« A Subtle Shift | Main | The Future »

The Plot Thickens

Now that sounds to me like a regime with "ties" to al-Qaeda. And the CFR Iran task force is set to make some recommendations tomorrow, pointing in the direction of engagement. Shit and fan should be making contact in the near future.

July 17, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83456622669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Plot Thickens:

» Yglesias on Iran/Joseph Wilson's Prediction from Iddybud
prediction of Joseph C. Wilson IV from over a year ago came to my mind:"Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson predicts the situation in Iraq will deteriorate so much over the next year Bush may resort to start another war in order to win the 2... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 18, 2004 8:19:55 AM

» "iran" policy mania from riting on the wall
so when did it become so fashionable to opine on iran policy? did i miss that memo?1 well, either way, that's something i can certainly do. if, briefly, we can consider the debate to have two "sides" in some meaningful way, the cfr report could be said... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 25, 2004 4:26:31 AM

» "iran" policy mania from riting on the wall
so when did it become so fashionable to opine on iran policy? did i miss that memo?1 well, either way, that's something i can certainly do. if, briefly, we can consider the debate to have two "sides" in some meaningful way, the cfr report could be said... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 25, 2004 4:29:30 AM

» "iran" policy mania from riting on the wall
so when did it become so fashionable to opine on iran policy? did i miss that memo?1 well, either way, that's something i can certainly do. if, briefly, we can consider the debate to have two "sides" in some meaningful way, the cfr report could be said... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 25, 2004 4:30:33 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 9:30:11 PM

Comments

So we can expect your support of an invasion of Iran?

Posted by: Ugh | Jul 17, 2004 6:03:41 PM

unfortunately, we don't have any troops available for such an adventure.

Posted by: cleek | Jul 17, 2004 6:06:53 PM

More inane fodder for the retards. I can already hear the right whingers howling for an invasion of Iran soley on the basis that some of the 9/11 hijackers passed through that country.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | Jul 17, 2004 7:01:02 PM

Ah, the folly of doctrine.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 17, 2004 7:04:07 PM

What does you mean, praktike?

Posted by: godoggo | Jul 17, 2004 8:08:47 PM

changed "that" to "you," forgot to congegate the verb.

Posted by: godoggo | Jul 17, 2004 8:10:07 PM

"I can already hear the right whingers howling for an invasion of Iran soley on the basis that some of the 9/11 hijackers passed through that country."

Nope, but sounds like a damn good reason for invading Canada.

Posted by: 16 words (Joe Lied) | Jul 17, 2004 8:35:05 PM

Rhetoric, meet reality.

Posted by: JAL | Jul 17, 2004 8:49:07 PM


The Shi'ite hits the fan. Ha, ha Matt.

Posted by: Zizka | Jul 17, 2004 9:04:44 PM

Let's see if the left can make the following obvious point clearly:

Since the case for war in Iraq was << sufficient, it is possible to argue both that Iran was more worthy of assault (superior nuclear program, greater ties to terrorists) and that invading Iran would be an act of madness.

Posted by: Jeff | Jul 17, 2004 9:07:32 PM

"Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government"

Products of torture, not cross-examinable or independently verifiable, from discredited intelligence apparati , an evil administration, and irrevocably corrupt government apologists. I can't believe MY is paying attention to this.

We are in the final stages. Turn off your TV's, cancel your subscriptions, anyone buying into the the establishment propaganda system is part of the problem.

Shit. Do you think we cared in 1970 what the NY Times said about the validity of the Cambodia bombing, or if Scoop Jackson thought Vietnamization was working? We hit the streets or headed for the hills.

Facts, evidence, reasoned discourse no longer pertain. We are at war.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 17, 2004 9:33:08 PM

I hear we're going the non-invasion route (i.e., aid to internal rebels; covert ops, etc.) in an effort to bring down the regime if Bush wins. And yes, as someone pointed out above, we have not the troops for an invasion.

Well, would you rather the Mullahs get the bomb? Maybe we can reason with a democratic Tehran to forego joining the nuclear club in return for dollops of aid.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Jul 17, 2004 9:51:07 PM

Well, would you rather the Mullahs get the bomb? Maybe we can reason with a democratic Tehran to forego joining the nuclear club in return for dollops of aid.

After all, that's working great in Pakistan, right?

Posted by: mc_masterchef | Jul 17, 2004 10:23:20 PM

"I hear we're going the non-invasion route (i.e., aid to internal rebels; covert ops, etc.) in an effort to bring down the regime"

Wherever PB "hears" this.....Our Man in Baghdad, John Negroponte, in "Contras:the Sequel". While Allawi in Iraq buys some new woodchippers.

Does anyone now understand why I wanted a full mobilization, a WWII style war to solve this problem? There are utilitarian and consequentialist reasons to not try this on the cheap. Like being able to look yourself in the fucking mirror in the morning.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 17, 2004 10:24:43 PM

What??? Are they MAD at the CFR?

> The Council on Foreign Relations, a private
> membership organization, is considered
> America’s premier consensus-making body for
> foreign policy. It is rarely critical of a
> sitting president. In this case, its
> recommendation for warming ties with Iran is
> in line with Senator Kerry’s public position
> on the campaign trail.

Promoting peace while there is a war going on. That must surely lead to shit hitting the fan.

(Maybe this Kerry guy isn't as bad as he looks?)

Posted by: War! | Jul 17, 2004 10:44:24 PM

By "failure of doctrine," I mean to say that the Bush administration may be trapped by its own rhetoric into doing something stupid.

Such as invading Iran, rather than pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East and starting from there.

