Daily Kos

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

Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:09:14 PM PDT


 

Ever hear of Khuzestan?  Well you're about to hear a lot more about it soon, because that appears to be the only province of Iran that we're actually going to take control of in the up-coming war with Iran.

It's the province where 90% of the currently producing oil fields are located (see maps above).  And it's right next to all our forces in Iraq, so--with an indigenous Arab rebellion--we can easily take Khuzestan on the tired old WMD and democracy excuses.  All without the 600,000 troops estimated for a full conquest of all Iran.

And this is all going to happen sooner rather than later.  The Iranians plan to open their own oil "bourse" in March, which will be the first oil state to sell oil for Euros.  This will have the effect of driving the dollar down, so Bush and Cheney have great incentive to act now.

Khuzestan has a population of 3 million plus, Arabs who will be offered a share of the oil their northern Persian masters now control. The Zagros Mountains to the north and east and the Gulf to the south make Khuzestan a natural fortress

So the old medieval state of Khuzestan will be reinstated by the petrolist fascists.  Iran won't have enough oil to sell to drive the dollar down with the Bourse--and their military and society will soon be running on fumes.

This is officilaly called by global strategists "The Khuzestan Gambit", a risky move to get to Oil Checkmate quickly on "The Grand Chessboard", the regions we usually call the Mideast and Central Asia.

Khuzestan is actually the province Saddam tried to conquer in the Iraq-Iran War.

Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.


Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and
fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback.
The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.


The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the
greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It's utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.


Battle Plans


The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear weapons programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.


Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green-light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.


Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran's oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar
will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency.

As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. (In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of
American currency)


This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. This is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.


Invading Khuzestan


In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, “Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?”, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the “"first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."


This strategy has been called the  “Khuzestan Gambit”, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons
sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/...

Tags: Khuzestan, Iran, George W. Bush (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 246 comments

  •  Kick Their Ass, Take Their Gas Tip Jar (3.92 / 57)

    No Draft Needed to invade the part of Iran where all the oil is:  Little Old Khuzestan!
    •  Sherlock, do you see any connection . . . (4.00 / 7)

      between this upcoming war with Iran and the UAE port fiasco.

      Is there some sort of Iran quid pro quo going on here.  Is the UAE going to allow us to use their country for staging, bases?

      What the hell is going on?

      •  UAE sits in the Strait of Hormuz (4.00 / 8)

        very possible that US wants a peaceful country from which to protect that precious passage.

        We don't have time for short-term thinking.

        by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:32:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or a base in battle for control of the strait. (4.00 / 5)

          If we attack Iran, they will likely attempt to shut down passage of the strait, through which flows much of the world's oil. I presume that critical supplies for our forces in Iraq pass through there as well. Iran is reported to have mobile antiship missiles based on the Chinese Silkworm that could play havoc with shipping. An invasion of Khuzestan would have to be done in conjunction with operations to protect the strait. Dubai would be a good forward base because it is closer to the strait than the 5th Fleet's base at Bahrain.

          My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?

          by Shiborg on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:57:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now THAT is interesting . . . (none / 0)

            thank you for making that connection for me.  Wow.
          •  Dubai as a base (4.00 / 3)

            Doubtful that the power brokers and financiers in Dubai want to have anything to do with a war with their missle-range neighbors Iran.  They have been trying to build the area up as a major tourist hotspot and really have to military to speak of so their complicity with the US would make them a nice soft target to strike.  I don't think they want to see Iranian missles raining down on their shiny new buildings.
          •  UAE Ports-Iran Attack Connection (none / 1)

            I've been suggesting this in thread comments on the last several diaries posted on the UAE ports imbroglio.  Full support from the UAE will give us airbases and naval facilities within 100 miles of the Straits, and less than that from the Iranian-owned islands in the Straits.  Iraqi airbases, on the other hand, are 500 miles away, and those in Qatar are 300 miles distant.  Aircraft carriers are at a disadvantage in the confined waters of the Gulf and the Bay of Bengal, can only operate 100 aircraft, at a much higher unit cost than a land base with less duration on station, and make tempting targets for Iranian counterstrikes (loss or major damage to a single US carrier would be tantamount to US defeat in the war).

            As to Khuzestan:  The problem that BushCorp will face comes not in occupying the region, but rather in holding it. The frontier of Khuzestan with interior Iran extends 200+ miles, all of it mountainous, ranges up to 14,000 feet high.  If BushCorp put 20,000 to 30,000 US troops in there, there's no way that they can control the entire frontier, which means that the Iranians can infiltrate around American/British positions at will.  There are 60 million+ Iranians, the majority of whom are under 30, with a military-age male population of perhaps 15 million.  That means the Iranians can field forces vastly superior in numbers, even if not in equipment, to ours.  Eventually, the numbers will tell.  This will be a very different war than the one that BushCorp fought, and blew, in Iraq.  This will be a debacle, potentially a Stalingrad.

            •  Fisk covered the Iraq-Iran War (none / 1)

              as was astounded that even years later he could find no Iranian who regarded the sacrifices they made as anything other than a good and necessary thing. I remember, during some phase of the Iraq occupation, where 40,000 signed up to be suicide bombers in just one city alone. This is a people who had kids ride bicycles through minefields against Saddam.

              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:11:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  From what I have seen (none / 1)

                Iranians are an ancient and proud people and a strong belief in Iranian/Aryan cultural importance is ingrained.  Resistance would be strong, but the conventional military could be defeated without much trouble.  The post-war occupation would be the problem as much or more than Iraq.
            •  They will not be able to assemble any sizable (none / 0)

              force in those mountains just as the Taliban cannot in Afghanistan.

