Redstate

Iran committed violence against the US in its embassy attack and hostage taking. Iran certainly suported and supports terror internationally - against Saudi Arabia, against Iraq, agarinst Israel, against the UK and USA.

Iran's role in the world is now emerging as something equivalent to that of Germany's in the 1930's.

If the international community is responsible, it will take anyand all measures to curtail that role as soon as possible.

But more like Spain or Franch of the 1600s.  This is a religous war.  A My God vs Your God type of war.  

the military power to go against Iran, with so much of our resources in Iraq?

This is my concern with the war in Iraq. Its not that I don't believe that Saddam was a hideous person, or that our troops are doing good there. Its that I am not sure that Iraq was the biggest threat to the US, not with Iran and North Korea out there, with actual WMD's.

can agree on.  Iran is becoming a problem, and no one should promote genocide.  The stupidity of their new leader is astounding.  On top of it, they are seeking WMD.  It seemed they really are becoming everything we were told Iraq was.

is already in the cards for Iran, as much of their weight in the region comes from their close connection with the Alawite (Shia) Assad regime in Syria. It is through this regime that the Iranians are able to supply Hezbollah and, more importantly, Islamic Jihad, the only Sunni terrorist group that acknowledges the 'spiritual' authority of Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose headquarters is in Damascus, a connection rarely mentioned in the MSM, for some reason.

 From the beginning, IMO, U.S. strategy has been to isolate Iran, first geographically (Iraq/Af) and then politically, hence the current pressure on Syria, where Iran is desperate to maintain the status quo. I read this blustering by the Iranians as an attempt to provoke some sort of military response that the Mullahs can use to prop up their flagging support amongst their increasingly disaffected citizens. Again, IMO, it's important to not take the bait, but rather to increase the pressure on Assad. If his regime falls, the Mullahs are next.

 

Saddam spent more money on military infrastructure than any othe state in the region. Now, with the occupation of the enormous western airfields, there is a real possibility of dealing with Syria and Iran . If you require close air support you need paved concrete and lots of it. That is one thing Iraq has in abundance. I believed from the beginning that this wasn't a war for oil. It was about seizing and controlling Iraq's airfields and  having a decisive advantage in the eventual conflict with a nuclear Iran. The United States had to leave Saudi Arabia in order to appease the Sauds and there being no other facilities in the region for our troops, the US and the rest of the world needed those in Iraq. Saddam had to go. He needed to be removed by the civil nations of the world a long time ago. I have a good enough memory to remember the war drumbeat in the press(esp. the NYT) during the Clinton administration.

Congress and the White House had come to these very conclusions in the 1990's. Too bad these changes are so hard earned because if the crimnal nature of the governments that opposed this at the last minute and are overtly and covertly supporting the Mullah's obtaining nuclear weapons.

armed conflict is not always the right response.  Drop in a few million Ipods to the young people and let them know there is much more in the modern world.  (Many already know that)

Iran is rather youthful, the median age in Iran is 24.  

It is unfortunate that it is left to the US to stretch its resources to deal with dangerous international situations.

The European Union seems to have a big supply of moral indignation, over the tragic daily consequences of warfare.  And they certainly have a good supply of opportunistic leftist demagogues, who sweep in to stir up anti-Americanism.  But where was the moral fortitude to deal with situations like genocide in the Balkans?  What were they thinking when they built an atomic reactor in Iraq, or when Khomeini was sheltered in France, before the bloody revolution in Iran.

The EU seems to see no connection between our sacrifice and their own safety and prosperity.  They look down their noses at America, as a "has been" nation.  And such a short memory.  When de Gaulle ordered Lyndon Johnson to remove all US troops from France, Johnson asked him, "Does that include the ones who are buried there?"

And the emerging power of China is not even worth thinking about.  It is unimaginable that they would reach out to help anyone.  Political instability is just an opportunity to sell weapons, for a culture that sees other nations as mere inferior beings.

I would change the title to "Iran Fails To Understand What We Will Accept," but even then ...  I think they do understand and their leaders are being purposefully provocative.

To what end?

