Armchair NeoCon

A question came up on the comments board at The Truth Will Set You Free about whether Iranian President Ahmadinejad has just been blowing smoke out his ass, or whether he really feels like he's in a good position to defend against a U.S. attack. The argument was made that Iran is flush with cash from the recent surge in oil prices, and so could withstand a stoppage of exports, while the rest of the Western world could not. And obviously, even non-Western oil-dependent countries like China and Russia are accepting that "oil talks and NeoCon bullshit walks".

Anyway, I posted my own points about why I thought a U.S. strike is not likely....and these led me to a rather interesting speculation which I've italicized below.

"--Iran has already threatened to seal off the Persian Gulf if attacked, and have had a plan in place for years now to do so. ( link ) Which would immediately cut off, what?...probably anywhere from 6 to 12% of the US's oil imports.

--An attack on Iran would further ignite Sunni revolutionaries against the Saudi Kingdom. Would the Saudis back the US against Iran? Unlikely. But would they then merely sit on their hands and do nothing? Interesting question...

--Iran has a real army--I think I've read roughly 850,000 troops--and they're trained and determined. Unlike the Iraqi troops who were torn in their loyalties to Saddam, these forces won't "break and run". [Edit - while I'm positive I saw the 800,000 number somewhere, recent checks put the Iranian army at between 325,000 and 350,000 active personnel and 200,000 and 250,000 conscripts--which I'm sure are in active training as we speak].

--The Iranian army is well-equipped, and has fairly updated weapons systems.

--US troops in Iraq are exhausted, and numerous reports are emerging that they are reaching a breaking point (similar to what happened in Vietnam in the 4th year). How could they possibly continue to occupy Iraq while they strike Iran? And a draft is out of the question. Therefore the US would require a massive multi-national force to participate in the invasion, and while the UN is behind some type of Iranian sanctions, it's very doubtful the civilian populace of, say, Australia or Germany are going to be supportive of their leaders getting them into their own little "Iraqi debacle".

--But ultimately: Iran has the cash to fight a war (as well as the moral support of China, India and Russia), while the non-oil producing nations of Europe and America do not (oh, wait...you already mentioned this...).

--Also, a war with Iran would further weaken the US's defensive and economic position, which would leave countries like China and Venezuela in the tempting position of being able to undertake any kind of actions they might wish that would run contrary to this US administration's interests.

--Per the last point...in the face of a new US front in Iran, a concerted US oil embargo by anti-Empire oil-producing countries outside of the Mid-East would very likely destroy the US as a superpower. So one has to wonder, why WOULDN'T they do this?

--Which further begs the question: why WOULDN'T countries that harbor ill-will toward the NeoCons WANT to coax the U.S. into such a stupid blunder by SUPPORTING the NeoCons in their march to war with Iran? This speculation might help explain why the US is finding such widespread support against Iran in the UN. (Aside from the fact that admittedly there are great reasons to see Iran's nuclear program destroyed as well). Only China and Russia are waffling, which is likely because they also have a conflicting interest in not seeing their investments and oil purchases from Iran jeopardized....

Still, all in all, I just don't see a war with Iran happening, either. So I support your view that all this Iranian blustering is not just them talking out of their asses. They know they've got a strong position, and it's only getting stronger by the day."

Now admittedly this is all akin to playing armchair quarterback with the NeoCon's agenda....I mean, what could I possibly know that hasn't already been fully analyzed and assessed in the countless hours they've spent devising their strategy for this invasion. Except for the life of me I cannot see how they could have any plan at all that wouldn't result in a complete debacle for our armed forces and our country. Sure, they could make strategic strikes all over the place...but how could they possibly control anything, or even hold back the resulting Iranian invasion against U.S. forces in Iraq? (which would be supported and abetted by the Iraqi Kurds in the North). U.S. forces are already reported to be at the breaking point, and there is no time or domestic support for a draft resolution. Also, as I said, I don't think a UN coalition force could be sufficient, nor would it stick around for long after the nuclear threat had been eliminated.

The most ardent supporters within the Middle East for an attack on Iran are Israel (obviously), the Saudi monarchy (which walks an ever finer line with Saudi Arabia's Sunni majority) and the United Arab Emirates. The last two can't provide anything more than cheerleading support, and an Israeli occupation of Iran is about the only thing more preposterous than an American occupation.
In fact almost anything the Israelis might do would only aggravate the situation beyond hope.

Here's one speculative assessment I found in regard to the NeoCon's plans for the invasion. It doesn't make any sense to me.

"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."