              Air-Land devastates any large third world force.

              IT's as simple as that.

              •  Yes... (none / 0)

                we learned that lesson in Vietnam didn't we?  Won every major battle too.  Think about that.

                We will never invade Iran.  The best we can do is try to influence elections and gin up subversion of the Mullahs.  Yet even the old "lets put in a new King" trick is probably out of the question.  Most of the older Iranians probably still harbor a bit of resentment from the last time that was done, and the younger ones study it in their history books.

              •  The Iranians (none / 0)

                Used human wave attacks, ala the Chinese in the Korean war at great cost in lives to throw the Iraqis out of Iran. Iraq had gotten within shelling distance of Tehran early in the war.

                Granted we do not have a third world military but just like in Korea where we had military equipment and training superiority it all came down to whether or not there was enough ammunition, shells, bombs, etc or guns didn't jam before they got to you.

                There is no telling how the Iranians would play it but were they to pull off a successful human wave assault the U.S. casualties would be higher than the public would accept.

                That all aside. I would expect that Iran learned quite a bit through our debacle in Iraq and how to tie us down using guerilla tactics.

                Lastly, there is always the possibility that Iran would not wait to be attacked and could push across the Faw peninsula and cut the supply lines out of Kuwait. Their opportunity to do so would only be before we have moved large forces to the south of Iraq. We can't do this without it being known to the Iranians who have agents all over the south of Iraq.

                If something like that were to happen - even if the Iranians couldn't hold that advance - it would disrupt supplies to our soldiers that remain in Mosul, Anbar, Diyala and that could result in disasters all over Iraq.

                There are a lot of ifs but some things to keep in mind.

              •  Beware the claims of air power enthusiasts (none / 0)

                Air power enthusiasts have been arguing since Douhet in the 1920s that massive air power can win wars on its own.  So far, that hasn't occurred, unless that air power was employing atomic or nuclear weaponry, against targets like cities.  Air power is effective only in conjunction with active ground operations.  The mountain terrain of Afghanistan bears comparison with the Zagros, but I wonder whether the natural environment in the two places differs.  The Pamirs of Afghanistan show little vegetation; if the Zagros are wooded, that complicates reconnaissance and targeting.  Besides, even in the bare Pamirs, the Soviets had both absolute air superiority during their war in Afghanistan, and no moral scruples about its use, and still failed.  And mountains, wooded mountains in particular, make it much easier to infiltrate enemy positions, as we discovered in Vietnam and earlier in Korea (before a continuous front was established).  

                Another problem we will face, which we did not in Afghanistan (but the Soviets did) is that the Iranians facing us in Khuzestan will have a large base area in their rear which we will not be able to conquer and occupy.  That base area will be vulnerable to air attack, it's true, but air attack didn't prove particularly effective at halting the movement of supplies through mountains in Vietnam, in Korea, or in Italy during WW2.  Since we won't have the manpower for a continuous front on the model of Italy or Korea, the outposts we establish in the mountains above Khuzestan will become like "fire bases" Vietnam, always under a low level of siege, the troops inside them vulnerable to ambush whenever they venture out, and the mountains will in turn provide cover for infiltration into the oil fields that lie at their feet.  It is the scenario for a war that draws in a large number of troops, drags on endlessly, and produces casulaties in a steady stream, not the current trickle.

              •  meh (none / 0)

                You seem to ignore the fact that there is a pretty sizeable Iranian security presence in Khuzestan already. You know army, airforce and navy, internal security, intelligence - the whole fucking shebang - and if you think that infiltration of territory by the people who own it and know it intimately could be forestalled, then you're in the severely delusional category.

                Iran is not the Taliban - it's a complex and united country, there's no civil war going on, and they have shed-loads of cash, weaponry, and will to do what is necessary to protect themselves from external aggression.

                You go to war against the Iranians that you have, not the Iranians that you'd like to have...

              •  Sherlock, do you really think it would all be (none / 0)

                confined to Khuzestan?  Look at the entire border with Iraq, and any other country that we use to stage an attack from is going to get hit in the first day by CBW warheads.  It's a foregone conclusion that Iran would send scores of missiles at Israel, particularly its nuclear sites.  The Israelis will retaliate, likely with nuclear strikes on Iranian strategic targets.  Hundreds of thousands of people will die on all sides.  Iraqi Shi'a will rise up en masse.  Pakistan might get into it, as well.

                Then, there's the impact on the US economy.  $10/gal gas is quite possible.  Then there are the very real longterm consequences of surviving Iranian scientists cobbling together radiological dirty bombs and finding a way to ship them into the Ports of NY, Phil., Baltimore, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco . . .

                Do you really think the Joint Chiefs are going to do this ?  For what, so the same treasonous GOP politicians and neocons who got us into the Iraq morrass can get reelected?  

      •  Perhaps Dubai Port World will be asked (4.00 / 8)

        to take over the big Iranian ports in Khuzestan like Bandar e-Khomeni...

        We're simply securing the Gulf for Bushco.  Include the UAE.

        Khuzestan is just the final piece in making the world safe for HALLIBURTON.

        •  Include Kuwait (4.00 / 5)

          Baker, who helped forced Iraq into debt after Gulf 1, is involved in both attempting to expunge Iraq debts to the world (on behalf of US taxpayers) AND secure repayment of debt to Kuwait.  You can bet the US taxpayers get screwed as a result of his conflict of interest.  If Kuwait accepts, the Carlyle Group gets a billion dollar portfolio, 5% of all recovered debt, and the chance to privatize state owned companies in Iraq.  

          These guys work long and hard for their money.