I'm not 100% sure.  Remember that this is a vast country -- about the size of the Western U.S., excluding Alaska, with a huge, young, "unformed" population.  It is rich in energy resources.  It's regime might be "oppressive," but it's not backward in the same way that, for example, Afghanistan might be.

Most importantly, though, is that Iran sees itself as the rightful regional superpower of Central Asia.  Its cultural shadow certainly falls over neighborhing Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the former Soviet states to its north.

This type of posturing by Iran is nothing new. Iran has been and is at the heart of the religious unrest and terror amongst the Arab populace for more than half a century. They have enjoyed a unique status because they, and Syria have embraced the criminal KGB since its inception and have it's full backing. Reagan was so succinct when he called the USSR the "Evil Empire". The Soviet Union never gave up on the cold war. They just changed their tactics. The KGB is alive and healthier than ever with a new weapon of choice, Islam.

That's the Hollywood way. Use your power of propaganda to corrupt societies. One of the reasons(maybe the main reason) the west is hated by antiquated cultures trying to hold onto their traditions and values.

I agree with your "reverse domino" theory on Iran.  

Todays announcement that Al Sistani will follow the traditional Iraqi/Arab Shia practice (unlike the Iranian/Persian one) and stand above the political process is further evidence that the Mullahs in Tehran are not calling the shots even among nominal allies.

Do you think, though, if we do end up having to attack Iran, we will be doing the same regime change/occupation that we are doing in Iraq?    

Ahem, we could "corrupt" Iranian society?  Oh, the inhumanity.  Heaven forbid.

that the air routes from our bases in Iraq and Kuwait are much shoreter than from an Axis of Weasels country or the US.

I believe that while Iran is possibly much better prepared than Iraq for war, all that means is we would cut through them like cold butter rather than hot butter.

Most Iranians do not like or support the current regime.

There have been killings and other actions against the regime already.

Once Iran escalates from talk to nuking we will find things too far gone to resolve as easily as we would now.

And I believe we would find it even more successful.

. . .one would have to say the clock is ticking.  Israel is not going to tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation that has more or less promised to destroy Israel if it is able to do anything about it--and they can.  We might find ourselves in a position of having to launch a strike to take out the facilities ourselves--with great difficulty and nasty diplomatic consequences--as the only viable  alternative to waking up one morning to find several mushroom clouds rising over Iran courtesy of Tel Aviv.

Do you think, though, if we do end up having to attack Iran, we will be doing the same regime change/occupation that we are doing in Iraq?

Perhaps so, but it will be a totally different dynamic attacking the heart of the dragon compared to the attack on its arm(Saddam) and there will be more nations involved. This has been and will be the fight the Stalinist hardliners have been itching for and Iran's KGB backers will pull out a lot of stops. Perhaps even Peoples Republic of China supplying hardware.

There is a breaking story on the discovery of a Al Qaeda cell in France that has smuggled in surface to air missles and ricin. The French will turn on Chirac and his cronies soon enough and the EU will have to confront this invasion by the Caliphate or cease to exist.

ROFL

We buy what we want.  Let the Iranian youth get a taste of consumerism and watch the dominos fall.  That is the real taste of Democracy we should be spreading to fight terrorism--more effective than a gun, generates profits for US companies and not deficts for US Gove. And far less people die.

Give an Iranian teenager a choice of this or this, which would he choose very time???

back in 1950 we had a UN (absent the USSR of course) that actually had the wherewithall to stand up to aggression and act. Once upon a time there were three little pigs ...

Iran is definitely feeling the impact of our actions in Iraq that are blocking their western borders. It's not a coincidence that this announcement occurred shortly after the confirmation that Iraq approved the constitution, which sets a strong Shia territory in Iraq on Iran's border that has the resources to be independent of Iran, and even an alternative religious power center to the Iranian mullah's claims of supremacy.

