« "Taliban Outflank U.S. War Strategy with Insider Attacks" Porter and Noori | Main | Washpost soft-core propaganda on Iran »

22 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

William R. Cumming

YUP! Nails the issues for me and still predicting post election warfare opening between USA and Iran in this decade.

FB Ali

This is a brilliant essay. It presents clearly and succinctly the slippery slope to war on which both the US and Iran are presently posturing and manoeuvring.

A US or/and Israeli strike on Iran would make certain a long period of strife between the US and the West, on the one hand, and the Muslim world, on the other.

For the US the prospect ahead would be a '1984'-like future: a security state at home and perpetual war abroad.


"for Iran: a guaranteed right to civilian nuclear enrichment under international supervision"

The Iranians have on a number of occasions advanced this condition but it has always been summarily dismissed by Washington. Nothing suffices short of zero enrichment AND regime change.


FB Al et al

Colonel (doctor) Bolan was my student when he was an undergraduate long ago.

As a related matter to the subject of his essay, I recall that Congressman Newt Gingrich sat in my map room in the Pentagon several times to discuss Desert Storm. This was in the period leading up to the war He was interested in the psychology of the Iraqis and whether or not they would rationally decide to back away from the US and withdraw from Kuwait. In the course of the discussions he brought up the matter of deliberations by the "War Council" (sic) of imperial Japan in its consideration of whether or not the emperor should be advised to avoid war with the US. This was in the context of sustained US efforts to prevent Japanese expansion in China through sanctions, restrictions on scrap metal, etc. He said that the council decided that a war with the US would be unwise, but that if Japan did not strike back at the US for its opposition, then they, the Japanese, would not be the men they should be, pl


This interview of Iran's Jafari published in Beirut Daily Star is interesting. It doesn't leave too much 'fog' as to Iran's response. He states as a foregone conclusion that an attack by Israel is inevitable. In return first, he is clear they will close the Strait, second Iran will attack US bases directly regardless of US involvement in the Israeli attack, and third, it will fire ballistic missiles at Israel. He lists other things but those 3 are clear cut. No fog there. Of particular note, it would seem that all parties invariably seem to drag the US into the fight whether we initiate it or not.

K. Hussan Zia

Any discussion of war must include its ultimate ending. Iran can will continue to threaten vital supply routes that fuel world economy long after any military victory. To protect these, the US may end up having to occupy a vast chunk of territory along the coast and stationing troops there for a long time. It will amount to perpetual war with Iran, much worse than exists in Afghanistan. The economic and political fallout in the circumstances should pretty much rule out this particular option.

Alba Etie

Repeat & rinse - repeating old behavoirs expecting different results . I have never served in the military - but it would seem to me that the last folks that would want this coming Persian clusterfook would be our Senoir Military Leadership . ( Unless there are more nut jobs still serving like retired General Boykin who went and spoke at the family values conflab recently -calling basically to start a war with Iran ). I am counting on General Dempsey and other adults to keep the Excellent Persian adventure from happening -after BHO wins this national election.

Babak Makkinejad


US Leaders have determined that the existence of independent Iranian power is against the national interests of the United States; in my opinion.

There is abosolutely nothing that any responsible government in Iran could do to alter that; no one in US is interested in what Iranian leaders have to ssay - as I understand.

I think that US is largely in driving seat for war against Iran, it is a war that US will initiate and not Iran.

But I do not expect a US initiated war.

On the other hand, General Mohammad Ali Jafari stated today that:

"Their (Israelis) threats only prove that their enmity with Islam and the R(Islamic) evolution is serious, and eventually this enmity will lead to physical conflict,".


Dr. Bolan has a well thought out essay. In the Ignatius column on a war game exercise he links to Mr. Ignatius states "The game controllers added some spicy details...."
followed by: "The action started on July 6 with an Iranian terror operation..."

It seems the preconceived notions start up front with framing of the war game. What direct terror actions has Iran taken against the US, ( or in the Caribbean, ever) since 2000? It is interesting the the participant playing the Iranian supreme leader would think the actual figure's opinion is or would be that America is a 'paper tiger', regardless of the truth of the immediate political circumstances described.

Babak Makkinejad

Iranian leaders have stated publicly and on different occasions that they will not start any wars - that all those who initiated wars over the last 100 years came to regret that.

Either US or Israel will initiate war against Iran; in my opinion.

Babak Makkinejad

The best course for the United States is to take the Hudna (Cease-fire) deal of HAMAS and thus insulates herself from the Muslim wrath against Irasel.

