War With Iran Runs Through Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:46:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald and a recommended dkos diary by Tom Rinaldo again sound the alarm bells about the attempted gin up for a war with Iran. I must raise my previous objections to this line of thinking again -- any war with Iran will use the pretext of Iranian involvement in the Iraq Debacle. Glenn quotes Joe Lieberman's column I noted earlier:

Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.

Lieberman desperately wants a war with Iran but realizes the only way he can have one is by arguing that Iran is attacking our soldiers in Iraq. This central fact must be the lede in every discussion of potential war with Iran.

Glenn writes:

I really think that most people believe that a military strike on Iran, let alone an all-out war with that country, is simply unrealistic, that it cannot and will not happen. Certainly our political discussions are virtually devoid of any sense of urgency over the prospect of a military confrontation with Iran.

Speaking for myself, this is because my urgency on the Iraq Debacle is driven by, in part, the realization that the only way a war with Iran will start is through the Iraq Debacle.

I said it many times before but it bears repeating -- want to avoid war with Iran? End the the Debacle in Iraq. As long as we are in Iraq, the chances of war with Iran are there. I suggest that we all absorb that fact and concentrate our efforts on ending the Iraq Debacle. That's how to prevent war with Iran. And if you do not end the Debacle, you can not ensure that there will not be war with Iran.

< Hey Joe? If the Iraqis Are Standing Up, Why Can't We Stand Down? | Wife of City Atty. in Paris Hilton Case Drove Under Suspension, Got Fine Only >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

War With Iran Runs Through Iraq | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

slippery slope (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by atlanta lawyer on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:04:10 PM EST

If we got to war with Iran, there will "intelligence" that says that Syria is backing the "insurgency" there. We'll have to invade Syria. The Syrians that oppose our occupation will be "insurgents" who will be, according to "military intelligence" supported by, I don't, come next, Egypt maybe? Maybe Russia?

seems familiar (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ironicname on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:07:42 PM EST

a uniformed iranian patrol is ambushed and wiped out, by US soldiers, inside iraq, providing a legitimate pretext for attacking iran?
iran will deny the authorized existence of this unit in iraq, but the bloody uniforms will be displayed for the media, and all of america, to see.

Poland 1939 anyone?

Gulf of Tonkin anyone? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Sailor on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:13:16 PM EST

: How many US ships are in the Persian Gulf? (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:38:23 PM EST

George: "Oh, Dick? Would you call our good friends in Tel Aviv and remind them that I'm very concerned about an Iranian attack on one of our ships in the Persian Gulf, And ask them if they have one of their submarines in the area that could take care of this problem for us? And reassure them that America will stand by them and support them always - they can count on that."
Nov 19, 2006
From Seymour Hersh via Patriot Daily:
If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way."
...
"Cheney's story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President's authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it."
----------
The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.
--"Defense Planning Guidance" Draft Excerpts (from PNAC dot Info)

Irrational Nonchalance (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by DC Tax Wonk on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:28:15 PM EST

It astonishes me the extent to which ostensibly intelligent, rational, progressive people are dismissing so cavalierly the very real threat that powerful elements in the Bush Administration are pushing hard for war -- including a possible nuclear attack -- against Iran.

Even (especially?) over at Daily Kos, there seems to be a very strong tendency for anyone diarying or commenting about war with Iran to be immediately subject to de rigeur "tinfoil hat" jokes and suggestions that the diarist should take his or her conspiracy theories elsewhere, since we all know that it would be crazy to attack Iran, and after all where would the troops come from? So why doesn't the diarist spend his or her time focusing on our real problems rather than wasting time and energy getting everybody all agitated about something we all know isn't going to happen?

It astonishes me (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:54 PM EST

that some people are so nonchalant about how a war with Iran would start, through a "provocation" in Iraq.

It seems amazing to me that anyone thinks that there is a way to ensure there is no war with Iran without ending the Iraq Debacle.


: You perform an essential public service (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:43:50 PM EST

by pointing this out. Please do so loudly and often. So frightening to think the U.S. could just slide into nuclear war, or any other kind of war, with Iran without the public realize what is happening ahead of time.

