All systems "go" for war
Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 4:52AM ARTICLE: "Iran Launches Nine Test Missiles, Says More Are Ready: U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10 July 2008, p. A1.
How scary is this development?
Iran had to counter Israel's semi-impressive military exercise of last month. Despite some hyping of Iran's threat, its conventional forces impress nobody I know, least of all Israel's military. So they're not going to show a symmetrical response here, but rather go with what got them to the dance in the first place: the implied mating of rockets and the enrichment program. So popping off rockets is their most impressive option, saying in effect, "You may kick our asses with a conventional bombing campaign, but this is how we'll attempt to counter.
Some real bravado? Sure. But again, more signaling than anything else.
Problem right now is how many sides would welcome war. "U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown" is a couple of quotes from Gates and an Undersecretary of State, meaning two counties heard from but hardly the "U.S." that matters right now on this subject (Bush-Cheney). Both, in my mind, have no problem with an Israeli strike on their watch that could easily suck us into combat. Time is short.
McCain's presidential bid, as Charlie Black notes openly, benefits from scenarios of terror or conflict, so cue up the Beach Boys.
Obama would not be helped.
On the Israeli side, better to get it done before Obama takes the oath. Ditto for Ahmadinejad, strangely enough. No point in having your best enemy denied to you when you need him for your own re-election.
Europe and China see nothing good in this, although Beijing is always happy to have the spotlight off it when it comes to international security responsibilities.
For India, pretty much a bad. For Moscow, good stuff all around.
Add it all up, as I do in this week's column, and you're looking at a lot of the system providing weak obstacles and more than a little sub rosa push toward war.
Stupid? Yes.
But that's irrelevant to the analysis.
Reader Comments (7)
Rice, Gates, Senate & House leaders, Obama heavy hitters Powers,Zakaria, Sullivan, Nunn must push back, dig in, fight.
Scary? Nah. Just the process of working the seam.
Right?
I agree that McCain's bid would be initially helped. But, when the equally predictable spike in oil's per barrel pricing kicks in, I don't believe McCain is going to be feeling the love--or his explanation on why it had to be done when there's a sea rise in pricing on all things transported with the now-more-precious fuel.
It's more like a warning that if we bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb Iran, they will close Hormuz and send oil to $200 or more. Simple and asymmetrical. No nukes needed, just some simple missiles and ski boats.
Too bad we have outsourced our foreign policy to Israel (and the right wingers there at that). They control our future. They can start a war that we will join in on. That would hurt us for decades and really throw a spanner into the works for globalization.
Second, asymetrical warfare is the name of the game. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to shut down the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf. I assume the Israelis know this. They don't have any problems living with $300 a barrel oil?
Third, the Israelis, by doing us such a big ass favor as attacking Iran will expose our troops the wrath of every Shia and Al Quada operative in Iraq big time. With friends like this, who needs Al Quada as an enemy? And there wouldn't be any blowback to the Israeli or American economy?
And fourth, I assume that an Israeli-Iranian confrontation would have absolutely no ramifiactions for further complications in the Middle East to any party. And if you believe that, I've got a good bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Does any of this make the remotest amount of sense? I honestly don't think so. Olmert has to look all John Wayne because he's the weakest and most incompetent leader the Israelis have had in a long time. As a matter of fact, Israel and Iran have their own versions of George Bush at the helm. So you are right, these are dangerous times. But how far does everybody have to get to be this deep in negative IQ?
One can only assume that there are rational diplomats in the negotiations now who an figure out a reasonable modus vivendi in this whole situation. Has anyone ever heard of the word compromise?