and the winnter of the GWOT is ...

[Irvine511]

... Iran?



[q]US interventions have boosted Iran, says report

Staff and agencies
Wednesday August 23, 2006

Guardian Unlimited

The US-led "war on terror" has bolstered Iran's power and influence in the Middle East, especially over its neighbour and former enemy Iraq, a thinktank said today.
A report published by Chatham House said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had removed Iran's main rival regimes in the region.

Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and its invasion of Lebanon had also put Iran "in a position of considerable strength" in the Middle East, said the thinktank.

Unless stability could be restored to the region, Iran's power will continue to grow, according to the report published by Chatham House

The study said Iran had been swift to fill the political vacuum created by the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Islamic republic now has a level of influence in the region that could not be ignored.

In particular, Iran has now superseded the US as the most influential power in Iraq, regarding its former adversary as its "own backyard". It is also a "prominent presence" in its other war-torn neighbour, Afghanistan, according to Chatham House's analysts.

The report said: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

The thinktank said the west needed to understand better Iran's links with its neighbours to see why the country felt able "to resist Western pressure".

"The US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region," said the report.

Western countries, led by the US, are locked in a bitter dispute with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says it will not give up what it says is its right to peaceful nuclear technology. The west suspects Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.

The thinktank said: "While the US and Europeans slowly grind the nuclear issue through the mills of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations security council, Iran continues to prevaricate, feeling confident of victory as conditions turn ever more in its favour."

The report added the country was "simply too important - for political, economic, cultural, religions and military reasons - to be treated lightly".

One of the report's authors, Dr Ali Ansari, reader in modern history at the University of St Andrews, told Radio 4: "The United States needs to take a step back and reassess its entire policy towards Iran and work out, first of all, what does it want and how is it going to achieve it, because at the moment everything is rather like putting a sticking plaster on a fairly raw wound, and it is not really actually doing much at all."

[/q]

link

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Does Iran really feel more secure now that there are over 200,000 US-Coalition troops in neighboring countries? As threatening as Saddam and the Taliban were, I don't think many would consider their military strength and potential to do damage to Iran greater than or equal to that of the United States. In some ways, Iran's security situation seems worse, if one considers the US to be a serious potential adversary, and perhaps much of this "greater influence" is more of an illusion than a reality.

 

[Rono]

I guess now you know the real reason for the US to invade Iraq,.

 

[ntalwar]

Does Iran really feel more secure now that there are over 200,000 US-Coalition troops in neighboring countries? As threatening as Saddam and the Taliban were, I don't think many would consider their military strength and potential to do damage to Iran greater than or equal to that of the United States. In some ways, Iran's security situation seems worse, if one considers the US to be a serious potential adversary, and perhaps much of this "greater influence" is more of an illusion than a reality.

If anything, Iran seems more emboldened now than ever. Look at the statements and actions coming from Iran. E.g. - they have not dropped their nuclear program. The 200k US troops are busy with Iraq. Iran also has the ability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[Irvine511]

Does Iran really feel more secure now that there are over 200,000 US-Coalition troops in neighboring countries? As threatening as Saddam and the Taliban were, I don't think many would consider their military strength and potential to do damage to Iran greater than or equal to that of the United States. In some ways, Iran's security situation seems worse, if one considers the US to be a serious potential adversary, and perhaps much of this "greater influence" is more of an illusion than a reality.

and how are those 200,000 (isn't that being generous? aren't we only around 165,000) going to occupy Baghdad and Tehran?

what would airstrikes alone accomplish other than bombing out whatever pro-Western audiences might be active underground in Tehran, kind of what Israel just did to Lebanon in trying to take out Hezbollah.

you see, Tehran doesn't care if the city is flattened and millions are killed by US airstrikes. in many ways, that's what they want. success against the US for a country like Iran will not be measured by what they do, but what they provoke us into doing.