: Pavlov (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by squeaky on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:16:58 PM EST

What we really have to watch out for is heat next summer. Undoubtedly the Iraq war will continue to go badly and the American people will be sick of both Dems and Repugs treating it like political football while troops are dying. Given that the Dems have a very good chance of winning with an end the war platform.
Although, a major terror attack on American soil or a poland style attack in Iraq, blamed on Iran, will certainly deliver the 08 election to the GOP.
These types of events always produce a pavlovian reaction in the population: The party of the president gets reelected, because instead of being bored with the war and the war party, the voters get scared and cling to the status quo.

: Right. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by jen on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 06:49:41 PM EST

But unfortunately, bombing Iran will likely start a lot sooner than we can get out of Iraq even if the plans to get out were in place now. Can we not focus on 2 things at once?

War with Iran? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by daveb99 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:57:47 PM EST

We might attack Iran for the same reason that Slobodan Milošević kept opening up new conflicts in the Balkans back in the 1990s. Remember every time the Serbs in Yugoslavia or the ethnic Serbs in Bosnia were about to be defeated, Milošević would start some new war with his neighbors. Eventually, all of the Balkans were aflame. It got out of control and NATO had to step in to put the fires out.

I can see Bush and Cheney attacking Iran as a way to forestall the appearance of defeat in Iraq. Given the emotional instablility of those two guys, I could definitely see it happening, although I hope I am wrong.

Well, I certainly agree with you ... (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 07:42:55 PM EST

...(as you well know) that we must work to end the occupation of Iraq. But, as has been noted by others on this thread, the end of that occupation is, in the absolute best case scenario, a year away, and probably much farther.

So while it is important to "frame" discussion of an attack on Iran by pointing out how the propagandists' are attempting to prove an armed Iranian connection in Iraq, we cannot confine ourselves to such a frame. Because Iran has ALWAYS been the target of the NeoCons. Moreover, none of the top-tier Democratic presidential contenders has been willing to take a single option off the table regarding Iran.

That country's continuing progress with uranium centrifuges - even though Iran could probably build a plutonium bomb sooner and that not before 2010 - feeds perfectly into the propagandists' machinery: See, they're helping the Iraqi insurgency, they're helping the Taliban, and they're building nukes to attack Israel.

That is a powerful combination, especially among Americans who don't have a clue as to the politics and other dynamics of the region. That would be the vast majority of Americans, by the way, as vulnerable as ever to propaganda despite their ever-growing opposition to the Iraq occupation.

So, what am I saying: simply that we need to fight back against the pounding of the war drums against Iran, whatever their source and whatever the claims being made for an attack being a good and necessary thing to do. Because getting out of Iraq, though obviously a good thing of itself, does NOT ensure there will be no attack against Iran.

Well stated. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Tom Rinaldo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:49:59 PM EST

Yours is essentially my position also. I agree with BTD that if we did not have troops stationed "in harms way" inside of Iraq, it would be much much more difficult to sell a war with Iran to the American public. I have to admit though that I am not convinced that it would be totally impossible. The neocons cycled through numerous rationals for taking out Hussein, and kind of like some modern chemo therapy approaches to fighting cancer, I think they found that their most effective approach was a toxic cocktail of attacks, with the lead agent adjusted based on shifting effectiveness.

Neocon hostility toward Iran, and hawkish sentiments inside Israel toward Iran, predate the American invasion of Iraq and they will outdate it as well. But that really is an intellectual aside. Were we not now in Iraq I agree that a near term attack on Iran could not go forward. Those seeking it would at least have to wait another year or more for their alternate Iranian fear specter of a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud to seem more urgently plausible.

Still I echo your sentiment. It is obviously not possible for us to be absolutely confident that the anti-Iraq war movement will be able to find and push the right combination of buttons in the short time frame needed to guarentee that all of our troops will exit from Iraq prior to American hostility against Iran coming to a head. That is not an argument against attempting to find and push that winning combination of buttons, or to divert our efforts from that cause, but it is a reason for not waiting any longer to confront the anti-Iran propaganda machine.