          We don't have time for short-term thinking.

          by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:01:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meaning... (none / 0)

            the strategy with Kuwait and UAE appears to be appeasement and mutual profit.  Offer to ultimately get reparations to Kuwait by using the Carlyle Group as a holding/investment company for privatizing Iraq from which Kuwait eventually gets paid.  Offer control over US ports to UAE in exchange for a military base to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

            Everyone else gets BANGED!

            We don't have time for short-term thinking.

            by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:33:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The US Fifth Fleet (none / 0)

        for the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is headquartered and principally berthed in Manama, Bahrain and Fujairah, United Arab Emirates UAE.

        The US Fifth fleet is tasked to keep open the Straits of Hormuz (20 miles wide - bottleneck into the Persian Gulf), which is heavily  targeted by a forest of modern Iranian missles purchased from Russia and China and located in areas adjacent to the Gulf and the Strait (Khuzestan).

        [Commenter makes no claim that the second link here has any credibility, but the pics and stats are worth a look.]

        The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)

        by JimPortlandOR on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:27:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong on one detail (3.33 / 3)

      Iraq would be the SECOND oil producer to Euro denominate.

      The first was Saddam's Iraq, and they got a 20% bump in profits from doing so.

      It would make a good Merkin so angry, he might invade.

      6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

      by LunkHead on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:22:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know people scoff at Wayne Madsen, but.... (4.00 / 2)

      .. he had a long article about just this topic last August 10.

      Apparently the province is supposed to declare independence as the nationstate of "Ahwaz".

      Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances. -The Histories of Herodotus, Book 7, Ch. 49

      by Louise on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:25:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wayne (3.50 / 10)

        Personally, I find Wayne way more convincing than this article, which is posted on an obscure Website, with an unknown author, then quoted 17 days later here by Sherlock as if it were real information about something. Look, it says "Information" in the URL!

        Then (yes I've read down through the comments) everyone treats this like we've really just gotten a top secret briefing from a top aid to Rumsfeld. Damn it people, we can stay with the stuff we really know, and it's totally damning of Bush & Co. When we go off into this fantasyland — where we pat someone on the back for finding a couple of maps and a totally bogus speculative, ungrounded article — then we marginalize ourselves, and set ourselves up for political failure.

        Because, when it comes around to it, you'd just about have to be in the Bush administration to believe "intelligence" this bad. That doesn't qualify our side to replace these fools, if our discernment is as wishful as theirs.

        •  fantasy (none / 0)

          is a form of prognostication.

          Bush is not going to tell us what he is really doing.  

          They have a penchant for war, oil, and personal profit.  They exhibit no urge for national security.  They HAVE mentioned nuking Iran.

          You want the presidential daily briefing.

          Sorry.  Access denied.

          We don't have time for short-term thinking.

          by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:08:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I never find Wayne convincing ... (none / 1)

          ...but I agree with everything else you wrote here, in spades.

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:24:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  disagree (4.00 / 2)

            1. Talking about it advertises it.  The public needs to know of the possibility, and that impure motives could be involved.

            2. Talking about it is like playing war games.  It is a form of preparation.

            3. Talking about it afresh can help to build links to new information, such as the port deal, to achieve a more global persepctive.

            4. Talking about it can help to eliminate unlikely scenarios, perfect the discussion.

            5.  If Bush hasn't lost all credibility by what he has already done, how can we lose credibility by talking about it?

            We don't have time for short-term thinking.

            by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:34:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Information Clearinghouse (none / 0)

        I've been getting stuff from that website for years now, it's no more or less reliable than the sources it uses. Information Clearinghouse is just a news aggregator, like the Drudge Retort.

        (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

        by autoegocrat on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:56:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your Source Sucks (4.00 / 5)

      Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein's strategy in 1980 when initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green-light for the invasion from the Reagan White House.

      That's fucking ridiculous.  You know why?  

      Reagan wasn't President in September 1980 when the war began, Carter was, and he was polling several points above Reagan, who didn't become President until four months after the war began.

      Anybody who can't get such as simple fact like that correct isn't a credible source.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:51:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sherlock (none / 0)

      "Google"?  Now I know why you use that name.  It's an interesting technique to google up a bunch of information, present it in a thought-provoking manner and convince everyone of something that is really highly speculative.

      Here's where the analysis is flawed:

      (1)  If the US had designs on Khuzestan they would not be dissing the Iraqi Shia' the way they are.  The US has done everything possible to weaken Abdulaziz al-Hakim, who is the most important politician along the Iranian border (except for Maysan province, which is Sadr).  al-Hakim has the intelligence networks and Iraqi exiles in that part of Iran, and the US would be working with SCIRI not against them.  The US needs at least some fig leaf and they would not be able to claim "Arab liberation" unless they could convince Iraq's Shia' Arabs that their bretheren in Iran needed liberating.  

      (2)  There is not a significant separatist movement in Khuzestan.  There is some unrest, but nothing like Iranian Kurdistan or the sort of sectarian unrest Saddam faced in Shia' areas of Iraq, for that matter.  If the US was really determined, they would be doing a lot more to encourage separatism in Khuzestan.  The recent State Department RFP for "human rights programs" in Iraq makes no mention whatsoever of programs to support minority rights in Iran. I think the plight of the Iranian Arabs is not high on the Administration's agenda.

      (3)  Do you seriously think Bush has the support here in the US to even contemplate this?  

      (4)  There's the old adage.  Change in Iraq could only have come from without and change in Iran can only come from within.  The UK knows this, and they are virtually the only potential partner we have left for such an adventure.  Who is going to go in on this with Bush?