 

[ntalwar]

you see, Tehran doesn't care if the city is flattened and millions are killed by US airstrikes. in many ways, that's what they want. success against the US for a country like Iran will not be measured by what they do, but what they provoke us into doing.

I'm not sure why they wouldn't care if millions of their people are killed. They spend billions on defense, and have advanced weaponry - both homegrown and Russian made. And they have issued threats related to oil hitting $200 a barrel, etc. So, I think they would defend themselves and use oil supplies as a weapon as well.

 

[AliEnvy]

Airstrikes might slow down nuclear ambitions but don't keep Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz or from opening the Euro oil bourse...both of which the US can't allow to happen and both of which make threats of sanctions useless.

So unless the US is prepared for another all-out occupation, there aren't many choices to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 

[BVS]

So unless the US is prepared for another all-out occupation, there aren't many choices to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Exactly, who didn't see this coming?

 

[anitram]

Does Iran really feel more secure now that there are over 200,000 US-Coalition troops in neighboring countries?

Or maybe they think of your 200K soldiers as convenient hostages of their 70 million people. Maybe they like their odds in the event that $hit hits the fans someday.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

If anything, Iran seems more emboldened now than ever. Look at the statements and actions coming from Iran. E.g. - they have not dropped their nuclear program. The 200k US troops are busy with Iraq. Iran also has the ability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's alleged ability to close the Strait of Hormuz has been talked about since the 1980s. Its nothing new. There are 200K US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they could be redeployed anywhere in the world at any time as the Democrats are pushing to do. Iran had a nuclear program long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Threatening Statements have been coming from Iran since 1979, and Iranian troops used to serve with Hezbollah forces back in the 1980s.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

and how are those 200,000 (isn't that being generous? aren't we only around 165,000) going to occupy Baghdad and Tehran?

what would airstrikes alone accomplish other than bombing out whatever pro-Western audiences might be active underground in Tehran, kind of what Israel just did to Lebanon in trying to take out Hezbollah.

you see, Tehran doesn't care if the city is flattened and millions are killed by US airstrikes. in many ways, that's what they want. success against the US for a country like Iran will not be measured by what they do, but what they provoke us into doing.

You remember that there over 30,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. Add that to Iraq and your close to 200,000 coalition troops in neighboring countries around Iran.

So the question would be, does Iran feel more secure now that there are 200,000 coalition troops with better weapons and training than Saddam and the Taliban had in place to the West and East of their country? Does Iran feel more threatened by Saddam's military or the US military?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Or maybe they think of your 200K soldiers as convenient hostages of their 70 million people. Maybe they like their odds in the event that $hit hits the fans someday.

Well, do they prefer the current situation to the situation that existed prior to 2001? Who would you be more worried about, Saddam's military in 2003 or 200,000 US and coalition troops? Who would Iran have better odds against, Saddam's military in 2003 or the US coalition today?

 

[Irvine511]

You remember that there over 30,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. Add that to Iraq and your close to 200,000 coalition troops in neighboring countries around Iran.

So the question would be, does Iran feel more secure now that there are 200,000 coalition troops with better weapons and training than Saddam and the Taliban had in place to the West and East of their country? Does Iran feel more threatened by Saddam's military or the US military?

or is it that 200,000 US/Coalition troops (much more of an actual coalition in Afghanistan) are completely preoccupied with things other than Iran, and are therefore unable to occupy Iran should push come to shove and "regime change" enters the equation?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

or is it that 200,000 US/Coalition troops (much more of an actual coalition in Afghanistan) are completely preoccupied with things other than Iran, and are therefore unable to occupy Iran should push come to shove and "regime change" enters the equation?

Well, the United States certainly has more than 200,000 troops in its military, so if these soldiers were to be deployed along with the current numbers then that would seem to negate your question.

Then, there are the democrats claiming the USA could redeploy all its troops in Iraq to other parts of the region in under 6 months. If the Democrats are correct in that thinking, then Iran has to take that into account.