I think we can, you know, walk and chew gum at the same time, even though the task before us is admittedly far more difficult and complex than walking and chewing gum. I feel that the times, however, demand that of us.

P.S. Thank you, BTD, for citing my kos Diary above.


The whole neocon philosophy ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Sailor on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:51 PM EST

... has always been world domination in the guise of taking over the middle east to 'protect' America.


Scary front page article in Sat. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:57:55 PM EST

NYT about the Rice camp, which purportedly supports negotiation and teaming up with other nations vs. the "few remaining Neocons" in Cheney's office who are ready to bomb Iran.


Steve Clemons (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:33:09 PM EST

TWN, May 24:

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush
There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.
..
Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

: American Enterprise Institute (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:50:57 PM EST

November 1, 2006
Joshua Muravchik, Operation Comeback:
TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
FROM: Joshua Muravchik
RE: How to Save the Neocons
...
Prepare to Bomb Iran.
Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran.
The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be deafening, and it will have many echoes at home. It will be an injection of steroids for organizations such as MoveOn.org. We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes. In particular, we need to help people envision what the world would look like with a nuclear-armed Iran. Apart from the dangers of a direct attack on Israel or a suitcase bomb in Washington, it would mean the end of the global nonproliferation regime and the beginning of Iranian dominance in the Middle East.
Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008.

Hank Chinaski says.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by kdog on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:30:58 AM EST

let 'em go
let's let the bombs
I'm tired of waiting
I've put away my toys
folded the road maps
canceled my subscription to Time
kissed Disneyland goodbye
I've taken the flea collars off my cats
unplugged the tv
I no longer dream of pink flamingoes
I no longer check the market index
let's let 'em go
let's let 'em blow
I'm tired of waiting
I don't like this kind of blackmail
I don't like governments playing cutesy with my life:
either crap or get off the pot
I'm tired of waiting
I'm tired of dangling
I'm tired of the fix
let the bombs blow
you cheap sniveling cowardly nations
you mindless giants
do it
do it
do it!
and escape to your planets and space stations
then you can f*ck it
up there too.

-Charles Bukowski

how's this for a potential scenario: (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:37:38 PM EST

a uniformed iranian patrol is ambushed and wiped out, by US soldiers, inside iraq, providing a legitimate pretext for attacking iran?

iran will deny the authorized existence of this unit in iraq, but the bloody uniforms will be displayed for the media, and all of america, to see.

it won't be until months, and many casualties later, when someone finally gets a chance to examine those uniforms more closely, and realizes they've been fabricated. by that time the damage is done, you can't just stop in mid-war, and go "oops".

or, more likely, those uniforms get disappeared.

sounds farfetched i know, more like a grade "B" screenplay. of course, who would have guessed that a war would get started over bogus claims of massive quantities of WMD's, hidden in the iraqi desert?

Lieberman (none / 0) (#2)
by koshembos on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:48:26 PM EST

He doesn't want a war with Iran as a goal by itself. For some reason, may be mental, he thinks that he has to be a tough guy. He also is a hawk with decent social views (he is a friend of the Unions). He may still dream of the presidency or he thinks in term of "don't mess with the US (Texas)." He surely doesn't know how pathetic he looks.

: Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:18:48 PM EST

He's an inveterate supporter of Israel and puts allegience to that country first and foremost, before this country. I rue the day I voted for him in 1988 when he defeated Lowell Weicker. I just didn't see this coming.
He would never send his offspring to fight and die for his "toughness". Like Bush and Cheney, he is pure swine.

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:38:47 AM EST

As Physicians for Social Responsibility documented in our March 2007 report, " War is Not the Answer: The Medical and Public Health Consequences of Attacking Iran," [.pdf] a nuclear attack could cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and disrupt social, communication and economic systems in Iran.
For example, consider the devastation resulting from a nuclear attack against the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which is staffed by up to 3,000 workers and is only about 2.5 miles from Esfahan, a city of about 1.5 million. In that scenario, two other nearby villages also would be at risk of radiation contamination. An attack could cause serious long-term public health effects like those plaguing Hiroshima survivors to this day.