      Less half-baked analysis, please.  I do wonder if you have actual experience in the region, or academic background in this.  It's a nice way of drumming up outrage at the Bush administration (which I share) but it isn't particularly helpful to buy into conspiracy theories at a time when our relations with the Shia' community in Iraq are disintegrating.

      God, who gave man scabies, also gave him hands to scratch them.

      by ivorybill on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:29:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction... (none / 0)

        In point (2) make that human rights programs in Iran, not Iraq.

        Also, I think the Bush Administration would like to set the stage for invading Iran.  I don't think they will be able to do it, and I don't think Khuzestan is either the strategy or the rationale.  Instead, the nuclear issue is the only handle the Bush Administration has.  Given IAEA studies and the failures of US intelligence, I don't think Bush has the capacity to stampede the Security Council or the US public the way he did last time.  

        I could be wrong though, because plenty of people in these parts get a little hysterical about Iran, too!

        God, who gave man scabies, also gave him hands to scratch them.

        by ivorybill on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:37:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  CENSORED COMMENT (4.00 / 2)


    but you can't help but wonder if this Administration's leaders had to face their OWN mortality and put their own lives on the line they might seriously reconsider things..... it's too easy for these people to get others killed.
    •  And if you thought Iraq was bad (4.00 / 5)

      just WAIT until you see what happens in Iran.....

      Iran is far better prepared and has SUPPORTERS that are NOT going to be happy.....

      We go into Iran and we WILL have a REAL never-ending war that makes Iraq look like a training exercise....  and hint - the training exercise showed pretty clearly that we're in NO shape to handle this.....

      •  Invasion of Iraq=World War III (4.00 / 6)

        Possibly Japan and Europe, but almost certainly China, Will NOT stand for a US monopoly on middle eastern Oil.  If we Invade Iran, expect China to give serious military aid to Iran, and threaten missile launches, Treasury Bill dumps, and Export restrictions if necessary.  We'd be threatening China's Lifeblood, along with Europe and Japan.

        We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

        by ScrewySquirrel on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:28:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! (none / 0)

          Pearl Harbor was triggered by an oil embargo. We attack Iran and our fingers are placed on China's jugular. China cannot permit that.

          If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

          by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:35:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Japan is going along with us. (none / 0)

          they are already allied, have long-running disputes with China, and current offshore oil disputes with China.  They are re-militarizing for joint US-Japan operations.  Their public is not keen on it, but neither is ours.  

          We don't have time for short-term thinking.

          by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:38:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Screwy, the Chines have no Navy (none / 0)

          or long-range Air Force.  Are they going to have 1 million Red Army soldiers WALK to Iran?

          The Russians and Chinese are jsut making noise.  They are not even rattling sabers because they don't have any sabers to rattle.

          No one can stop Bushco, believe me.

          •  true (none / 0)

            Thgat doesn't stop them from embargoing export goods to the US, selling off Teasury Bills, or launching an ICBM towards our navy in the Arabian Gulf.

            We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

            by ScrewySquirrel on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:03:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Chinese have time on their side... (none / 0)

            ...because of demographics and the tailspin of our foreign policy and economy.  They would not dare challege the US directly at this point.  However, they may take the opportunity to reassert control over Taiwan while the US is busy with Iran.  The Europeans will be with the US if they think the war will be successful.  They opposed the Iraq war not because of dignified moral reighteousness but because they had dealings with Hussein and mostly thought the US was bringing on its own downfall as the sole super-power.  This of course would open up a whole new multipolar world, in which both France and Germany (still) hope to lead the European pole.  If the US successfully took control of such a large portion of oil supplies though, Chirac and co would not want to be left on the sidelines.  If they make the determination that the war will not succeed, they will not join in and wait for the US to continue to weaken itself.  Of course everyone will say they are "trying to stop Iran's nuclear program" or that they are "opposed to unilateral action until inspections have been completed".  Anyway, trying to think of all the factors involved just makes my head spin so I'll stop now.
        •  I think you mean Iran... (none / 0)

          but you are right, I can see a nuke lobbing match between the US and China. I hope cooler minds IMPEACH this crowd before that could ever play out.
          Sad thing is, I know there are some of neo-con mind, that would like nothing more than to see it happen.

          This sig line shows a complete lack of imagination.

          by weelzup on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:13:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Plus, We Can't Afford It (none / 0)

          We've already committed $700 billion to $1 trillion for the Iraq adventure.  We just don't have another trillion dollars to spare right now.
      •  ayupper EOM (none / 0)

        Welcome to the empire. now run away if you can... life is not a dress rehearsal

        by johnfire on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:46:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  we ARE in no shape to handle this... (none / 1)

        which is what makes the nuclear option so realistic and frightening. As soon as we use nukes (even "tactical ones"), the Pandora's box is open. And at very least, millions will die.
        •  This is what Scott Ritter said would happen (none / 0)

          Several weeks ago, the California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus had a panel discussion that included Scott Ritter. At the time he said war with Iran was 100% likely unless the Democrats do something. He said Bolton's speech to the UN was already written. And he said that it was likely we'd end up using those bunker busting nukes Bush had developed.
  •  Straits of Hormuz (4.00 / 7)

    We do this and oil goes to $200 per barrel. How do we get oil tankers through the Straits?

    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

    by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:28:46 PM PDT

    •  We will likely take the tip of the Straits (4.00 / 2)

      Which have a very low population.  The US could easily control it with Special Forces bases and the Air Force and Coast Guard Sea-Land blitz.

      Holding it will be bloody, but the Iranians can be held off and prevented from blocking the Straits.

      We will no doubt lose a couple of tankers, but for Cheney well worth that $200 a barrel for oil.

      •  Ever heard of Waterborne IEDs? (4.00 / 5)

        Tankers would make a big oil slick, and would be prime targets. Oil prices would increase dramatically because the cost of insurance for the tankers would become prohibitive.

        Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

        by Kayakbiker on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:36:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exact-a-mundo (none / 0)

          We try to grab one province and declare "game over" and Iran says "bring on the 2nd quarter"

          I betcha the Iranians have been planning for exactly this scenario.

          If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

          by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:41:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Supplied by (4.00 / 3)

            Russia and China, which may partly explain why we are trying to re-militarize Japan.

            We don't have time for short-term thinking.

            by Compound F on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:45:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  All of their planning will be destroyed (none / 0)

            in 3 weeks of 2000 sorties of air strikes and then Special Forces takeover.

            We may lose a couple of tankers every now and then but we lose a couple to storms every now then anyhow.

            Cost of stealing business.  Negligible.

            •  3 weeks of 2000 sorties? (none / 1)

              Okay, give me links that large numbers of F-15s are on their way to the Gulf, along with a few extra aircraft carriers and we can talk.

              If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

              by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:56:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry Bill, we have plenty of planes already there (none / 0)

                even B-52s that can strike from the US with refueling.

                Believe me, we can mount 2000 sorties easily in 3 weeks and you must agree there would be little left after that.

                We've been building bases surrounding Iran for years.

                You did know that?  Plus the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Force just entered the Gulf and is there.

                They would move in some extra forces from our bases already in the Gulf.  Plus Diego Garcia and Germany are within flight range.

                •  Desert Storm saw six US carriers (none / 0)

                  participate. Six!

                  It appears that today we have one in the Gulf. One! Okay it is the Ronald Reagan (heh!) but still that will not permit the massive crushing attack we accomplished as part of Desert Storm.

                  If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

                  by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:08:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bill, how long does it take to get to the Gulf? (none / 0)

                    From the Mediterranean?  How long from the States?  Plus as I said, we could pound anything into the ground with B-52s and not have any carriers there!

                    Plus we are only taking little old Khuzestan, remember, and bombing the nuke sites.

                    We don't need 6 carriers to take a place that's only 100 miles wide and 150 miles long and has more oil than all of Iraq!  We only need the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Force.

                    You do realize what a US carrier strike force contains and what it can do, don't you?  It can easily help the Arab rebels and Special Forces take Khuzestan and then more carrier groups are brought in to help patrol the coast.

                    No Problemo!

                    •  First we need to neutralize (none / 0)

                      the Iranian air force. And their large stash of conventional missiles. And for that we need total air superiority. One carrier isn't enough to launch an offensive air war against Iran and guard the tankers and bust the missile sites.

                      = = =

                      Four weeks without oil and its a global depression. Especially since Iran's missiles can hit Saudi terminals.

                      If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

                      by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:23:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  One carrier cannot give air cover (none / 0)

                      to our minesweepers.

                      But, tell me 75% of our operational minesweepers are rapidly steaming towards Hormuz and that's a factoid in your favor. Without the sweepers the oil cannot flow and without air cover AND several few thousand troops deployed around Hormuz we cannot secure our minesweepers.

                      We are the greatest military power in human history but we do not have super-hero powers.

                      If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

                      by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:27:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  All the Iranians would have to do is... (4.00 / 3)

                        dump a few mines and a bunch of empty beer kegs (oops -- goatsmilk kegs?) into the Strait of Hormuz, and our naval operations would be brought to a standstill. Our countermine capabilities are not good, and Navy ships are too expensive to risk losing to a mine.

                        My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?

                        by Shiborg on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:03:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Sounds like a cakewalk! Will we be greeted as (4.00 / 5)

                      liberators? Cool, that! And then the Iranian oil will pay for the whole undertaking? Schweet!

                      Wetmachine for your daily dose of technoparanoia.

                      by j sundman on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:44:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  not to mention the fact (none / 0)

                        that all those hot iranian babes and boys will throw them selves into the loving arms of their merican saviors!!!

                        snark

                        Welcome to the empire. now run away if you can... life is not a dress rehearsal

                        by johnfire on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:48:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I was on the Midway in the Gulf War (none / 1)

                  we did 4000 sorties between 01 Nov and 01 Mar.  That is 800 sorties a month.  Granted, Midway was a small carrier with only two catapults.  Still, 2000 sorties in three weeks would be tough.

                  Be careful around Bill O cuz he'll pop a loofah in yo ass.

                  by calipygian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:12:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A "4" for a vet (none / 1)

                    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

                    by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:14:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Dems was the old days (none / 0)

                    Look how many sorties were flown before the first Gulf War.  A small Jet Sortie is a lot less time than a prop plane sortie, don't forget.

                    Jets go faster.

                    •  Sorry thought you meant WWII (none / 0)

                      Still you make my point I think.

                      If you think about it, though 200 sorties would just make the rubble bounce in little old Khuzestan.

                      I'll reduce it to 1000 sorties and we still romp.

                      Later we bleed to death, I agree--but the point is we take the gas and it goes to $200 a barrel and the Iranian Bourse has to close.

                  •  CVA 41? (none / 0)

                    I was on the USS Midway during the Vietnam war. I hear it's in mouthballs now.

                    I wasted a lot of time on that ship where I witnessed race riots and all the problems one would expect to find in a city of about 4000 men (no women in old Navy).

                    Most of us counted the days, looking forward to becoming a two-digit midget (99 days left to serve in our contracts).

                    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

                    by Kayakbiker on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:39:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  When I was on board in the early 90's (none / 1)

                      it was CV-41.  And the guys on board were extraordinarily well behaved.  I dont think there were any arrests of  guys on liberty the entire time I was on board (Aug 90 - Mar 91) if you can believe that.  Only three guys died during the deployment, which is pretty good.  They died over Christmas 1990 in Abu Dhabi during a port call in which they took a desert safari and died when their dune buggy flipped over.  No women on board when I was on board.  In fact, as late as 1995, when I was on board the USS Wasp, the only woman on board was a young Lieutenant in the Intel shop.  When I was on board the Midway, I was in Frame 15, one deck below the flight deck.  The channel for the catapult ran right through my spaces and whenever a plane catted off the deck, it would throw my equipment off.  Every hour or so, I would have to quit what I was doing and recalibrate my gear.  During the Gulf War, I had a really scarey experience on board.  We were cruising around the Gulf north of Bahrain.  Iraq shot a Scud toward Bahrain and it fell short, right in the middle of the Midway battle group.  The guys on the Leyte Gulf, who was our plane guard at the time, called over on our circuit.  I couldn't  understand what they were saying because they were in full MOPP gear after the Scud had impacted and their chem alarms were going off.  That Scud had impacted between them and us, and since they were our plane guard, it meant that the Scud had impacted between them and us, less than a mile from the carrier.  Whatever had come from the impact had drifted over the Leyte Gulf and set off their chem alarms.  Another time, a couple of Iraqi planes took off and  made it over the Gulf.  We were the northern most carrier battle group and they were headed for us.  We went to General Quarters, but, I was too tired so I dragged my ass up to my space and found a nice warm spot under my gear and went to sleep.  A Saudi F-15 pilot shot down two of our potential attackers and chased off the third guy.  Ah, Midway, I am so glad I'm off you, but I miss you none the less...

                      Be careful around Bill O cuz he'll pop a loofah in yo ass.

                      by calipygian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:59:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  We can't defeat a nation of 80 million..., (none / 1)

                  through air strikes alone. This whole idea is nightmarish and would be a colossal blunder, just the sort of thing Bush would do.

                  CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

                  by irate on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:18:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  mobile targets (none / 0)

                  We had a hell of time knocking out Iraqi mobile scud launchers.  We couldn't find them to stop them firing.

                  In Serbia, we had a hell of time hitting mobile targets.

                  Sure the USAF can knock out fixed, identified targets but it is a different story when trying to knock out mobile launchers.  If some of those mobile launchers have a anti-ship capability, we could have some real problems in terms of suppling the army in Iraq as well as getting oil out.

                  Another point, does Iran have a self destruct policy in place for oil wells as Iraq had in the first Gulf War?  It took a long time to get those wells back into operation.  

          •  There was a dry run (4.00 / 2)

            according to Robert Fisk's new book, during the Iraq-Iran War. At a later stage, they both tried to destroy each other's shipping business, and the US jumped into the frey on the Iraq side, doing such things as registering Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag. The Iranians for their part, tried to avoid direct confrontation with the US, but did develop a lot of no- to low-tech means to hurt ships dealing with Iraq. Now, with tens of thousands of suicide-bomber volunteers it would not take a lot to physically close the Straits.

            Fisk describes how the Iranians had set up missiles to pound the Straits if they decided to, as well as hit Kuwait, et. al., and how they so thoroughly mined some parts of the gulf, US Warship Admirals simply refused to sail into some parts. They have better missiles now, including some of the newer Russian ones.

            And remember the fixed war game before the Attack on Iraq?

            War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general

            Wednesday August 21, 2002 The Guardian

            The biggest war game in US military history, staged this month at a cost of £165m with 13,000 troops, was rigged to ensure that the Americans beat their "Middle Eastern" adversaries, according to one of the main participants.

            General Paul Van Riper, ...told the Army Times that the .... exercises, were "almost entirely scripted to ensure a [US] win".

            When Gen Van Riper agreed to command the forces of an unnamed Middle Eastern state - which bore a strong re semblance to Iraq, but could have been Iran - he thought he would be given a free rein to probe US weaknesses. But when the game began, he was told to deploy his forces to make life easier for US forces.

            The Army Times reported that, as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, Gen Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted US forces.

            ...When the US fleet sailed into the Gulf, he instructed his small boats and planes to move around in apparently aimless circles before launching a surprise attack which sank a substantial part of the US navy. The war game had to be stopped and the American ships "refloated" so that the US forces stood a chance.

            There's little doubt Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice are totally convinced their genius will guide us to more successes.

            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:01:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Iran has state of the art cruise missles (none / 0)

          never mind air to ground or ground to ground...

          remember the Falklands?  

          These PNAC guys REALLY should have taken some military history courses.... they are WAAAAY to focused on "politics".......

          Seriously, a fist trumps intellectual arguments.

          And if Rove, Bush or Cheney ever had to deal directly with consequences in their lives, things would be very different

      •  Mines are a problem. (4.00 / 4)

        And if Russia decides to smuggle Sunburns, game over. We might even lose an aircraft carrier.

        Iran has had 20 years to prepare and the coast line is most likely dotted with Silkworm and Exocet sites. We CANNOT grab one province and declare stalemate. We CANNOT grab one province and the entire region around the straits. We need to secure the whole freakin' coastline.

        = = =

        Recall that war-game where Marine General Ripper (true name) played the Red-Team (Iran) and kicked butt. They had to change the rules mid-stream because the US of A was losing.

        If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

        by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:39:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually if you look at a map (none / 1)

          There are no major towns for almost the entire coastline.  It's the wasteland that wiped out Alexander the Great on his way back from India.

          THere is no one to defeat there, no insurgent towns because there are no towns.

          Understand that and you will see how the war planners are looking at Khuzestan and the uninhabited coastline to the east, all the way to the Straits and beyond.  Excepting the town of Bushehr--which will no doubt be conquered just because it contains the name "Bush" within it--there is absolutely NOTHING there.

