seem to pass the smell test to me."
John Robb: "My two cents on how this attack would occur: it would rely on a combination of hard target destruction (facilities that don't contain nuclear material) and an EBO directed against Iranian cities. What this means is that there is no way to take out 300 dispersed facilities with airpower with any degree of confidence. Destruction of Iranian infrastructure through an effects-based attack (EBO) would be made to force them to allow inspectors in to supervise the dismantling of their program. IT would de-modernize them until they complied."
AMERICAblog: "Should get interesting when 350,000 Irani army members come swarming across the boarder into Iraq as a counterpunch."
TalkLeft: "What a way to end the year. Where is the U.S. media on this?"
In The Bullpen: "Happy New Year, Iran."
Further Adventures of Indigo Red: "There are rumors in Tehran, reports Der Spiegel, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not have many days left in office. Iran's political elite would rather not see a Western attack, nor do they wish to see Iran become more of an international pariah than it is already. There may be pragmatic forces preparing for a coup to take place before the Israeli March 28, 2006 deadline for the nuclear facilities bombing to commence, or the possible Western invasion. Either way, time is running short for Iran.
Incidentally, if you have not yet checked out the Pajamas Media site, it is well worth the trip. It involves the collective pooled efforts of some of the best blogs out there. It is one of my daily trips in search of links for my own blog...
One wonders if whether there is indeed fire where there is so much smoke. The views seem to be mixed on this question. Personally I take Bush at his word when he stated that he would not allow a nuclear Iran. It is going to be a VERY interesting year indeed:
The speculation that a military strike against Iran might be in the works is growing after the German magazine Der Spiegel published an article in which it also quotes reports in the German and Turkish media.
Dean's World: "While I would love to believe that we're on the verge of taking Tehran by force, all it really looks like is that they're planning to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Ah well, we can always hope for more..."
Protein Wisdom: "Seems unlikely on it’s face, but at the same time, President Bush has been adamant that he will not allow Iran nuclear weapons, and it seems plausible that even our NATO allies see limited military action as the only option for stopping them at this point. Of course, if we’re hearing about it, Iran is certainly hearing about it—so we could be witnessing the beginning of a more orchestrated hardline stance toward Iran that circumvents the (increasingly irrelevant) UN Security Council altogether. [...] For their part, Congressional Democrats are already calling for an investigation into whether or not Bush lied about the threat from Iran’s imminent nuclear weapons capabilities."
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: "So it all comes down to a leak (intentional, no doubt) to Der Spiegel which is high on innuendo and low on actual useful facts. Yep, it’s a plant alright. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t planning an attack, since it should be pretty damn obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that negotiations aren’t working one little bit and time is running out — FAST. If we don’t, the Israelis will do it alone, because they have no choice."
Decision '08: "This strikes me as largely true in the particulars but probably false in the conclusion; I don’t think these things add up to a U.S. strike - at least not in the near term. Instead, my best guess is the U.S. is trying to build up a credible threat of a strike to bring Iran to the table and the Europeans into more of a pressure role. However, the unnamed German military official has a point, and it’s one I’ve made often myself; the time to take on a potential nuclear power is before said power actually gets the bomb."
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog: "This is NOT bluster to scare the Iranians. The United States in concert with Israel will prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear capability."
Thomas Joscelyn: "In any event, if this is true: Three dossiers detailing cooperation between Tehran and al Qaeda? It looks like Langley has started to shed its blinders when it comes to the realities of tactical cooperation between groups that are supposed to be ideologically incompatible."
Say Anything: "This seems like more of an attention-getting tactic by the Bush administration than any real ramp-up for war in Iran. That the media is reporting on American special forces missions into Iran tells me that the information was probably leaked intentionally to the press in an effort to show Iran, and the world, just how serious America is taking things. Also, it is interesting that we’re going to NATO instead of the UN Security Council. This is probably a good thing as the UN Security Council (with members China and Russia likely to refuse any authorization for force or sanction against Iran) is a worthless option at this point."
Power Line: "Given our current commitment of forces to Iraq, it's hard to believe that a military strike against Iran is a realistic possibility, whether such a strike would be a good idea, in principle, or not."
Belgravia Dispatch: "I'd take all this with a massive grain of salt, and also point out that some of this leakage may be purposeful (so as to remind people in Teheran a military option does remain on the table, and so try to put a bit more muscle into the Euro-troika's languishing diplomatic efforts on Iranian non-proliferation). Also, Der Spiegel, shall we say, has a tendency to engage in hyperbole when it comes to journalistic narratives about the rampant militarization of U.S. foreign policy and such."
Flopping Aces: "[Y]ou definitely get the feeling something is afoot. Bush has given Europe two years now to negotiate with Iran, especially when they claimed we don’t negotiate well. What has that gotten the world? Nothing but Ahmadinejad’s continual screaming about the destruction of Israel and hey guys, you know there really wasn’t a holocaust. Oh, and don’t forget they continue to buy as many ballistic missiles as they can [...] What’s upsetting, and should not come as a surprise to any of you, is the fact the media cares little that broadcasting stories of this nature hurts our chances of success. Imagine if the NYTs gets the details of the strikes, it will be page 1 news the day before D-Day."
Captain's Quarters: "[O]ddly enough, although Der Speigel doesn't mention it in their article, one of the clearest indicators may be Teheran's sudden reversal on the Russian offer to process their uranium for the Iranians. Until this week, Iran rejected the offer outright, saying that Iran had a sovereign right to process their own uranium for peaceful purposes. Without much explanation, though, the Iranians changed course this week and endorsed the Russian proposal in concept while asking for clearer details on the Russian plan."
Martin's Musings: "While the validity of the report is uncertain, it doesn't hurt for Iran to get the message that its efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb and continued threats to Israel is going to stop, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Thus far, Iran has showed no signs of backing away from its thinly veiled nuclear program. As a result, any preliminary preparations of military action led by the United States should come as no surprise."
Starboard: "So, Porter Goss decided to blurt out that Turkey should be prepared for possible air assaults against Iran and Syria? This just doesn't seem to pass the smell test to me."
John Robb: "My two cents on how this attack would occur: it would rely on a combination of hard target destruction (facilities that don't contain nuclear material) and an EBO directed against Iranian cities. What this means is that there is no way to take out 300 dispersed facilities with airpower with any degree of confidence. Destruction of Iranian infrastructure through an effects-based attack (EBO) would be made to force them to allow inspectors in to supervise the dismantling of their program. IT would de-modernize them until they complied."
AMERICAblog: "Should get interesting when 350,000 Irani army members come swarming across the boarder into Iraq as a counterpunch."
TalkLeft: "What a way to end the year. Where is the U.S. media on this?"
In The Bullpen: "Happy New Year, Iran."
Further Adventures of Indigo Red: "There are rumors in Tehran, reports Der Spiegel, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not have many days left in office. Iran's political elite would rather not see a Western attack, nor do they wish to see Iran become more of an international pariah than it is already. There may be pragmatic forces preparing for a coup to take place before the Israeli March 28, 2006 deadline for the nuclear facilities bombing to commence, or the possible Western invasion. Either way, time is running short for Iran.
Incidentally, if you have not yet checked out the Pajamas Media site, it is well worth the trip. It involves the collective pooled efforts of some of the best blogs out there. It is one of my daily trips in search of links for my own blog...