But once again, is Iran really more afraid of the threat that Saddam posed to them than they are afraid of the threat the USA poses to them?

Osuma Bin Ladin once said in the 1990s that his goal was to push the United States completely out of the region. That goal appears to be further off than ever now.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, the United States certainly has more than 200,000 troops in its military, so if these soldiers were to be deployed along with the current numbers then that would seem to negate your question.

but the total numbers of men and women in the US military is misleading -- how many of them are ready for this kind of combat? how many of them have already served in Iraq? there's much more to maintaining a military than simply having numbers.



[q]But once again, is Iran really more afraid of the threat that Saddam posed to them than they are afraid of the threat the USA poses to them? [/q]

i think Iran was much more afraid of Iraq in the 1980s than they are of the USA in the 2000's. but i'm not sure this gets at the question. i think it's a misread to view Iran's sabre-rattling as an attempt to frighten the US; they know quite well than much of the country could be melted into a piece of glass. rather, they are attempting to stand up to the superpower not because they are afraid, but rather to increase their standing and credibility in the Muslim world and to build what has been labled a "Shiite crescent" from Tehran to Beirut and to wield ever more influence from the inside in all middle eastern countries, including and especially Iraq. i think it's more accurate to view Iran as a sort of Muslim USSR -- not the same military might, of course, but as having analagous influence in the Muslim world that the USSR did in Eastern Europe.

Osuma Bin Ladin once said in the 1990s that his goal was to push the United States completely out of the region. That goal appears to be further off than ever now.

but does that mean that US troops in the Middle East is therefore a good and beneficial thing -- is that what we're supposed to do? antagonize Bin Laden, regardless of consequence?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

i think Iran was much more afraid of Iraq in the 1980s than they are of the USA in the 2000's.

In terms of military power, your saying that Iraq in the 1980s was more powerful than the United States in the 2000s?



I think everyone in the US military is prepared and ready to deploy to Iraq for the combat there which compared to past wars is rather light. I think National Guard and Reserve Units train for several months before they deploy to Iraq.

As far as those having already served, I'm not sure how technically relevant that would be, except that there are now a lot of people in the military who have important experience in Iraq which is positive rather than a negative in terms of what they add to the mission there. I believe in World War II, soldiers served without any breaks until the war was over.

In any event, the United States has several million men and women in the armed forces, and while many of them may not have a direct combat role, its obvious that the United States does not have all the forces it could put into Iraq in Iraq currently.

 

[Irvine511]

In terms of military power, your saying that Iraq in the 1980s was more powerful than the United States in the 2000s?

no. i am saying the threat posed by Iraq was greater than that posed by the US currently.

In any event, the United States has several million men and women in the armed forces, and while many of them may not have a direct combat role, its obvious that the United States does not have all the forces it could put into Iraq in Iraq currently.

you're right. from the beginning, it's always been just enough troops to loose. but, at this point, can you see Bush ordering 450,000 troops into Iraq?

we don't live in a dictatorship. the president can't expect to make such a momentous military decision that would affect the lives of millions of Americans and not suffer politically.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

no. i am saying the threat posed by Iraq was greater than that posed by the US currently.








you're right. from the beginning, it's always been just enough troops to loose. but, at this point, can you see Bush ordering 450,000 troops into Iraq?

we don't live in a dictatorship. the president can't expect to make such a momentous military decision that would affect the lives of millions of Americans and not suffer politically.

The greater the military strength, the greater the capacity to threaten another country. If Iraq was not as military strong as the United States today, how could it be a greater threat to Iran?

The President is the Commander and Chief and has broad powers to send large amounts of US forces around the world, or in fact launch nuclear weapons if the President feels such action is required. He does not need the approval of Congress to do these things.

George Bush's father sent over 500,000 US troops to the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s over just a few months and was ready to send them into combat without congressional approval if necessary.