By pronouncing jihad against Israel and the U.S., it would appear Iran is trying desperately to stir up the Iraqi Shia to take its side against the U.S. Or, perhaps Iran was trying to stampede the U.S. or Israel into doing something rash that would alienate the Iraqi Shia and drive them to Iran. As long as we don't rise to the verbal bait, we'll do fine. In the meanwhile, the international repurcussions may also be helpful to us in isolating Iran further.

is the play now, IMO. I think your assessment is correct, with the additional factor that it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that an Arab Moslem nation would ever take its marching orders from mawali, i.e. non-Arab Moslems, Shia or otherwise. Secondly, both Karzai and Musharraf have recently made overtures towards Israel, acknowledging the gesure of withdrawl from Gaza. The Afghans detest the Iranians, who they have invaded dozens of times over the last 900 years while the Pakistanis have an acute olfactory sense for the tradewinds of history.

  There can also be little doubt that the recent terrorist attack in Israel, carried out by Islamic Jihad, was timed closely to the latest Mullarchic (copyright) infringement on common sense. However, it seems that we finally have an administration with both vision and the nerve to see that vision through to its logical conclusion: a free and democratic Middle East. The Iranians think they are still playing with peanuts.

It was Iran not Egypt that made Jews slaves so this is not exactly a new story. The Iranians gave up all of their "traditional culture" for Islam which has brought them what? I just keep forgetting.

But we are at the end of a many thousand mile logistics tail.  

NAJAF, Iraq - Iraq's top Shiite cleric is considering demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and foreign troops after a democratically elected government takes office next year, according to associates of the Iranian-born cleric.

Ahmed S. Hashim, a professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., said a public declaration by al-Sistani "will leave us without any legs to stand on in Iraq."

"But if we are made to withdraw prematurely, the country will plunge into civil war," said Hashim, who has visited Iraq several times since 2003.

Al-Sistani's influence on Iraq's Shiite community has already forced the United States to make major revisions in its political blueprint for the country. Last year, the Americans agreed to speed up their timetable for handing sovereignty back to the Iraqis and bringing forward the date for last January's election under pressure from al-Sistani.

"Such a call also will add a new dynamic to Iraqi politics and create some common ground between the Shiites and Sunni Arabs," said Amr Hamzawi, a Middle East expert at Carnegie Endowments, a Washington-based think tank. "It also will shatter any misconceptions about al-Sistani's stand on the U.S. presence in Iraq."

Al-Sistani would ally the new Iraq with Iran and force us out of any bases from which to attack Iran.  

I would not be surprised by Sistani using his considerable influence to push an independent Iraqi government for American withdrawal, or draw down. But only after the governments survival and independence appeared secure.  Whether he would seek a total ban is another question.  

Neither move is necessarily pro-Iranian or limits our options toward Iran.  Too much has been inferred by the "Iranian born" bio note for Sistani.  He's lived in Iraq for the last 55 of his 75 years and represents theologically the "quietest" antithesis of Iran's Wilayet al-Faqih marjas.  

Ironically, the "Persian" accented Sistani enjoys much greater support among Iraqis, than his native Iraqi Al-Sadr theological rivals, precisely because Al-Sadr is considered too close to Iraq's historic rival (and enemy) Iran.

It has even been argued that ultimately leadership of the international Shia community (whose main holy sites are in Iraq) could shift from Iran to Iraq not the other way around.

Check out this excellent article in CSM from 2004:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0220/p01s02-woiq.html

Clearly the political/theological intrigues of the region are storied but, thus far, Sistani looks like the closest thing to a friend the U.S. will find.

Of course, if I am remembering correctly, Iran's leadership shifted toward the religous fundlementalists which might dovetail into very close cooperation bewheen the co regigious Shiite South Iraq and Iran.   That shift is the genesis of the present problem.  

The question is as you pointed out, does Al-Sistani feel safe enough to do this.  But I think, that it is his survival and whatever passes  for government in south Iraq.  Rather than Iraq as a whole.  

And which blood is thicker, religion or nationalism., which has to take into consideration that Iraq was cobbled together.  

Al-Sistani is an 'friend' as in the enemy of my enemy is my 'friend'.  

It will be interesting to be sure.  

You really can't tell the prayers without a program in this game.  I think the admin has as workable a game-plan as any.  They are going for a strategic win, with thousands of intervening variables, which makes it all very dicey.  Let's Roll.