Skip to main content

View Diary: Battle Plan for Iran: The Khuzestan Gambit (90% of Iran's Oil) (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My main problem with (4.00)
    Sherlock Google's analysis is that is it assumes a military operation in a vacuum. In 2006, military operations no longer occur in a vacuum. Every television on earth will broadcast nosthing else.

    Now, I think that the article is good, and I don't doubt that the Bush administration is thinking things along these lines.  But I don't think we could pull it off any more than we have pulled off a conquest of Iraq.

    In the first place, our army is tired. Our people are tired of war. Support for this war would be much much less than there was for Shock and Awe. Young men will not be flocking to the recruiting stations to replenish the ranks.  Moqtada al Sadr has already said that he will consider an attack on Iran to be an attack on him, and that he will give the order to rise up.  Sure, his is a rag-tag army. Kind of like the colonials in Lexington and Concord were a rag-tag army.  Rag-tag armies can make a lot of trouble.  In Viet Nam our Army was nearly destroyed.  Not by bullets and ordnance, but by rot and exhuastion. How close are we to that again?  I'm not a military person so I don't know, but I certainly worry about it.

    Second, US embassies around the world will burn to the ground, and Americans will be plucked off the streets and killed in Indonesia, Malaysia, Kenya, etc.  This will have a less than salutary effect on US commercial interests.

    And let's not forget the problems that Israel would face in this scenario, and where that might go.

    This little "gambit" could go horribly wrong.  I hope we never find out; that it remains a war-gamming conjecture.  But if our government does try it, I predict an outcome that will make us long for the good old days of 2005, when the war in Iraq only cost us a few tens of billions, and a few dozen killed sericemen and women every month.

    Wetmachine for your daily dose of technoparanoia.

    by j sundman on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:12:21 PM PST

    •  Replace could with would (none)
      No way Iran would just stand-by and let its most valuable oil reserves be chopped off.  They would fight to the end before letting that happen.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:21:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Futhermore (none)
        Even if the Iranian Arabs were to rise up in support of the invasion (I don't believe they are that stupid, but lets specify that they do) The rest of Iran would see that its major source of revenue has now disappeared into the American Maw.

        Now look at the rest of the Iran Iraq border and ask yourself how long it would take for 150,000 really, really pissed off Iranians, who would now, if temporarily, have common cause with the Sunnis and especially Saddam's army, which is the kkeystone of the resistance, to cross that broder and start wreaking havoc on the US.

        And lets not forget that the war between Iran and Iraq was across a Shiite border, its NOT going to go smoothly.

        There are also reports that Iran already has a significant force in Iraq and that would just be prudent. That force will not be amateurs and irregulars, it will be elite troops who can do the most damage for the least cost.

        It is there because Iran knows that its regular forces can't beat even a weakened, demoralised US. But it doesn't need to.

        With Al sadr's people (who are NOT ragtag, they damned near closed down US supply lines in late 2004) as shock troops, sabotuers and suicide bombers and the Iranian revolutionary guard with nothing to lose, they wont need body bags in iraq any more, just those vaci=uum drain cleaners will do.

        The Number of the Beast 72-25

        by Deep Dark on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:07:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  All these nukes (none)
        And we only used two. What a waste...

        I truly believe that we have at least some people in power that think along these lines. Insane - but in power nonetheless.

        yeah, yeah, tinfoil - flame away.

        Our economic strength is based on pretend money and we don't produce or innovate near as much as we did in our heyday. We have an amazing ability to destroy and kill though. We are "the leader of the free world" for the most part due to our military might.

        I give it better than even odds that some sort of  attack, invasion of iran and occupation complete with a brand new "coalition of the willing" is in the works by year's end, or at least before the current cabal is supposed to leave the White House. (I think that the carrier groups will  probably be kept out of harms way too...)

        I'd be ecstatic to be wrong. Nothing good could come from it.

    •  Don't misjudge the power of propaganda (none)
      I still doubt there will be ground operations against Iran, but you are making the assumption that Bush is just going to send a contigent of troops in tomorrow.  Doubtful...if there will be a war, there will first be a steady playing of the war drums, which has only just begun.  They will not just invade Iran without first making up a reason.  Almost certainly, the pretext would be to destroy the Bushehr reactor right along the coast to "prevent the Iranians from enriching uranium".  The administration is trying to align as much of the world as possible against Iran and as much as the Chinese and Russians are trying to keep the situation from escalating, Ahmadenijad is not helping by refusing all Russian offers and calling for things like the destruction of Isreael.  Also, we can add additional claims like Iran is interfering in the Basra area and funding Shiite death squads, as well as claiming interference in Afghanistan and possibly the Balochi areas of Pakistan, though the insurgency there is more likely supported by the US.
      •  You're expecting the foe to do the same thing (none)
        it did with the war on Iraq: a long, steady drumbeat that finally crescendos in shock and awe.  If Sherlock Google's frightening scenario does indeed come to pass, I'm not so sure the ramp-up will follow the same pattern.  Rove adapts, like a cockroach.  He knew he couldn't steal the 2004 elections by another razor-thin margin; that'd look suspicious.  Naw, he'd have to make it look like there were a couple of percentage points between Chimp and Kerry, and so he adapted.  It's easier to get 'em to believe one big lie than a bunch of small ones, a role model of Rove's once said.
        War with Iran is something we could all wake up to one morning - breathless reporters talking about news that's been breaking for the past six hours...
        About how a USAF fighter was engaged by the Iranian Air Force, or was shot down by Iranian air defense artillery...
        Or one of those hair-trigger naval "incidents" in which people play chicken with warships and somebody gets an itchy finger...
        Or, more likely, a "sizeable force" of "Iranian troops" are discovered "well inside sovereign Iraqi territory," and though "no photos are available," the Iraqi government will call for "swift retaliation" and we, as the only coherent military force at their disposal, will be obliged to retaliate on behalf of a "violated" Iraq...
        Or, most likely, a "cross-border raid" by "Iranian commandos" will result in the deaths of some Americans, Brits, or Iraqis.  American forces "in hot pursuit" will enter Iran, triggering their defenses, resulting in more deaths that must be avenged, and in we go.

        We already know the Preznit's a man of ax-shun.  To the wingnuts, an overnight retaliation to a manufactured affront would show strong, decisive leadership - "Dubya don't take no shit! Booo-yah!"  In fact, with dittohead spirits flagging over the neverending disaster this presidency has become, this sort of thing might actually look attractive to the foe's marketing boys as a good ole' rally-roun'-the-flag no-brainer.

        "he should bow to no authority and acknowledge no king" - Lucian

        by Unitary Moonbat on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:28:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And? (none)
      Oil prices go up. Exxon shareholders are happy.

      Billions are made on people's misery.

      End of story.

      How many coal miners have died while millionaire mine owners fought safetey regulations?

      I mentioned the movie Goldfinger to someone today about this subject. The whole purpose in that movie was to make the gold in Ft. Knox radioactive so the gold he had would be worth more.

      If you make Iraq into an instable civil war, make Iran a nuclear dump, just how much is the rest of the oil worth?

      Considering people are already paying double for gas because of the Iraq war and are not complaining, why not double it again?

      Hell, it's only ferner's lives and poor people we are fucking with. Not like anyone that matters.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site