TIME - War with Iran Inevitable?

Perhaps I have a tin foil hat.  But I've been down this road before.

Add this to the rest of the bad news coming out of the Gulf, and things look pretty grim. The "surge," despite what some claim, has barely made a dent in the violence in Iraq. Our Arab allies are jumping ship, apparently as fast as they can. At the opening of the Arab summit on Wednesday, Saudi King Abdallah accused the U.S of illegally occupying Iraq. The day before, the leader of the United Arab Emirates sent his foreign minister to Tehran to tell the Iranians he would not allow the U.S. to use UAE soil to attack Iran. That leaves us with Kuwait and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to face Iran.

I called up an Arab Gulf security official and asked him what he thought about it all. He said the view from his side of the Gulf is that if Iran does not soon release the Brits, a war between the U.S. and Iran is in the cards. "I for one am taking all the cash I can out of my ATM," he said before hanging up.

TIME is just getting you you used to the idea that really there is nothing we can do about it.  It had to happen.  We kidnapped some of their guys.  They kidnapped some of ours.  Bombs away.  It's inevitable.   Its not fair that we have nuclear weapons and Saddam wanted them.  And now Iran wants them.  And its not fair that we aren't allowed to kidnap their people but they can't kidnap ours.   See how this works.  There was no choice.  It was inevitable.

•  They're desperately trying to justify aggression.

  Not buying it.

  by Diaries on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:11:14 PM PDT

  •  its not you they are selling too

    they say it enough, show some pictures of the nice british woman in a headscarf and they'll rally support.   After all, Time would never try to manipulate anyone, right?

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:20:12 PM PDT

    •  what's the implication here

      that Time is in on a US government conspiracy to take us to war with Iran?  

      Baer strikes me as a conspiracy theorist and an alarmist, and this piece reflects it.

      by Hprof on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:49:15 PM PDT

      •  Errr....

        ...he was former a former clandestine officer in Lebanon, Syria and Iran, so I think he might know something of what he speaks.

        I'm not his hugest fan either, I think his idea that it was IRAN IRAN IRAN behind 9/11 is way off the mark, but  hey it could be true.

        Just saying, he's not a tinfoilhatter.

        by viget on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:54:13 PM PDT

        •  Iran being behind 9/11 is absurd

          Really really really absurd!

          by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:56:16 PM PDT

        •  my impression is that he is a bit of a nutter

          However, when asked by Thom Hartmann in 2006 whether he was "of the opinion that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?", Baer responded, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." (link)

          In any event, my question was as much about what the diarist means to impute to Time magazine--that they're consciously preparing us for a US war on Iran?  I'm dubious.

          by Hprof on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:01:28 PM PDT

          •  The point of all this is to scare the crap out of

            Iran so that they'll do one or more the following things:

            1. capitulate on their nuclear program;

            2. overthrow Ahmadinejad;

            and/or

            3. go berserk and do something really stupid that presents a casus belli for U.S. military intervention.

            As someone who blames Iran for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebabon, who carried out a bunch of missions against Iranian proxies, Baer doesn't really care about the rank order.

            He may be retired, but he still has his mission.  If the prospect of war with Iran scares the crap out of us, too, that wouldn't bother him much.

            by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:58:45 PM PDT

            •  number 2 will not happen

              For one thing, if there is a nuclear program that's not peaceful it certainly didn't start with Ahmdinejad, so overthrowing him will do nothing to end it.

              by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:21:59 PM PDT

              •  If Ahmadinejad gets tossed, the Bush-Blair team

                will proclaim it a triumph for "tough diplomacy" and an endorsement of regime change doctrine.

                Ahmadinejad is about as popular in Iran as Bush is here right now, but a real war would do wonders for both of their polls.  Same for Blair.

                by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:36:18 PM PDT

                •  couldn't agree more

                  There is no way Iranians are going to risk their lives and pour into the streets to replace their president, who is already limited in what he can do.  If either Bush or Blair think that will happen by crossing their waters, or conducting war games to scare people they're smoking crack.

                  by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:55:30 PM PDT

      •  its a headline on CNN's home page

        my implication is that CNN helped sell the iraq war and they are helping cell this one.

        by onemadson on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:53:15 PM PDT

•  For the life of me

  I can't figure out why the Iranians want to be as stupid as Saddam Hussein was in allowing themselves to be snookered into a situation where the US - on whatever pretext - is able to take military action against them.

  by bobdevo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:12:36 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it's Machiavellian

    the world knows we're stretched too thin and our military is ill-supplied and we can't recruit replacements.  Maybe Iraq wants to be the breaking point?

    by kismet on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:16:15 PM PDT

    •  We have plenty of power to

      kill many of the Iranian ruling elite.  It will also, unfortunately, make life harder for the average Iranian and oil consuming world citizen.