We do not live in a dictatorship and President Bush is the elected President of the country and has many powers to act in the country's defense as he sees fit. Unless congress were able to get enough votes to cut off funding for a war, or impeach and remove the President, there is little they can do.

In terms of suffering politically, the President has already been elected to a second term and cannot run for the office of President for a third term.

 

[Irvine511]

The greater the military strength, the greater the capacity to threaten another country. If Iraq was not as military strong as the United States today, how could it be a greater threat to Iran?

Iraq was far more likely to use their military to attack Iran than the US is -- and Iran knows this, and knows that the US, currently preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iraq (two of Iran's old enemies now out of the picture) it is far less likely to use it's military capacity against the regime in Iran.


[q]The President is the Commander and Chief and has broad powers to send large amounts of US forces around the world, or in fact launch nuclear weapons if the President feels such action is required. He does not need the approval of Congress to do these things.[/q]

of course he has the power, but he also would pay a political price of sending Americans into battle without any threat to the homeland -- can you see this happening especially post-WMD fiasco? simply because it is possible to do doesn't mean that it will happen.


[q]George Bush's father sent over 500,000 US troops to the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s over just a few months and was ready to send them into combat without congressional approval if necessary.[/q]

Bush 1 made an effective case to the American people in 1990 about the necessity for action and was able to assemble a credible international coalition. none of these things are available to Bush 2 in 2006.


[q]We do not live in a dictatorship and President Bush is the elected President of the country and has many powers to act in the country's defense as he sees fit. Unless congress were able to get enough votes to cut off funding for a war, or impeach and remove the President, there is little they can do.[/q]

see above. just because a president can do something doesn't mean he will do it because there are costs to every decision made.

In terms of suffering politically, the President has already been elected to a second term and cannot run for the office of President for a third term.

it's widely believed that the Iraq War is a huge political liability now in 2006 that it wasn't in 2004 and the Republicans are expected to suffer during the mid-term elections. we've see what support for the war can do to Democrats in CT. do you really think Bush would win a nationwide election in 2006?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Iraq was far more likely to use their military to attack Iran than the US is -- and Iran knows this, and knows that the US, currently preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iraq (two of Iran's old enemies now out of the picture) it is far less likely to use it's military capacity against the regime in Iran.






it's widely believed that the Iraq War is a huge political liability now in 2006 that it wasn't in 2004 and the Republicans are expected to suffer during the mid-term elections. we've see what support for the war can do to Democrats in CT. do you really think Bush would win a nationwide election in 2006?

Good points especially on the the threat Iran feels from its potential enemy's.

How often over the past century has their actually been a direct threat to the US homeland? A direct threat to the US homeland does not seem to be the primary rational in sending or stationing US forces overseas. Its the threat to US interest overseas that has been the primary motivation for US involvement in most of its wars since the start of the 20th century.

The President is not up for re-election and the only serious political cost the President can suffer is impeachment and removal or a cut off of funding by congress, both are very unlikely.

Lets not forget that Bush 1 barely got approval from congress to launch the military invasion against Saddam in 1991. I think the it only passed by a one or two votes. Bush 2 by comparison got approval by a massive landslide. The Democrats as I recall claimed Bush 1's coalition was not credible at all back in 1991. Its not a surprise that they don't find Bush 2's coalition credible either. They oppose the policy and will say anything poltically to bring it down. Politics in 1991, Politics in 2006.


A better question to ask would be who do the Democrats have that could beat Bush at the moment? Bush is the only target in the media at the moment. Bush's current political position would actually improve if he had a single political target he could fire back at. Gallup poll right now has Bush at 42% approval, but that would likely rise a little more if all the focus was not on him and someone else had some more of the spotlight and mud thrown at them.


The Democrats only represent 1/3 of the electorate, and in such a liberal state like CT, it would have been a disaster if the Democrats were unable to defeat Leiberman in their own primary. Things may be a little different when the rest of CT besides just the Democrat zealots vote in the election this fall.

