European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Fisk on Iran

by STA
Fri Aug 18th, 2006 at 08:25:45 PM EST

This is a brief diary reflection.

There was a great discussion about Hersh on Iran, initiated by Bob. Essentially, Hersh says that Lebanon was a test for a possible attack against Iran.

Here is Robert Fisk's take:

Iran, as Hizbollah's principal supporter, clearly thinks so too. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who usually talks far more than he thinks, condemned the US for supplying Israel with the weapons it used on Lebanese civilians - perfectly true. But he did not say Hizbollah's missiles come from a new-generation Iranian arsenal that did not even exist during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. While the US will be keen to assess the effectiveness of its weapons - albeit largely used on civilians - no one should doubt that Iran will also be assessing the success of its new Fajr missiles - and their effect on the Israeli army.

What if both journalists are right? What if each president deliberately tried to test its manhood by blowing up so many civilians in a proxy war? If that is the case, is there even room for a scandal? Or should we just live a aesthetic life of irony, of private giggles, and give up progressive hope and public agendas?

(It's been a rough few weeks on my psyche...not this pessimistic in general...)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Fisk on Iran | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Fisk on Iran (none / 0)

In this case a proxy war is much more desirable than a direct confrontation between the two players. Neither side can afford a direct confrontation anyway. Not by a long shot.

To that end I wish I would stop reading the following phrase ten times daily: "event X will be used as an excuse to bomb Iran!" Bush was making it clear by the fall of '02 at the latest that Iraq was going to be attacked. His rhetoric on Iran is not on the same trajectory.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 02:29:09 AM EST

Re: Fisk on Iran (none / 1)

In this case a proxy war is much more desirable than a direct confrontation between the two players.

Only if you happen not to be in between the two proxy holders.

I told Bush; don't play chess with the freakin' Russians.

by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 05:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fisk on Iran (none / 0)

Two more articles on the topic, both from Asia Times.

First: Gareth Porter.

Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, says administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.
But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

Second: Ehsan Ahrari.

According to Hersh, President George W Bush - who joined the Texas Air Guard to avoid being drafted for Vietnam, and has limited experience and little knowledge of the potential capability air power in warfare - and Vice President Dick Cheney - who used a variety of legal loopholes to avoid being drafted and being shipped to South Vietnam in the 1960s - believed that "a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground missile and command and control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground."

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 10:22:05 AM EST

I wonder what Bush et al (none / 1)

are thinking about right now after the failure of the Israeli air assault to do anything.
Their options are:

Defy reality and just bomb Iran knowing air power is not effective at damaging military targets, and that Hezbollah are still well armed and have had a chance to hone their rocket delivery actions.

Encourage via some promise of something Israel to re-invade Lebanon and go to Beirut and stay. Would Israel want to do this right now? Unlikely as they would take huge losses, and also politically Israel is in a crisis and I am not referring to the kissing scandal. This occupatiobn would however ptentially remove the threat of Hezbollh rockets in Northern Irael and if Bibi got back to power he may be insane enough to take the loss of hundreds of troops to do it. This would enable the US to strike without worrying about Israel.

Encourage UN troops in South abanon to do battle with Hezbollah. It looks like the UN has been adamant about ruling this possibility out with their recent statements of not being proactive.

Launch a ground invasion of Iran after an initial onslaught from the air. This is highly unlikely. Even the US military will probably baulk at this idea. the invasion of Iran would be difficult enough but coupled with attacks on troops in Iraq would be a disaster.

Let Israel carry out airstrikes on Iran. These air strikes will only serve US and Israeli propoganda points at best and will not achieve their aim. They will also potentially turn Iraq into a nightmare for US troops, and so a risky for Bush to allow.

Nuke a few places in Iran. This will be the end of any respect for the US by anyone, and will be seen as a heinous war crime even if Bolton vetoes all the UN resolutions condemning it. It will also open the US and any supporting nations up to worse "terrorist" attacks than now as terrorism against civilians is used to fight back against nuclear terrorism against civilians.

In short none of the options seem to look appealing to the Bush side assuming sanity exists. All they likely can do is launch some airstrikes and claim mission accomplished even though the air strikes will have failed.

by observer393 on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 at 12:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder what Bush et al (none / 1)

Let Israel carry out airstrikes on Iran. These air strikes will only serve US and Israeli propoganda points at best and will not achieve their aim. They will also potentially turn Iraq into a nightmare for US troops, and so a risky for Bush to allow.

That is the aspect I don't understand. If anything is done to Iran, there are 140,000 hostages ready and wiating to be captured in Iraq. I know that Bush regards troops as expendable, to be spent on creating his glories, but he could not survive any overt move against Iran, by themselves or Israel, given the certain consequences.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 at 01:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What worries me is that Bush et al (none / 0)

never planned for the "third day" in Iraq. they actually thought they would be greeted as liberators and eternal friends. They may be insane enough to not see that what happens in Iran will directly affect their troops in Iraq. I use the word insane in terms of completely detached from reality in terms of middle eastern, and most other, foreign policy.

by observer393 on Mon Aug 21st, 2006 at 03:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What worries me is that Bush et al (none / 0)

They may not realise what will happen, but I bet the Pentagon is perfectly aware and bricking themselves.

Maybe that's why they're briefing Hersch, to stop this nonsense before it gets any traction.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Aug 21st, 2006 at 06:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fisk on Iran | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]