      What will take over from the current Iranian gov't?  Well, it wasn't all flowers and candy after Saddam's fall in Iraq, so "the devil we don't know" is sorta a scary proposition.

      This hostage taking trick has worked so well for them in the past, why give it up now.

      Best regards,

      by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:31:33 PM PDT

      •  hostage taking

        The captured soldiers can only be considering "hostages" if a) they were captured unlawfully, and b) Iran is asking for ransom.
        At this point we don't know if either is the case.

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:33:05 PM PDT

        •  What term do you prefer.

          I do believe point a) applies and b) merely hasn't been defined yet.  By virtue of negotiations and demands by both sides, I think your point b) is fulfilled.

          Not that I agree with your definition, but either way, I think your terms are met.

          Best regards,

          by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:55:39 PM PDT

          •  need all the facts

            I'm not convinced based on UK words alone.

            by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:15:37 PM PDT

            •  Nice non-answer...

              I disagree with the term "hostages" and offer no alternative.

              Do you simply like to counterpunch and offer no alternatives?  Apparently.

              by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:02:32 PM PDT

              •  (LOL....the perils

                of a public school education!)

                Rather than "I disagre...", it should read "You disagree...".

                by USAFguy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:16:09 PM PDT

          •  Whether they were captured unlawfully

            has as yet not been determined.

            They were seized in the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway flowing into the Persian Gulf that marks the border between Iran and Iraq; a long-disputed issue.

            The dispute was the prime precipitator of the 9 year war between Iran and Iraq - in which a million Iranians were killed by the US proxy in the war, Mr. Sadddam Hussein and his Republican Guard, who were armed and provided intel by the US.

            by bobdevo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:29:55 PM PDT

      •  We have plenty of killing machines

        but less and less real power. The world is or has turned against us and that’s what counts in the long run.

        China could bring us down just by screwing with the dollar. Sure, there would be a cost to them but they’re not afraid to take hard measures.

        by fly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:35:30 PM PDT

        •  what repubs missed about globalization

          Sure, we can take more profits, but we are also more vulnerable, since we depend on more trade.
          On the plus side, perhaps the ruling global upperclass will realize that they need world peace to sell their crap and so will pressure governments to talk to each other.

          by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:23 PM PDT

        •  If China takes "hard measures"....

          ....the Chinese government is kaput. Guaranteed.

          The only reason that the present government is tolerated is because of the economic boom. If they blow the boom, they're history.

          by sagesource on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

    •  bingo

      do people even read history books. Imperialist world powers get their asses kicked in just this manor EVERY century.

      by pissedpatriot on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:33:08 PM PDT

      •  Bush never read history

        Or any other textbook for that matter.  Hell, he didn't even read the Baker report.

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:34:11 PM PDT

  •  restraint

    Aside from capturing the British soldiers, the Iranians have shown a lot of restraint considering not just the rhetoric coming out of Washington, but the capturing of Iranian diplomats and the war games conducted in the Persian Gulf.

    by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:24:07 PM PDT

  •  Do they really have a choice?

    shrubCo would love to put them in a subservient position but that would be a blow to them. They can’t afford to be seen as a (virtual) vassal state.

    All of this is stupid, really stupid but the largest dose of stupidity is coming from our side.

    by fly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:32:16 PM PDT

  •  Mullahs have a few options.

    But they will make of Iran what they want. They have certain needs, and they think the US is at a nadir in terms of power.  Iraq was not representative of the fight the iranians will put up.  They are much more skilled at war than Iraq was.

    by Salo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:52:24 PM PDT

    •  the bigger problem with war against Iran

      is that everybody in the Middle East KNOWS that occupation by the USA means the occupied country turns into a living hell in which every asset that can be privatized and turned over to US corporations will be, in which even what few civil rights permitted by a theocracy won't exist, in which electricity and water and public safety will be a fond memory, and parents whose kids become desperately ill will get to watch them die.

      An invasion won't be a cakewalk, every battle is going to look like Iwo Jima. And "victory" in any specific area just starts the nightmare for anyone unfortunate enough to be an occupier, suicide bombings will start on day 1 without anyone trying to organize them.

      by alizard on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM PDT

      •  And i might add...

        ...the Iraqis turned out to be sophisticated soldiers.

        by Salo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:50:20 PM PDT

  •  It wasn't the central gov't that decided to

    capture the Brits.  The real target of the ongoing pyswar has been the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG).

    See, http://www.democraticunderground.com...

    by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:02:35 PM PDT

•  The guy who wrote that is interesting

  Check this out:

  Baeriana:  a chat with Robert Baer

  What's with the Iran-9/11 stuff?

  At least he doesn't advocate using force against Iran (see the article).

  by Plutonium Page on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:13:00 PM PDT

  •  a quote from that

    But Baer does not advocate military force against Iran. "We can't afford it," he said. "It would require one million soldiers on the ground. It's a large country with a large army and there's an ongoing revolution. It would be like hitting a hornet's nest."

    by onemadson on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:23:33 PM PDT

    •  "we can't afford it"

      As opposed to "genocide is immoral".  Do these people think of anything other than dollars and cents?

      by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:25:02 PM PDT

    •  When did affordability ever stop Bush?

      Every hear about the National Debt? Bush has the Navy and airpower and plenty of bombs and he is the commander in chief. What else does he need?

      by smerfish on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:03:09 PM PDT

      •  only for national healthcare

        Affordability is only an issue with Bush when it comes to keeping our populace heathly.

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:16:20 PM PDT

        •  The taxcuts are affordable, but healthcare???

          by smerfish on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:46:28 AM PDT

  •  And

    Baer acknowledges that he lacks definitive facts to support Iranian involvement, which is one reason that he wrote a novel.

    In other words, he wants to say Iran was behind it, but can't by using facts. So I'll just make shit up.

    by mickT on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:26:24 PM PDT

    •  In some arenas, that's called "fiction"

      Inside the Beltway Bubble, it's called "news".

      by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

  •  Baer is a realist and says what he thinks.

    That's why he made a great DOO case officer, but a lousy manager at Langley.

    He really hated headquarters, Iranian revolutionaries, and American liberals.  He's also competely right about everything.  He's the first to tell you.

    by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:12:14 PM PDT

•  send the Brits in!

  Hey, it's THEIR soldiers.  Let THEM decide what kind of force is appropriate.  Heck, they even have nukes, don't they?

  by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:28:09 PM PDT

  •  have you seen comments on BBC?

    Reading some of the comments on BBC it's frightening how many Brits want to start war with Iran, not to mention calls for "nuking" them.  I thought our wingnuts were bad!
    http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/...

    by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:36:18 PM PDT

    •  There's plenty of xeno/Islamophobia in the UK...

      things over there can be just as ugly as they get here.

      by Diaries on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:39:45 PM PDT

      •  the funniest thing about racists

        is that if a hot "brown" girl flirted with them they would melt in her hands :)

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:48:55 PM PDT

      •  Worse. They really do feel threatened by their

        own fairly substantial Islamic population.  And, vis-a-versa.  England also is not an historically immigrant nation.

        Our prejudices against "towelheads" are more superficial because outside of a few cities in American, there really are few visible Muslims.

        Blair is capable of just as much duplicity as Bush, and he's far smarter about how he does it.

        by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:18:17 PM PDT

    •  Be straight people

      The United Kingdom is our ally, that means we are obligated to assist them, as they have us.

      The Iranian government clearly hijacked fifteen British sailors who were doing work sanctioned by the UN, and the Iraqi government.

      The difference between Iran and America is, we found their members in IRAQ! Obviously members of their radical religious secret police were doing nothing Iraq that was useful.

      They are also upset because two Iranian generals decided to defect, and probably spilling their guts to the Western World.

      by AmoralAmerican on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:42:09 PM PDT

      •  "clearly hijacked"?

        It's not clear to any experts.  If there is one thing that's not clear is where the territorial lines are drawn between Iran and Iraq.  Why are you blindly accepting Blair's line?  He's one of guys who said Saddam had WMDs.

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:45:21 PM PDT

        •  I'm as skeptical as anyone ...

          ... regarding government statements, but in this case it's the Iranians who changed their story on the coordinates after the first set of coordinates were shown to be on the (currently, generally accepted) Iraqi side of the line.

          by scientist on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:56:49 PM PDT

      •  so let's take that at face value

        If England ASKS us to use force against Iran, we can talk about it.  Until then, it's not our problem.  