This act will have 2 further benefits - it removes an emotional issue from contention between the United States and Iran.

It further enables the Palestinians in Gaza & in West Bank - Muslims and whatever Christians still there - to resume and recapture a normal life.

But even this little thing evidently is beyond the power of the United States.

And yet her leaders wish to re-order and re-organize vast tracts of land occupied by alien peoples.

In eternal words of the Robot: "It does not compute Will Robinson."

Shah Alam

The US may not initiate a war with Iran on its own but it may well be sucked in at the behest of a proxy. Whatever, the unknown consequences of such a war to prove to the world that “they are not the men they should be” may be damaging far beyond the conclusions of the war game. Under the circumstances it may just accelerate the process to a financial demise.



I was unaware that Hamas had offered the US a Hudna. Where would it take effect, in the Detroit suburbs? pl



You say that either the US or Israel will initiate war with Iran. If you believe that, you should advise any kin that you have there to leave. pl

Babak Makkinejad

The offer was to Israel.

Take that and get on with it; US could have induced Israel to do so.

May I remind you that Sadat was also trying to interest Israel and US to in a peace deal; they did not care.

Sadat was then forced to initiate the 1973 War to get the attention of US and to cause her to move to force a settlement with Israel.


k. hussan zia

No. You just don't understand the level of destruction the US can inflict on Iran without ever having one soldier in the country. you should not be deceived by the self restraint that the US has exercised over the last eleven years. We chose to fight a war of infantry against guerrillas. We will not do that again. pl



"US could have induced Israel to do so." Absurd. I thought you lived in the real world. pl

Babak Makkinejad

I meant that Iranian leaders will not initiate a war.

If there is going to be a war, it will be a choice made by US and/or Israeli leaders.

Tojo and Hirohito do not live in Tehran.

As for my relatives and friends; they survived the war from 1980-1988 - this will not be the first time.



"they will close the Strait, second Iran will attack US bases directly regardless of US involvement in the Israeli attack, and third, it will fire ballistic missiles at Israel."

And the US will then utterly destroy Iran. pl

Babak Makkinejad

They did so in 1973 which led to Camp David Accords - are you suggesting that US can no longer execute any such diplomatic acts?



"This will not be the first time." Yes it will. pl



Yes. The US has virtually no power over Israel's actions. Begin wanted the treaty with Egypt. Bibi wants only to attack Iran. pl

Babak Makkinejad

I cannot vouche for the accuracy of the last 2 paragraphs in the Daily Star link above.

The publushed Persian version does not have any references to US being complicit. In fact, the Persian original clearly designated US as the "Master" that is telling Israel not to attack Iran.

General Jafari's public statements on the inevitabilityof Israel attack on Iran is quite surprising.

Last Monday, both Mr. Jalili, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and General Dempsey were in Ankara, Turkey.

Could it be that General Dempsey met with Mr. Jalili and communicated the following message:

1- US is not seeking war with Iran
2- That US cannot control Israel's Actions
3- Nevertheless US is trying to descourage Israeli attack
4- The Israelis might still attack Iran and that US will not be complicit.

Thus Iranians have been forewarned of a possible Israeli attack by the United States.

And therefore General Jafari's comments on preparing for war and not having enough time to do so.

Ib this manner, I do not expect Iran to retaliate against the United States in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

I expect Mr. Obama to not attack Iran in comjunction with Israel either; US has never joined Israel in her wars - I doubt that she would do so now.


@FB Ali

"A US or/and Israeli strike on Iran would make certain a long period of strife between the US and the West, on the one hand, and the Muslim world, on the other.

For the US the prospect ahead would be a '1984'-like future: a security state at home and perpetual war abroad."

Unfortunately, we are already well down that rabbit hole I think.

But, yes, an excellent clear-headed essay.



Surely, the Iranians know that attacking US bases would be national suicide.

Why would they do that? Of course, as the essay states "honor and fear", rather than reason, could be the impetus.

But reason could still be present.

Perhaps if bombed by Israel alone, Iran takes a longer view, withdraws from the NPT, develops nuclear weapons, and works diplomatically to make Israel even more of an international pariah.

Could Iran successfully play the victim card after an Israeli attack? Would internal Iranian politics allow it? Would a limited Iranian retaliation against Israeli military installations cause US retaliation?

If the alternative is the total destruction of Iran, those matters should at least cross the minds of Iran's leaders.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad