That Cato Institute clip is truly staggering in it’s depth of ignorance, in regards to Iran’s imagined Nuclear weapons program…!
Today, the Heritage Foundation released this ‘scholarly’ report on the House of Saud… Thinking the Unthinkable: Modeling a Collapse of Saudi Oil Production
…U.S. Military Intervention in a Saudi Crisis
The United States has a vital interest in ensuring that no hostile power exercises hegemony over the Middle East, which is not only a key region for energy production, global trade, and investment, but also a potential source of transnational terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The U.S. will likely need to selectively use force to ensure the continued flow of oil from the region, as it did in Operation Desert Storm. Securing the oil fields and supporting allies, especially GCC members and pro-American elements in Saudi Arabia, may be imperative.
If the U.S. government determines that military intervention is necessary, U.S. actions military could include:
-Supporting civil authorities;
– Assisting in humanitarian efforts, provide force protection for nongovernmental organizations (NGO) humanitarian assistance, and protect humanitarian infrastructure;
-Conducting counterterrorism operations;
– Ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open;
– Deterring Iran from stepping into the power vacuum;
- Ensuring that a hostile, radical Islamist power or movement does not seize control of key oil and gas infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. needs to be prepared for the sudden loss of access to bases in the region. Furthermore, ballistic missile defenses (BMDs) need to be increased significantly to mitigate the threat of missile attacks by Iran or other regimes…
Hmmm… Now, where have I heard that very same ME FP garbage before…?
Maybe, from those very same Foreign Policy wonks on Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, possibly Egypt, soon-to-be Syria, and most particularly, Iran these days…?
The Brookings Institute’s Saban Center also chimed in recently, and coughed up this warmongering hairball ‘memo’… Saving Syria: Assessing Options
for Regime Change (PDF! 16pgs)
…This memo lays out six options for the United States
to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it
choose to do so:
1. Removing the regime via diplomacy;
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic
isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow
the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to
help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling
the regime directly;
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort
to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.
The options are complex, and policymakers will probably
try to combine several in an attempt to accentuate
the positives and minimize the negatives, which
will inevitably be difficult and bring out new complications.
But by focusing on discrete approaches, this
memo helps expose their relative strengths and weaknesses.
For each course of action, this memo describes
the strategy inherent to the option and what it would
entail in practice. It also assesses the option’s advantages
and disadvantages.
This memo does not endorse any particular policy option.
Rather, it seeks to explain the risks and benefits of
possible courses of action at this moment in time. As
conditions change, some options may become more
practical or desirable and others less so. The authors
mostly agree on the advantages and disadvantages
of each approach but weigh the relative rewards and
costs differently.
Honestly, it astounds me how skewed the Western Media propaganda apparatchik is towards Syria’s ‘insurgents,’ and, the blame squarely put on Assad for his brutality…! Syrian opposition refuses to give regime guarantees…
Now, it’s really tragic how all those Think Tank Brainiacs, all do seem to agree that ‘military intervention’ in either Iran or Syria, will in fact, lead to a ‘region-wide’ conflict…!
Ironically, I’d found two little ‘coinky-doinks’ today…
Exiled Son of Shah of Iran Calls for Israel’s Help…
…The exiled son of the toppled shah of Iran called on Israel not to bomb his home country, but rather to help the opposition to the ruling system, in an interview aired Monday on Israeli television.
Prince Reza Pahlavi told Israel’s Channel 10 TV from his home in Washington that bombing Iran would play into the hands of the regime. Instead, he appealed for help saying the Jewish state should put its “technological, financial and other resources at our disposal.” {snip}
…”The best thing you can do for the regime is to tell that, ‘We are going to attack you,’ or in fact attack you,” he said. “You will be giving Khamenei and all his clique, when they have no answers anymore to the country’s ills, the greatest gift of all by doing that. That is just crazy. That just doesn’t make sense.” {snip}
…”Who in this planet doesn’t know that there is a military option, but are there other options?” he said. “The best option is to utilize the best army in the world in place ready to strike, which is the Iranian people themselves. And if you don’t help that, God help us all.”
Yes indeedy…!
The other one has a Japanese ex-PM questioning his compadre, Yukiyo Amano’s cosy role as head of the IAEA, in Tehran too…!
Tokyo ticks off ex-PM for Iran visit, words on IAEA…
…Yukio Hatoyama, whose short stint in the top job ended in June 2010 after just nine months, was publicly admonished by his own party after reportedly criticising the UN’s nuclear watchdog for “double standards“.
During a trip in which he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hatoyama said Tehran was not being treated properly by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“International trust-building and respecting regulations are important issues for the world community,” he said, according to a statement issued by Ahmadinejad’s office.
“They should be seriously pursued given the double standards by the IAEA towards some nations, including Iran, which is not fair.”