        And once it is, let's help them like they helped us in Iraq... we'll send along 1/10 as many troops as they do.

        But under NO circumstances do we have ANY business taking up arms against Iran over the fate of BRITISH sailors without a formal request for aid from England.

        by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:30:59 PM PDT

      •  This whole thing is a stinking setup.

        The Brits knew the IRG had been provoked to the point where they were looking to take counter-hostages, and they sent little rubber boats into a Class 5 hurricane.  See, http://www.democraticunderground.com...

        Who planned this hijacking?

        by leveymg on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:24:44 PM PDT

      •  Not clear the generals defected

        One's family says no, after returning home to Iran. Kidnapped, IMO.
          The British have claimed the frigate that the marines and sailors were from was in Iraq waters, but the Iranians say they found the rubber boats in the Iranian waters. Different boats. Different positions.
         That is the truth IMO.
          As far as the frigate, clearly they should have/would have seen the Iranian vessels approaching and intervene if possible, and warn the rubber boat patrol? Why not? Radar down for maintenance near the Iranian border, with crew(s) out after a possible smuggler vessel? Very doubtful.
        The Brits said where their frigate was, but I didn't see that they said they were close to the suspected smuggling vessel, which may have drifted or motored into Iranian water. That would be standard operating procedure for any ship in the region who didn't want to be bothered, just tread near the border and weave in and out depending on who was looking at you.
          Why wouldn't the frigate steam in and rescue them if they were in Iraqi water? Drop anchor. Call in Pox news.
          They didn't..instead there was mention in early reports of a 'passing helicopter'. I betcha there was a 'passing helicopter', and maybe they said there was no way to rescue them...or maybe they said 'mission accomplished'.
           This is either a setup or a colossal screwup by the Brits, which is it?
            As a sailor, I know GPS is so good that you can bump into the marker buoys if you want, the military version is even more accurate. Then there is the satelite surveillance, drones, etc. There seems to be no excuse for the Brits position 'error'. I'm not buying it.
             As already said, this waterway is an already historical flashpoint, and there is every reason to believe that the Brits would

        1.  know where they were viv a vis the border

                  and therefore

        2.  be there intentionally.

           The other operating theory is that the Rev Guards somehow took over from whoever was previously in charge of Iranian coastal defenses, and (overnight) decided to crack down on border transgressions that were allowed by previous coastal defense commanders. Of course the Rev Guards may have been in charge all along and allowed, even with verbal agreements with the Brits, to allow the Brits occaisionally and temporary entry when interdicting shipping.What changed their minds?
            Either way that speaks to the Iranians responding to the kidnapping of their people throughout Iraq, and the Brits were known transgressors...all they would have to do was wait for them.
           So...the question still remains, who initiated the situation? But I think the Brits were clearly in Iranian waters.

        by KenBee on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:52:24 PM PDT

    •  They are pissed.

      We i mean.

      by Salo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:53:55 PM PDT

•  If I were Tony Blair ....

  No matter where the sailors were -- a mile outside Iranian waters or a mile inside -- this is ridiculous to act like what the Iranians have done is so dastardly.
  I mean, we took a whole country (Iraq) hostage, and far from keeping its people in a "safe place" we bombed them and imprisoned them and tortured them and shot them. Millions have left the country or been killed or become refugees in their own land. And we're still there four years later!
  If I were Tony Blair, I'd say something like, "I'm sorry if our ship intruded in Iranian waters.  It was not intentional.  The ship's navigation computer had a glitch.  We apologize to the people of Iran."
  Iran would presumably let the sailors go, and that would be that.
  These testosterone-laden government officials have never heard of "conflict resolution."  Say what you have to say and get it over with.

  by Rosemary on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:44 PM PDT

  •  Uh huh..

    No matter where the sailors were -- a mile outside Iranian waters or a mile inside -- this is ridiculous to act like what the Iranians have done is so dastardly.
    I mean, we took a whole country (Iraq) hostage, and far from keeping its people in a "safe place" we bombed them and imprisoned them and tortured them and shot them. Millions have left the country or been killed or become refugees in their own land. And we're still there four years later!

    This is a different issue, it's not even America but the UK. The Iranians hijacked fifteen sailors, that were in Iranian waters.

    Under UN mandate no less.

    If I were Tony Blair, I'd say something like, "I'm sorry if our ship intruded in Iranian waters.  It was not intentional.  The ship's navigation computer had a glitch.  We apologize to the people of Iran."
    Iran would presumably let the sailors go, and that would be that.
    These testosterone-laden government officials have never heard of "conflict resolution."  Say what you have to say and get it over with.