Posted by: praktike | Jul 17, 2004 10:49:10 PM

After all, that's working great in Pakistan, right?

mc_masterchef: Well, I'm not overly psyched about the fact that the world is one coup away from serious trouble, and don't want another country falling into the category of things that makes me sleep less peacefully at night. And even so, at least Pakistan's government is ostensibly pro-American. We can't say the same thing about Iran. And anyway, there's at least one example of a democracy folding up its nuke program (South Africa, maybe two if you count Ukraine as a democracy), so, at least there's some cause for hope when a nation is a member of the community of non-dictatorships.

Does anyone now understand why I wanted a full mobilization, a WWII style war to solve this problem? There are utilitarian and consequentialist reasons to not try this on the cheap. Like being able to look yourself in the fucking mirror in the morning.

bob mcmanus: I think a case can be made for nudging a nation in the right direction when there's an internal, existing, pro-reform movement. But even if we fully mobilized along WW II lines, I'd be the first to admit that the whole pre-emptive invasion routine is pretty fraught with uncertainty, and pretty morally suspect. Long story short is that thousands would die were we to invade Iran (including lots of Americans) with no guaranteed outcome, except that of fueling the fires of nationalism. I say we must at least try and bring some changes to Iran (primarily because of the WMD threat), but we should do so by trying to take advantage of what by all accounts is a growing tide of discontent with the regime. In Iraq the populace was too much under Saddam's boot to effect change without large-scale U.S. military involvement (which sadly proved to be not large-scale enough).

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Jul 17, 2004 11:18:14 PM

BTW, PB, you didn't answer the question of "where" you heard about the noninvasion route you cited at 9:51, i will (sort of).

I can't recall the source, but i saw an interview described on google news with a "senior administration official" who made that point; the "official" in question sounded so much like richard perle, though (complete with the same "we have a brief window of opportunity" argument that he used about iraq before it "got" nuclear weapons) that i suspect it was, even though perle is no longer a senior official....

Posted by: howard | Jul 17, 2004 11:22:37 PM

BTW, PB, you didn't answer the question of "where" you heard about the noninvasion route you cited at 9:51, i will (sort of).

Howard: I read so many blogs (should I be admitting that?) and other news sources that I'm really not sure, but I think it was somehwere on RedState.org.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Jul 18, 2004 12:05:02 AM

it is possible to argue both that Iran was more worthy of assault (superior nuclear program, greater ties to terrorists) and that invading Iran would be an act of madness.

It would be more appropriate to say that Iran was more worthy of assault than Iraq was, but it's unclear if there is sufficient cause yet to warrent invading Iran.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | Jul 18, 2004 12:08:03 AM

Well, would you rather the Mullahs get the bomb?

Would that be the end of the world like it was when those evil Ruskies got the bomb or when those evil Chinese got the bomb or when those evil Pakistanis got the bomb?

Posted by: Robert McClelland | Jul 18, 2004 12:14:32 AM

Neither Bush nor anyone on his staff has any desire to invade Iran any longer. Even in their befuddled and distorted minds, they know that right now the US armed forces can't deal with that (over the long term) unless they reinstate a draft right now, and in the mean time leave thousands of GIs to twist in the wind.

They will have as their intention behind the scenes stuff rather than full out invasion. But, and here's the big but, Bush and Rove will make a very big show of some major dig-wagging with respect to Iran. The kind of thing that is going to make Kerry step back and say 'Hey, settle down cowboy, or you're going to get a bunch of US servicemen in a world of hurt.' At which point Bush/Rove will begin to shout from the rooftops 'Ha, see! Kerry is a goddamn peacenik! Iran is minutes away from nuking New York, yet he doesn't want to invade! Vote Bush '04.'

Never mind that they don't intend on invading either. Mark my words, this is the national security issue that they hope to beat Democrats with, ala '02.

Don't be a sucker, Matt.

Posted by: Timothy Klein | Jul 18, 2004 12:18:42 AM

"I hear we're going the non-invasion route (i.e., aid to internal rebels; covert ops, etc.) in an effort to bring down the regime" ...PB Almeida

Actually, I wasn't asking for a cite, I have heard the same(for example, the Israelis in Kurdistan) and anyway, as I said above, I believe nothing from any source anywhere anymore.

We are very close to the program implemented in Central America in the mid 80's, which should surprise no one, consider who is in charge. PB uses bland words to describe what will be monstrousness:assassinations, car bombings, village burnings, rapes, torture aplenty. Iran will respond in kind and the western border (and maybe the eastern, if we can get some Afghani warlords to play) will become, umm, a very exciting place. Oil pipelines and facilities real hard to protect, but hey Cheney & Bush aren't going complain about high oil prices.

Now Iran ain't exactly Guatemala, and if this guerrilla insurgency stuff works it may take a long time. Count on so many Iranians moving across borders that three countries start looking like the West Bank.

Poor Afghanistan. Poor Iraq. Poor Iran.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 18, 2004 12:47:25 AM

NO Matthew:

Saudi Arabia gave us most of the 9/11 hijackers, the money that bought them, bin Laden himself. And no hijacker came from Iran.

The closest al Qaeda ties are to Saudi Arabia. But we shouldn't invade them either. Engagement with them will brainwash their children into the tolerant multiculturalism of modernism that is the enemy of fundamentalist theocracy and its more violent proponents.

Posted by: epistemology | Jul 18, 2004 1:00:49 AM

> Well, would you rather the Mullahs get the
> bomb? Maybe we can reason with a democratic
> Tehran to forego joining the nuclear club in
> return for dollops of aid.

With the example of the US invasion of Iraq before them, why would any mid-sized regional power (e.g. Iran) NOT have a crash program underway to develop nuclear weapons? Iraq made it clear that the only way to deter someone like George Bush who wields the power of the United States is to have a credible, demonstrable nuclear force (e.g. North Korea).

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 18, 2004 10:26:46 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.