        •  SS-N-22 is over-rated (4.00 / 2)

          mines are a real threat though.  If Serbia had gotten serious about mining the Straits of Otranto during the  Kosovo Campaign, things would have gotten ugly real quick.  Not to mention the damage that Iraq did just sowing a couple of mines in the Northern Persian/Arabian Gulf during Desert Storm (USS Princeton and USS Iwo Jima both hitting mines).  Iran could very easily cause several hundred casualties and do several hundred million dollars worth of physical damage as well as several tens of billions in psychological damage with a couple dozen $100,000 mines.  Not to mention just the "fleet in being" threat that the three Kilo class subs that they have which are, in effect, mobile mines.  Just the mere fact that they are at sea, whether or not they are employed effectively would be enough to close the Straits of Hormuz.  And  if the   rumors are true and the Iranians bought a squadron of TU-22M3 bombers with the associated cruise missile...forget it.

          Be careful around Bill O cuz he'll pop a loofah in yo ass.

          by calipygian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:07:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sunburns (none / 1)

          are already in the Persian arsenal -- and have been for a good ten years according to a Senate speech on 27 June 1996 by Senator D'Amato.  D'Amato Statement

          The money quote:

          "...The ship self-defense systems fall into two general categories. The first are sensors, missiles and guns which are designed to locate and shoot down the attacking missile. The idea is to hit a bullet with a bullet. I believe that there can be no disagreement that this is a difficult task. Because of the size of the Persian Gulf, ships are always relatively close to shore. When an antiship missile is fired from a land-based site as it could be in Iran, ground clutter can conceal the missile from ship or

          aircraft radar until it reaches open water, which reduces the reaction time of our ships and makes the interception much more difficult. With an anti-ship missile like the SUNBURN, traveling at mach 2.5, the time from its appearance over the horizon until it impacts on its target is only approximately 30 seconds. Further, sophisticated missiles which engage in corkscrew and serpentine maneuvers as they enter their final phase make them very difficult to engage."

          As for coutermeasures, from what reports i've read, the US military possesses nothing that can counter a supersonic cruise missile.

          Better circle the wagons, guys...  

          -7.13 / -6.97 "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." -- Edmund Burke

          by GulfExpat on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:31:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What makes oil prices go up (none / 0)

        is not actual deliveries but future demand and future supply.

        The perception of danger in the flows will drive prices because Insurance companies will not take the risk or will demand astronomical premiums.

        "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

        by Euroliberal on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:12:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We already have 3 Aircraft carrier strike forces (none / 0)

      in the Gulf and the whole Fifth Fleet!

      February 19, 2006

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

      Reagan Carrier Strike Group Enters Fifth Fleet

      Aboard USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76 ), At Sea - The Navy's newest aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), along with embarked Commander, Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG 7) and Carrier Air Wing One Four (CVW-14) arrived in the 5 th Fleet Area of Operations Feb. 18 as part of a routine rotation of U.S. maritime forces.

      While in the region, Reagan will support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as well as conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO). More than 6,000 Sailors are currently assigned to the Reagan Carrier Strike Group.

      "The Ronald Reagan Strike Group is ready on arrival," said Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller, Commander, Carrier Strike Group Seven.

      "Our past nine months of training have been in preparation to support our troops on the ground in Iraq and carry out Maritime Security Operations. It is an honor to serve with them and to once again prove President Reagan's motto "Peace through Strength" really works. With the speed, agility and persistence of the modern carrier strike group, we intend to make a difference in helping to set the conditions for security and stability," said Miller.

      MSO help preserve the free and secure use of the world's oceans by legitimate mariners and prevent terrorists from attempting to use the maritime environment as a venue for attack or as a medium to transport personnel, weapons or other material that could support their efforts.

      According to Reagan's Commanding Officer Capt. Terry B. Kraft, the ship was made ready for the Western Pacific deployment through the hard work and dedication of crew.

      "We have spent months of training preparing us for the types of real-world operations we are now conducting," said Kraft.  "I know this particular crew and air wing are ready to carry out any mission that will be asked of us during this deployment. This theater is where the rubber meets the road."

      The Ronald Reagan Strike Group is comprised of CVW-14, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Reagan, the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), the guided-missile destroyers USS McCampbell (DDG 85) and USS Decatur (DDG 73), the fast combat support ship USS Rainer (T-AOE 7), and Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 15.

      The squadrons of CVW-14 include the "Redcocks" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 22, the "Fist of the Fleet" of VFA-25, the "Stingers" of VFA-113, the "Eagles" of VFA-115, the "Black Eagles" of Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 113, the "Cougars" of Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (VAQ) 139, the "Providers" of Carrier Logistics Support (VRC) 30, and the "Black Knights" of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 4.

      Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet's area of responsibility encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes three critical chokepoints at the Suez Canal, the Straits of Hormuz, and the Straits of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen .

      http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/...

      Now three aircraft carrier groups are enough to take little old Khuzestan (150 miles long) and patrol the Gulf, no?

      •  No.... (4.00 / 4)

        that is still just one carrier.  Commander, Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG 7) is the guy who commands the Group that comprises the carrier and the escorts.  Carrier Air Wing One Four (CVW-14) is the guy who commands the planes that are embarked on board the carrier.  The guy who commands the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is the guy who runs the ship that carries CCSG 7 and CVW-14. CCSG-7 is probably embarked aboard CVN-76, and CVW-14 is definitely embarked aboard CVN-76.  CVW-14 consists of a mixed wing of  8 squadrons.  The Reagan is only one strike force...

