« Home heating | Main | Scale limits to elections »

October 31, 2006



I see a couple possibilities:
1 - If Rove could market the attack on Iran to stem the hemorraging polls and win the upcoming (s)elections, then we'll see an attack *before* Nov 7.
2 - If the Democrats win enough seats to impeach Bush, then the attack will proceed before the new Congress is seated. By then it will be too late to do anything except "blame the democrats for vietnam" all over again.
3 - With the new martial law statute, I see bush declaring martial law, imprisoning political opponents, and declaring himself "president for the duration" and/or "president for life." PfL has the added attraction of playing to the anti-abortion portion of "the base."

If the attack against Iran proceeds, I don't see the US ever having a 2008 elections. Nor any others. It will be one "emergency" after another, all the way down to the end. Staying in power is more important to these people than the survival of our nation.

It feels to me like we're living in an Alan Furst novel, such as Dark Star.


To paraphrase Andy Card: You don't roll out a new electoral marketing strategy 7 days before the polls.

TM Lutas

I can't see where it necessarily follows that a US move against Iran necessarily will be a conventional military move. Far less stupid would be five or six sniper teams taking out leadership targets. Another option would be a mass prison break of the legitimate Iranian religious leadership that is anti-regime. A third option would be backing a Rafsanjani or Khatami coup.

But Lind considers none of this, merely referring to "Okhrana" sources that "something big" is going to happen and jumping to the conclusion that it *must* be a conventional invasion. So who the heck is the "Okhrana"? I thought they died out with the Tsars.

Is there any reason to take this seriously at all?


The notorious British retreat from Kabul did leave one soldier alive, a doctor, probably as a deliberate insult from the Afghan warlords. However, many of the women and children accompanying the British army were captured by those same warlords and returned to the British in Kandahar. Lady Florentia Sale was one of them and wrote a biting account of the action.

We like the drama of one lone soldier straggling home. We don't remember the women and children returned to their countrymen.

CSPAN2 this past weekend showed Seymour Hersh interviewing Scot Ritter at the Ethical Culture Society in NYC. Ritter said that an action against Iran would not take place until all the logistics were in place which means sometime at least in November. I would suggest that US action could be nuclear. Lind suggests that an Israeli action against Iran, should it come to that, might also be nuclear. The rumors of high levels of radiation in the areas of southern Lebanon which suffered Israeli attacks may have some relevance here.

Bush and Cheney are not opposed to what has been previously seen as torture. One should not be naive enough to believe that they would bridle at using nuclear weapons, especially since they have resurrected Kissinger and his madman theory of war. It may very well be that as they see political and military options being foreclosed the nuclear option will become more and more attractive as a grand gesture of power and the only means left to "show them we really mean business." "Them" being the Iranians, the North Koreans, Europe, China, and the Democrats, among others.

Account Deleted

If Lind truly believes what he has written, then he should be leading the revolution that will protect America, rather than waste his breath declaiming while proclaiming our demise.


"But Lind considers none of this"

Lind considers none of this because the options you have provided have no chance of success. Taking out the iranian leadership with snipers? Jailbreak? A good plot for a videogame or an action movie.
In the real world it will be Eagle Claw all over again.Coups don't happen because Uncle Sam snaps the finger either.
In the real world Bin Laden is still at large and Saddam Hussein survived all the shit the CIA threw at him in the 90's.

"If Lind truly believes what he has written, then he should be leading the revolution that will protect America, rather than waste his breath declaiming while proclaiming our demise."

Revolutions need revolutionaries.An item in short supply as of now in America.


Several times comments have been made about the US military and the Administration not having plans for a possible cut-off of the supply route into Iraq in the case of an Iranian war, or the Shiites finally having their fill of the occupation.

In a similar vain, where is the planning/discussion of how one would approach the restructuring of society in the aftermath of such an attack?

I've read talk of decentralization, perhaps the break-up of large states into mini/micro states or non-states, and application of the principle of resiliency. These seem like ideas worth exploring in more depth somewhere.


I bet on partition- the Kurds will initiate the attack. The Arabs, Azeris, and Baluchis will follow. Most of Iran's oil is in predominantly Arab parts(Iraqi border and gulf coast). Some of those Arabs are Iraqis that fled Saddams power. Persian do not like to have dirty Arabs living on their oil. Arabs do not like to be ruled by arrogant Persians. Persians deeply despise it when referencing the "Arab Gulf".

Persians only account for 51% of the population and the country is about 20% below the poverty line; the country is divided. Attacking Iran will only unite the country. In a ground war, we may roll over the Sepah but a guerrilla war with the Basij will last generations. Any coalition attack initiated on Iran is not likely. Maybe we are preparing for an Iranian attack on Kurdistan after the partition?


Maybe we are preparing for an Iranian attack on oil facilities?



You do know, of course, that the current Iranian supreme leader is an Azeri.

When Saddam invaded Iran in 1980, he appealed to the presumed Arab nationalist sentiments of the Khuzestan population to support him; unfortunately for Saddam, the Iranian Arab population chose Iran.

Iran, unlike Iraq, is not an uber-NRA playground, where there is an AK-47 and an RPG in every home; Iran's Kurds have neither the motivation nor the means to initiate an attack on the state of any description, and the same goes for their counterparts across the border in Iraq.

Clicking ones heels three times in the expectation that this will ignite the appropriate ethnic separatist uprisings is pure wishful thinking that is utterly divorced from the sociological and political realities that actually obtain on the ground, the foremost of which is that there is very little actual separatist sentiment to work with.

Persians may only account for 50-60% of the population, but over 90% of the country is nominally Shia, and Iran is a SHIA state, not an exclusively PERSIAN state.

The comments to this entry are closed.