Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Perhaps it is because I am many, many hours without sleep right now and cannot recognize sarcasm or cynicism, but I do hope that is what this is. I mean your analysis is right on, but I cannot think of a better reason to impeach the whole administration and any in congress that would support such a move than an opening of *another* theatre of war from the simple perspective of supply logistics, tactics be damned. The armed services are already stretched too thin and I would be surprised if Joint Chiefs thought they could sustain yet another front.

You sound resigned and bitter. I am still not sure we will go.

"Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail."

The Pentagon plans, that's what they do. We have plans in place to invade lotsa places, just in case. Doesn't necessarily mean we're gonna do it. There are plenty of ducks lining up in a row right now, but the old saw 'we're updating our target list' seems more like hype to me. Argument is more persuasive without it.

Not sure I like or dislike the coming storm. Lots of downside. However, I have heard it said more than once by Iranians; "OK, so get rid of the Mullahs, just leave immedialtely when your done and we'll clean up the mess without you."

Like Tom mentioned before, lots of upper Administration types still MIA from the news, and I suggested that there's way too much time left before the next election for Bush to roll over and play dead (as Tom Friedman suggests) so they're off planning something new, the next "Big Bang" to help re-form the region.

So do y'all think are we in for air stikes, "liberation," occupation, or all of the above?

Tom's analysis suggests that Ahmadinejad would survive the campaign, but the mullahs would not. How exactly will we justify any incursion into Iran that removes only the religious leaders and does not also fully cripple the secular actors? That would bring out the critics of "America's war on Islam" in abundance, and is no way to win "hearts and minds" of the more moderate Muslim citizens who are actually allies in the fight against hardliners and extremist-terrorists.

An attack on Iran would be an invitation for disaster for the Untied States. The military aspect is not important. Likely, any air strikes will be unopposed. The wild card is the Hezbollah tactics, which had some success against a modern army. There is than another chance of a perpetual war-for-profit. This is not likely; as it is inconceivable the creditor nations of the United States will continue to finance another war.

Different than in 2003, the economic scenario here is on the edge of the abyss. Please read carefully DeBorchgrave’s latest comment. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21024

China, in particular, will have little difficulty in extending credit to its own citizens rather than sending the money to a country, which solves its problems by force. India, Japan and even the Saudis may also see the downside of financing the US war machine.

The only rational course for the US is to sue for peace. To accomplish this, it starts at the top. If in 2008 the candidates were Ron Paul vs. Jim Webb (not running but should be), maybe our beloved Republic will survive.

I refer you to Stratfor's analysis 'Red October' and it looks as if Serbia is not going to wait - this morning -

[Ed: found truncated]

I proudly voted for President Bush twice. I supported the invasion of Iraq, and still think that the world is better off without Saddam than we were with him. I supported much of the president's domestic agenda and I thought Roberts and Alito were excellent choices for the court. And somewhere in the back of my mind I still believe that President Bush is a good guy and history may look kindly on many of his decisions. That being said, if they go through with a strike on Iran I hope Sen. Bidden goes through with his threat to push for impeachment.

On a somewhat related topic: Tom, would you mind commenting on all this talk about N.K. supplying Syria with nuclear material?

A Russian (almost typed Soviet) official just was quoted as saying they have contingency plans for getting their engineers out if the US decides to attack Iran. Must be tough on the old rusky cold war hands. In 91 they saw an army with Soviet equipment, Soviet tactics and Soviet training get it's clock cleaned. In 2003 the Russian Special Forces guys had to bail at the last minute as we made "Thunder runs" into Baghdad. Now they have to hope for a "courtesy" call from the White house before the bunker busters start falling. The war drums do seem to be getting louder but I am not sure who is beating them. Interesting that the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Director of CIA are now barely visible. Even the VP is off the radar. Who will push the button?

(First comment didn't go through. Trying again.)

I don't see where the hostility to an Iran War is coming from. There are pluses and minuses, and they seem to wash out from our perspective.

It seems that a lot of hostility to the war comes from general exasperation against Bush rather than a calculation of what he gain (deterrence against future meddling, etc. against what we lose (disruption in the energy market, etc.).

Dan,
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just don't see an end game on a war with Iran. I just don't buy the "take out the mullahs" argument because Iran is not Hussein's Iraq or Kim's N.K. (which were/are Stalinist totalitarian states with all power in the hands of one person). Iran has a deeply flawed yet functioning political system that could push the mullahs out (or at least make them irrelevant) on it's own. Tom calls it the "soft kill" and to me it just seems to be a much more appealing option as opposed to attacking and risking turning the one middle eastern population that likes us against us. So I say let them build as many nuclear warheads as they want, just make them build one Wal Mart for every warhead.