Hatoyama late Monday denied making the comments and said Tehran had “completely fabricated” them, Kyodo news agency reported.
“I have made no comments that deviate from the stance of the Japanese government,” Kyodo quoted him as saying on his return to Tokyo.
Hatoyama’s reported comments in Iran had come under fire from Tokyo, which said he was at odds with the official position.
“Japan respects the IAEA’s role in solving nuclear-related issues,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told reporters.
“Japan is asking Iran to thoroughly cooperate with the IAEA so that it can solve pending issues over its nuclear programme.”
I suppose it was only a Freudian slip by Hatoyama…!
In summing up, here’s some real clear-eyed thinking…
Thinking the Unthinkable on Iran…
…President Obama has said that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran in particular and nuclear proliferation in general. Are these options still on the table?
I truly hope that all ‘options’ are indeed on the table…!
*gah*



7 Comments

Anyone can recommend anything the big questions are can we win and thats a yes. The next big question is at what cost? They don’t give any answer for that. The next big question is who will pay for the war? Again no answer.
Next question can our economy survive a 6 month spike in gas prices at $10 a gallon in case things go wrong?
What lessons have they learned to prevent Iran with a much bigger army than Iraq and Afghanistan put together from becoming an other Iraq and Afghanistan?
The talk of Obama trying to make a deal sounds to me like an attempt to lure Iran into complacency at least until after the election.
Talk of war with Iran would send gas prices rising even more and that would hurt Obama.
I understand that Israel’s economic miracle may be on as shaky ground as that of Ireland’s — particularly where youth unemployment is concerned. Are Bibi and Avi ramping up the Iran-fear as a way to distract from this, much as the deeply unpopular Sarkozy is ramping up the Muslim-fear in France as part of his re-election campaign?
anyone can see this is about controlling the oil. It’s painfully obvious. All of the main policies in this world are made by and for Oil companies.
Getting off oil, and onto renewable energy is what must be done.
Sunlight falls on the planet twenty four hours a day.
rather than invading Iraq, and Iran, Africa, and so on
why not invade a relatively few square miles of southwestern American desert, and participate in a multi lateral effort to develop wind and geothermal.
It’s idiocy to do otherwise.
Fixed it for you.
The only way the forthcoming open American on Iran and it’s people can be won is by occupying the place. And if you think that what the Iraki resistance did to your army is bad. (And yes it was bad, so bad that your army ran away leaving lots and lots of equipment and bases behind them. The American army actually PAID the resistance groups in the south blood money not to attack the
withdrawalrunning away columns as theywithdrewran away).Anyway if you think what the Iraki resistance did to your army was bad it’s nothing compared to what the Iranians will do. They are, after all, the people who trained the Hiz.
mfi
This is about Israeli hegemony. A strong Iran limits Israel’s freedom to continue ethnically cleansing Palestine. A war with Iran will allow for the mass transfer of Arabs from Israel and “Judea and Samara”, aka Palestine.
People said that the Iraq war was about oil, but most of the oil contracts ended up going to China or other non-US companies.
Iraq too was about Israel and the elimination of threats to it’s expansion. Philip Zelikow, author of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, and Director of the 9/11 Commission Coverup, admitted as much:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
That quote was scrubbed from his wikipedia page.
Zelikow wrote the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption based on a paper Richard Perle wrote for Netanyahu, called A Clean Break, which suggested Israel should support the overthrow of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and any other country it deemed a possible future threat.
Zelikow and Project for a New American Century took this pro-Israel dream and made it official U.S. policy, and it continues to play out now.
The big oil companies were actually against the Iraq war even, and didn’t understand why Bush didn’t just deal with the locked-in Saddam to trade for favorable oil prices.
One way in which oil may factor into all of this is that skyrocketing gas prices after an attack on Iran would drive most of the world’s countries running to the World Bank and IMF for emergency loans, forfeiting any remaining sovereignty in the process.
The Saudi Oil Embargo of the 70′s appears to have been planned by Kissinger, Israel, and the Sauds. That is why the Saudis invested so much of their loot in US investments ever since.
The IMF had a field day in the aftermath, taking sovereignty away from many of the world’s poor countries who were bankrupted by the oil prices.
(Jamaica) IMF decimating one country after another
Shock doctrine, and they’re trying to do it again. Many birds with one stone, but control of oil is not the biggest factor. Israel is.
All things are possible but I was trying to make the argument that America is unwilling to pay the cost. Lying to ourselves about how easy it would be or that we are willing to pay the cost might get us into a war with Iran this I think is likely but it won’t win us a war.
http://my.firedoglake.com/thingscomeundone/2012/03/14/we-cant-win-a-war-with-iran-not-if-they-have-half-a-brain/
I thank you for fixing my post.
Sorry post should have been comment.