Replace the regime with an American-friendly one? Not in this day and age, and not in Iran. Young Iranians might rebel against the fundamentalism of the present Mullahs, but they don't hate them enough to mount a full-scale Pro-American revolution--in fact, the last revolution in Iran was to overthrow the previous CIA-imposed puppet government. Occupy valuable oi-producing land? They can't even maintain the occupation of Iraq. And once again, how can the UN pull together forces in the Middle East to hold anything against an army over 500,000 strong?

This more reasonable analysis speculates the U.S. might pursue a strategy more in keeping with the original Persian Gulf War--prolonged remote air strikes to "soften up" the target before exposing ground troops. But even this assessment concludes: "So what do we do once we’ve savaged Iran militarily and destroyed their nuclear facilities? Do we just leave? If we did, wouldn’t we destroy everything this country has fought for in the Middle East?...Whatever our options are, a military invasion is simply out of the question."

[UPDATE 2/5/06: And this third report by noted defense analyst Eric Margolis seems to be the best....and draws essentially the same conclusions I have: the Iranian nuclear situation is being mis-reported, certain anti-American interests might be fanning the flames of war to draw the U.S. into an unwinnable situation, and adding that the NeoCons may admittedly have certain selfish reasons for the attack (beyond just war-profiteering):

"The beleaguered Bush administration may try to escapes mounting woes by launching an air campaign against Iran to whip up war fever among Americans before mid-term elections, thus boosting Republican fortunes."

]

So I'll say once more that while I can certainly appreciate the myriad reasons for a military strike against Iran, I cannot see any realistic reason to believe that it would achieve anything more than a complete destabilization of the region--and I absolutely do not believe that that is the hidden agenda. I don't know if there is any diplomatic way around this Mexican standoff (or if there is perhaps some wildly unexpected and clever military strategy in the works) but as the situation stands now it appears that Ahmedinejad has every reason to bluster--as ridiculous as it makes him appear. And the world has every reason to let him do so.

But I return again to this wild hair of a theory: could there be various countries in the UN who are encouraging the NeoCons to proceed precisely because they want to draw them into a military and economic checkmate? Could this shine some light on the sudden reversal by Russia and China as regards the UN vote to bring Iran before the security council?

Certainly the NeoCons are between a rock and a hard place, in more ways than one. Unfortunately their strongest trait has always been their stalwart determination to ignore the obvious. Desperate times like these call for brilliant diplomats...but alas, our world is painfully lacking in brilliance these days. I'm not convinced the NeoCons are obtuse enough to open up yet another Pandora's box, but as was summed up in the Asia Times recently:

"Washington will initiate military action against Iran only with extreme reluctance...but it really has no other options, except to let a nuclear-armed spoiler loose in the oil corridor. We have begun the third act of the tragedy that started on September 11, 2001, and I see no way to prevent it from proceeding."

Comments

[qrswave]

I don't think your theory is wild. It makes more sense than any of the other reasons for precipitating war with Iran. The neocons are cornered and war is actually their best option out.

When you think about it, what do they, personally, have to lose? So, maybe it's not what Ahmedinejad knows, but what he doesn't know: that the neocons are crazy enough to plunge the world into a carnage from which most of humanity will not emerge.

[dougr]

To elucidate on why, rationally, the neocons wouldn't attack Iran you have to assume that the neocons are, in fact, rational themselves and that they have concern for the best interests of the general population in the US.
These assumptions are by no means solid.

[Smckinley]

First, I don't put give much credence to the supposed robustness of Iran's nuclear program. Think how many countries have been extremely motivated to have a nuclear weapons program vs. how many have achieved it. Even most of those were handed big chunks of it from old-line nuclear powers.

I'm also really not sure how much of Ahmadinajad's blustering is real, as opposed to fabricated or at least wildly out of context. Did you notice what went on during the 2004 presidential campaign (and all the time before and since)? That was right here and in English too, not 7,000 miles away and in a language very few of us have any knowledge of.

Nahh...I think it's all about the Iranian Bourse. Do you realize how significant that is to the NeoCons (as well as lots of others)? Oil's being traded almost exclusively in dollars is the only thing keeping our economy afloat. We don't actually produce much of anything anymore in the US, except dollars.

If dollar hegemony, and thus the dollar, breaks, suddenly the NeoCons are just a bunch of grumpy (and no doubt bitter) old farts with unbelievably poor interpersonal skills.

Here's the plan I see
1) Hiding M3 allows extreme dollar-strengthening moves (don't try to get a mortgage in March).
2) The dollar stays strong enough vs. the Euro (and the EU's own strengthening moves) that the Bourse is sort of a non-event.
3) If that doesn't work, then some emergent situation is trumped up where US planes make "surgical" airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, one of which oddly enough says "Bourse" on the front.

Will that work? That's a known unknown, I guess.