Dan: 2 (nonexhaustive) reasons from my perspective:

1. the current CINC should not be trusted with so much as a remote control

2. so far in the GWOT, the Law of Unintended Consequences has been a real b----

The flash points shown in the article aren't significantly different from other war plans presented in the media from a year back.

Again, would the political climate tolerate opening another front on an already strapped military? I can't imagine how the Republicans would justify themselves in the presidential race after the Democrats have already siezed the moment on Iraq. Not to mention the withering support from our allies (France's recent comments notwithstanding).

Brent,

Generally agreed.

I would add I don't see an end game with peace for Iran. Containing Iran is geopolitically expensive (how much do we let Russia get away with in order to maintain the status quo?) and embracing Iran just doesn't look like it's going to happen. So -- working with the administration you have, not the administration you might want to have or have at a later time -- then what?

In conclusion,

I'm not advocating war with Iran. Nor am I advocating peace. The doves seem happy with personal attacks against Bush (*cough* Sean *cough*), just as the hawks appear completely ignorant of the Shia-Sunni split within Islam. Neither are intellectually serous arguments.

The basic problem is that the Middle East will be a very nasty neighborhood in the Gap so long as its sole basis for connectivity to the Core is oil. Unfortunately, IMO, there are people in the Bush Administration (and waiting in the wings in a Giuliani Administration), namely Cheney and the neo-cons, who would like to keep it that way, because it keeps corrupt authoritarian "governments" in power who exist for the sole purpose of selling off the right to drill holes in their sand. Opening up Iran would definitely shake up the situation. The question is: are you serious about wanting to "shrink the Gap" or are you more interested in maintaining a cushy status quo for Western oil interests?

If there had been bio-weapons in Iraq...they would surely be in the hands of the insurgents .The Allies played a game of poker and through
sheer luck...we all dodged a bullet or two.
This time we will not be so lucky .If the great plan gestating in the Whitehouse comes to fruition,a change of regime will mean that the 120,000 strong revolutionary guard will have to be dismantled.The humiliation of defeat would inevitably result in blowback.Don't expect any stockpile of any bio -weapons / fissile material to just sit around for months while the US goes hunting for them.
My gut instinct is that the US is just going to make a fool of itself and we end up only giving Ahmedejad a renewed shelf life.
The Brits will distance themselves as much as possible under Brown( while providng the strongest possible non-support) while Sarkozy and Merkel are going to make amends for the split over Iraq by providing, quite loudly...the strongest possible non-support.
But if the US succeed, then expect non-state actors with bio/fissile materials.

i really don't understand (maybe it's my lack of intellectual 'serous'-ness (sic)) how Tom's criticisms (and, less importantly, my own) of Bush's incompetence as CINC can be dismissed as 'personal attacks' or 'ad hominem'. the guy has a demonstrable record. he's ultimately responsible for the screwed-up Iraq reconstruction and is an almost complete wash-out as a diplomat. like Tom said: in a parliamentary system, we'd have a new PM by now. instead, we get a lame duck who could order strikes on Iran.

Stuart,

Opening up Iran certainly is a valid goal, and Tom (righly) uses a lot of Cold War analogies in thinking about this. However, consider that both the Soviet Union and China entered into embarrasing military debacles shortly before their economic reforms (Afghanistan and Vietnam).

Finally, whether Persian/Aryan Iran would be seen as a model, as opposed to another colonizer, among Arabs is an open question.

Again, I don't see a convincing argument either way.

Javaid,

As I understand your comment, you argue that an Iran War would not substantially involve Europeans and would increase instability. On the first point, you are right, and it doesn't matter: Europe is not a geopolitical force when it comes to action. On the second point, you are right, and that is good. Keeping the system of the middle east stable would be a terrible objective, because it is a "stable" Middle East that is generating groups like al Qaeda.

Sean,

Your ever-helpful spelling corrections are noted! :-)

Certainly it's possible to view the President as The Decider who makes all things happen. That's probably giving individuals too much credit for their role as "5GW pawns" in a complex system.

We have Defense and State Departments that are extremely good at fighting Big Wars against states. So Bush is a genius when it comes to fighting Big Wars, winning them so quickly (Afghanistan, Iraq, north-west Africa) we forget about them. We have Defense and State Departments that are terrible at fighting insurgency, so suddenly Bush is incompetent when it comes to fighting insurgencies.