        Be careful around Bill O cuz he'll pop a loofah in yo ass.

        by calipygian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:11:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok thanks for correcting me on that (none / 0)

          Since you are a carrier expert, could not the Ronald Reagan be all you need to take Khuzestan with say an Arab rebellion and 15,000 marines and Special Forces fighting a Land-Sea-Air operation?

          Khuzestan is about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticutt combined.

          •  delusions, mate, delusions (none / 0)

            Yeah, baby, sweets and flowers, sweets and flowers! There's no Arab rebellion to start with, there's zero prospect of the US being able to foment one,  and there's absolutely no US military force sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for something to do.

            You really imagine that Iranian Arabs, having watched the US military do their best imitation of the Mongol Horde of 1258 next door, are going to entertain the prospect of the US invading their homes as a positive?

  •  Iran retaliation (4.00 / 2)

    Conventional missiles rain down on the Green Zone in Baghdad. And oil terminals in Saudi Arabia. The straits of Hormuz get mined. We cannot limit this to one region and unlike Saddam, Iran won't play "fish in a barrel"

    Besides, the Shia Arabs depicted on that map as the yellow region are the same folks who have terminated relations with the British military in Basra. Bottom line? This would be an unmitigated military disaster for the US within weeks.

    Bush is indeed Bush but no way I see the Pentagon going along with this plan.

    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

    by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:36:11 PM PDT

    •  Mercifully (none / 0)

      missiles rain down on Baghdad, but hitting the green zone is pushing things.

      However, as things start to warm up one can readily imagine the Chinese becoming a larger scale arms supplier to Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other such places. They might also given the land border supply the Taliban.

      If they get really annoyed, they start selling dollars in large quantities.

      •  Missile (none / 0)

        Why would aiming at the Green Zone be pushing things?  Iran has a buttload of missiles, some of which can reach all the way to Iceland (according to a recent issue of Time or Newsweek, I forget which), and all of which can cover the entire Middle East.  

        If Dorkemada does his coked up cowboy routine and invades Iran, I see no reason why that country would feel a need for restraint.  Green Zone, Hormuz, US ships in port, etc.--all are likely targets.

        What scares me spitless about this situation is just how incredibly unpredictable it is.  Bush is a moron with no more sense than a bag of rocks, and Iran is a much more formidable military opponent than Iraq, and it's surrounded by juicy targets and sitting on top of vast oil and natural gas reserves that have EVERYONE'S attention.

        You could make up a scarier and more complicated scenario than this, but you'd have to try pretty hard.

        •  CEP (none / 0)

          If you shoot a missile at point A, how far out from point A will it come down?

          The reported Iranian missiles that I have heard about will on a good day hit Baghdad consistently.  Anything much smaller as a target is just asking too much.  

    •  How about... (none / 1)

      Iranian irregulars & small units swarming into Iraq to attack our troops & especially our supply lines? We don't have enough troops to hold our own against the Iraqi insurgents. Our supply lines are probably our greatest vulnerability.

      My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?

      by Shiborg on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:13:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  6 major roads into/ through Iraq (none / 0)

        What if Sistani orders 15 million Shia' to sit on the roads and let nothing in. A mighty mighty army without food, ammo, or relief eventually becomes a sitting duck, even if the enemy only had swords.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:07:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, in my opinion (none / 0)

        Truck convoys from Kuwait are essential for re-supply of our army. Where else can logistics come from? From Jordan across the desert? Turkey?

        Airlift?

        Without truck convoys from Kuwait our army runs out of food, fuel and bullets mighty quick.

        If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

        by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry to dump more rain (none / 1)

    but ponder this scenario:

    If the Shia militia seize Basra and prevent truck traffic from passing through, Baghdad is cut off from overland supply. Find me a truck route to central Iraq from Kuwait that does not pass through Basra.

    Our soldiers become targets, not occupiers.

    Our ability to pound Iran into the Stone Age assures me Iran and the Basra Shia won't start this. But they will finish it.

    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

    by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:48:45 PM PDT

    •  Sorry to dry up your rain (none / 0)

      But the Basra Shia already have their oil payoff and if we need to destroy Basra to drive through, well we've already done that twice in the last 14 years.  

      Took a few days.

      They'll let their Shia Arab brothers have their oil payoff too.  It will be the Basra Shia that help support the Khuzestan Arab takeover.

      Don't forget the Arab Shia in Iran right now are persecuted by the Persians to the north.

      The Basra Shia and the US will free Arab Shia Khuzestan from their oppression.

      Look at the map (see the Yellow?) and please read your history before stating things that are plumb backwards.

      •  If the plan is to create Sumer (none / 0)

        (Juan Cole has used the term Sumer for a Shia super-state) Saudi Arabia goes ballistic.

        Those Shia are also Hamas and Hezbollah and might very well say thank you Uncle Sam, now leave. They will listent to Sadr and Sistani before Condi Rice.
         

        If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

        by Bill White on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:58:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Saudis and what army? (none / 1)

          Remember, the US is the Saudi Army.

          Your point in this thread make no sense.  You state things as if Bushco conspiracies with the Arabs aren't real.  

          You act as though the Saudis and the Shia care more about religion than they do about money and raw power.

          That's simply not true.

          You have to realize what's going on in the area.

          Arabs against the Persians is a much bigger grudge match than Arab Shia against Arab Sunni.

          If you read some history you'll realize the Khuzestan Gambit can work.  I agree it will be a bloody, bloody mess but the Oil Wars are nothing but a bloody, bloody mess.

          You see, they've come this far, and Khuzestan is the last piece of the PNAC Plan.

          You HAVE heard of the PNAC Plan and read it I hope...