    Nation states are not in the habit of acting like of petty school children, the Iranians tried this stunt once before. What exactly happens when they start taking American soldiers?

    by AmoralAmerican on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:45:06 PM PDT

    •  WTF would American soldiers be doing there anyway

      American soldiers job is to defend AMERICA.  If they're over there all bets are off.

      by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:46:58 PM PDT

    •  UN mandate?

      Gotta source for that?  Most news reports I've seen say the sailors suspected the ship they boarded were looking for stolen cars.  Obviously a threat to world security, no?

      by lapin on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:58:17 PM PDT

    •  Never mind the UN mandate questions

      I found a source backing up your statement.

      by lapin on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:00:28 PM PDT

    •  Petty school children?

      Nation states are not in the habit of acting like of petty school children, the Iranians tried this stunt once before. What exactly happens when they start taking American soldiers?

      Who isn't in the habit of acting like petty school children?  Britain? No. The US? Nope--that's the whole problem here.  They would rather call each other names and start a fight than just say, "OK, Sorry."  That's all it would take to make this go away.  

      In Iraq, it was even less than that.  Saudi Arabian citizens started a war between two other countries.  Ever hear the phrase "Let's you and him fight?"  The only obstacle to peace is that the US doesn't want peace.  

      by pdknz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:44:50 PM PDT

•  USAn's solidly against troops in Iran

  WASHINGTON, March 29 More than half of participants in a UPI-Zogby International poll said they were "strongly opposed" to U.S. troops being sent into Iran. The possibility of military action against Iran has been raised in response to alleged Iranian aid to insurgents in Iraq and its continued development of a nuclear program. But 52.9 percent of respondents to a March 14-16 Zogby interactive poll "strongly opposed" U.S. forces being used overtly against Iraq, and another 15.4 percent said they "somewhat opposed" the idea. Some 17.2 percent were in "somewhat support" and 8.2 percent said they "strongly supported" such a concept. Support was higher for the use of air strikes -- 19.7 percent "strongly support" and 18.3 percent "somewhat support" versus 39.4 percent "strongly oppose" and 16.1 percent "somewhat oppose" -- and higher yet for the insertion of U.S. Special Forces to intelligence gathering and sabotage -- 42.3 percent "strongly support" and 23.4 percent "somewhat support" while 15.3 percent "strongly opposed" and 14.9 percent "somewhat opposed." somewhat opposed.

  If military action is called for, 59.5 percent of participants said congressional authorization must be given first.

  Cheney's gonna have to sell harder if he wants his cake.

  by lapin on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:54:06 PM PDT

  •  note that this poll was conducted before

    seizure of the British sailors.  Dunno what difference that might make.

    by Hprof on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:57:10 PM PDT

•  Connection to the "surge?"

  Was the "surge" really about positioning 20k - 30k troops next door for quick re-deployment to Iran?

  by anneschu on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

•  I'm just saying in the scheme of things

  outrage on the part of Britain -- which has been allied with the U.S. in its destruction of Iraq -- seems rather hypocritical and out of proportion.  
  So 15 sailors are temporarily being held by another country?
  Negotiate to get them back.
  Police departments do it all the time. Conflict resolution.  Hostage negotiations. It's quite respectable.
  This situation is a pimple on the elephant, which is what Britain and the U.S. -- close allies -- have done in the Mideast.

  by Rosemary on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:11:10 PM PDT

  •  Violating the Geneva Convention...

    ..no biggy as long it isn't the US doing the violating?

    This a huge deal. Illegally, capturing uniformed soldiers and displaying them on network tv - reading from letters, forcing them to blame their country, etc., etc. are gross violations of international law.

    by Samulayo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:35:56 PM PDT

    •  only illegal if they we not in iran terrotory nt

      by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

•  April 6

  Is the schedule, if you believe that kinda crap.  

  I will breathe easier after next Friday.  Probably.  

  by pdknz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:28:09 PM PDT

•  What so many people tend to forget

  is that any conflict with Iran will not happen in a vacuum. China has a stake in an independent Iran and it's doubtfull that they and Russia will simply sit on their hands. While the U.S. and U.K. run roughshod over the middle east. And with Saudi Arabia condeming U.S. actions in Iraq we will have few if any middle eastern allies in the region to back us up no matter what the manufactured rational may be.

  by Wes Opinion on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:42:57 PM PDT