The Real Escalation
Jan 11
Bush wants a war with Iran. It has been part of the neo-con plans from the beginning and Bush is desperate for something that will magically turn his disaster in Iraq into a glorious victory. That is the genesis of this comment:
Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
The neo-cons really appear to believe that Iran really is the source of all evil in Iraq (never mind the ongoing sectarian strife, never mind that the anti-American insurgency is largely Sunni, never mind that the government of Iraq is made up of people formerly supported by or allied with Iran) and that they can make everything better by beating up on Iraq. Right from the start, neo-cons were saying things like “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran”. Never mind Al-Qaeda, Iran is the real enemy.
And today, we have this report:
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.
The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.
The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.
… One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.
It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed.
If a country did this to the US, it would probably be considered an act of war. It appears that the Bushies are going to escalate the rhetoric and the military provocations until either Iran over-reacts or the escalation process leads naturally to large scale action against Iran. If they do this, there will be no debates in Congress, there will be no authorizations. One day, we will wake up and find that we are in a shooting war of some kind (probably special forces and air power) with Iran.
Bush doesn;t consider escalating in Iraq going all in. Going all in, to he and his neo-con handlers, means Iran and Syria. And it looks like they are serious about pushing their chips to the center of the table.
#1 by Kevin T. Keith at January 11th, 2007
| Quote
Let me get this right . . .
They invaded the Iranian embassy, threatened to kill everyone in the area, took the staff prisoner, and raided their secret papers? Where have I heard something like this before?
You know, I really don’t think I approve of Bush declaring that the Iranian hostage-taking incident of 1979 was justified.
#2 by Ted at January 11th, 2007
| Quote
KTK, I get your point, notwithstanding the fact that the Iranian embassy was not invaded. And I suppose your post could also be read as refuting Kevin’s claim that the US would consider this an act of war had the happened to us, since the Iranian hostage-taking incident was not treated as such.
None of which should be interpreted as me supporting the specific action or Bush’s apparent escalation towards Iran. I think he is making yet another huge blunder. I am sure the leadership in Iran and Syria are drinking champagne (metaphorically speaking of course) today in light of recent events.
#3 by KTK at January 11th, 2007
| Quote
The consulate is not the embassy, you’re right, but that hardly makes a difference, here. And I don’t think this weakens Kevin’s point at all: one reason the US’s response was hesistant in 1979 was that it wasn’t clear at first how much responsibility rested with the Iranian government itself (and it is now believed that Khomenei did not order the attack, and may not even have known about it in advance) - while in this case the attack is clearly the responsibility of the US government, not even operating from its own territory. If anything, Bush has made us worse than Khomenei.
#4 by Ted at January 11th, 2007
| Quote
agreed
#5 by Tam at January 12th, 2007
| Quote
Make no mistake about it: We have a greater casus belli against Ahmadinejad’s Iran than we did against Kaiser Bill’s Germany or Alfonso’s Spain; one almost as good as that against Japan in ‘41. (A sovereign power is killing, or aiding and abetting the killing of, our troops and civilians without a state of war existing between our nations.)
The question of war isn’t a legal one, but a practical one. Can American interests be bettered by making use of it, or will it turn into yet another sinkhole?
#6 by Andrew Warinner at January 15th, 2007
| Quote
Ted Koppel commented on the saber rattling towards Iran as well here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6836561.
Koppel points out that another carrier group and Patriot missiles aren’t much use against Iran but more concrete steps, like deployment of US troops toward the Iranian border would be strong indication that the US wants to kick the brinkmanship up several notches. Or it would be, if you belive the White House could not blunder into another war. That’s the scenario that worries me the most. Right now we have the option of withdrawing. If Bush kickstarts a hot war with Iran, we may not be able to get them out.
#7 by Fred at January 18th, 2007
| Quote
Another example of the dishonesty of democrats:
“On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.”