Dan: Remember too that the US did not get involved in the Soviet and Chinese debacles you mentioned. We just let them shoot themselves in the feet. Some merit in letting Iran do the same. Without the US Great Satan as a common foe, Iraqi Arab Shiites and Iranian Persian Shiites don't have a lot of common ground. If we stay out of it, Iran could find itself about as welcomed in Iraq as the Chinese were in Vietnam.

Dan, dust off your techie hat and put it on for a moment. With a good calculator, today's programming student can write a simple program and check it for bugs in a fraction of the time it would take a computer scientist using punch cards in the 70s or 80s. Does that mean today's programming student is a better programmer than the pros 30 years ago? Or just that he's got much better tools?

Bush took on a task he didn't have the proper tools for, that's correct. He also neglected to realize that that task was a logical extension of the one he DID have tools for, ignored or punished the people who tried to tell him he didn't have the proper tools, alienated the past and potential friends who could have provided at least some of those tools, demonstrated to our enemies that he (and we) don't have those tools, procrastinated on acquiring those tools and wore down many of the improper tools we already had for other tasks that haven't gone away.

At risk of the ex-minister throwing things at me, it ain't the tool you have so much as you use it. And Bush has used his very, very badly.

this ex-minister enthusiastically supports the proper use of tools ;-)

Striking Iran is necessary for a number of reasons.
It's necessary because we cannot allow Iran to obtain the bomb, permitting them would shift the balance of power in the Middle East. If we don't do it, Israel will and we would be drawn in anyway. In the post-9/11 world, we cannot be perceived as being weak. Iranian leaders sense our demise and feel they are in a position of strength, that growing strength needs to be checked as we will not be muscled out of the Middle East and we will never abandon Israel.

This will lead to a regional conflict in the world's most volatile region, a mismatch pitting Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, The Mehdi Army, The Badr Brigades and most if not all the Shia militias in Iraq VS. US & Israel with limited British assistance. Israeli territory will be under constant threat of attack, Iran if succesful with their threats will unleash as many Shihab 3's into Israel as they can before the American strike has taken them out. Hizballah will be instructed by their masters in Tehran to wage war with Israel, Lebanon will be left in ashes for the second time in as many years. The Gaza strip will be re-invaded, many more Palestinians will continue to die.

This is the scenario that Ahmadinejad & Bush believe they were sent to earth for. Ahmadinejad's branch of Islam calls for the acceleration to Armaggeddon, The missing Imam will return.
Bush's branch of Christianity shares a Biblical connection with The Jews of Israel, our only unconditional ally in the Middle East. If this war leads to Armaggeddon, not only will he have destroyed a longtime enemy in Iran while protecting Israel but he will have lead humanity to Christs' return.

We are living in Biblical times.

Talking about instability... half the ME is inherently unstable.The Palestinian colonisation by Arab/US/Euro Jewry has still some way even after 50 years to reach a long lasting equlibrium.Historically unsound
state-lets like the Gulf Allies exist purely on the merits of US/UK military backing.The 'Great ' historical powers like Iran and Iraq are trashed
every once in a while , needing to be restrained from just occupying the natural position of command that their size and prominence has naturally gifted.Add some post colonial straight line borders forged in the foreign ministries on a foreign continent and we have a beautifully crafted creaky boat held together by loads of sellotape and blue tack.
Its a testament to Israeli and US power that they have managed for so many years to hold it together.
Jumping up and and down and hoping the boat will reform into small pieces and magically turn into a bigger better shinier boat ?
I just don't think that the heavier occupants are going to find it a comfortable ride/swim.

Stuart,

Certainly one can imagine that Iran has the ability to transform two geostrategic coups (the fall of the Taliban and the fall of the Iraqi Baath) into military debacles, but that seems like wishful thinking.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Ian has a history of working through clients (Ismail Khan, SIIC, etc.) instead of direct military rule. Wise by them, and smarter than either Moscow or Beijing.

Michael,

Not sure what your point is?

Sean,

Thre chears fer propre spelen! Hip hip, hurrah! Hip hip, hurrah! Hip hip, hurrah!

I was responding to this paragraph:
"We have Defense and State Departments that are extremely good at fighting Big Wars against states. So Bush is a genius when it comes to fighting Big Wars, winning them so quickly (Afghanistan, Iraq, north-west Africa) we forget about them. We have Defense and State Departments that are terrible at fighting insurgency, so suddenly Bush is incompetent when it comes to fighting insurgencies."

The point being that people aren't confusing the quality of Bush's governance with the quality of the military; he really is that bad.