We'll soon find out if the war is really the liability everyone claims it is. If we wake up November 8 with the Republicans still in control of both houses of congress, then all this hoopla would have been much a do about nothing.

Perhaps its better to say that the war in Iraq is a liability for Democrats who support it, especially when it comes to their primary's.

 

[Irvine511]

How often over the past century has their actually been a direct threat to the US homeland? A direct threat to the US homeland does not seem to be the primary rational in sending or stationing US forces overseas. Its the threat to US interest overseas that has been the primary motivation for US involvement in most of its wars since the start of the 20th century.

well, WW2 involved a pretty direct to the US homeland, and both Korea and Vietnam were understood in the larger framework of a Cold War with Soviet missiles aimed direct at the US homeland. it's really only in recent decades that the US military has been applied to achieve what might be understood as humanitarian goals, and with mixed results (Bosnia, Somalia). the first Gulf War had a specific objective -- Iraq out of Kuwait -- and never once called for the wholesale occupation of another country.





[q]The President is not up for re-election and the only serious political cost the President can suffer is impeachment and removal or a cut off of funding by congress, both are very unlikely.[/q]

the President has an agenda that extends far beyond military policy, and damage to his credibility in one area greatly weakens his credibility in other areas. look at all the northeastern republicans running from him and seeking to break with him on issues such as stem cells, as well as right-wing Republicans breaking with him on immigration. if Bush could simply do whatever he wants without any consequence, you'd see fewer Republicans seeking to break with his agenda in such a public manner.


[q]Lets not forget that Bush 1 barely got approval from congress to launch the military invasion against Saddam in 1991. I think the it only passed by a one or two votes. Bush 2 by comparison got approval by a massive landslide. The Democrats as I recall claimed Bush 1's coalition was not credible at all back in 1991. Its not a surprise that they don't find Bush 2's coalition credible either. They oppose the policy and will say anything poltically to bring it down. Politics in 1991, Politics in 2006.[/q]

i'd have to go back and look at the two resolutions, but we're forgetting the context of the vote in 2002 -- to authorize the president to use force if necessary wihth 9-11 as a backdrop. i also don't agree with your understanding of the Democrats assailing the coalition of 1991. in fact, Jim Baker was widely credited for his diplomatic skills in getting not just the traditional European powers on board (UK, France) but Muslim nations as well (Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan).

what we have in 2006 is nowhere near as credible as in 1991.


[q]A better question to ask would be who do the Democrats have that could beat Bush at the moment? Bush is the only target in the media at the moment. Bush's current political position would actually improve if he had a single political target he could fire back at. Gallup poll right now has Bush at 42% approval, but that would likely rise a little more if all the focus was not on him and someone else had some more of the spotlight and mud thrown at them.[/q]

which gallup poll was that? most recent polls have him in the lower 30's and with huge disapproval ratings at nearly 60%. i agree that a direct one-to-one comparison might help Bush, as it did help him defeat Kerry in 2004



[q]The Democrats only represent 1/3 of the electorate, and in such a liberal state like CT, it would have been a disaster if the Democrats were unable to defeat Leiberman in their own primary. Things may be a little different when the rest of CT besides just the Democrat zealots vote in the election this fall.[/q]

agreed that Liberman will probably still win in the Fall, but the message is out there loud and clear, especially for Democrats, but increasingly for Republicans as well. look at Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays, both Republicans and both from Connecticut.

there are times when i am proud to be from Connecticut.


[q]We'll soon find out if the war is really the liability everyone claims it is. If we wake up November 8 with the Republicans still in control of both houses of congress, then all this hoopla would have been much a do about nothing.[/q]

as we've discussed before, i think this is as much a political statement than an assessment of reality. you're participating in the Republican spin by stating that anything less than a total rout is a failure (which is kind of like Hezbollah saying that anything less than its complete annhiliation by Israel is a victory). it's true that most of the polls and media reports show the Democrats winning big in November, akin to the Republicans in 1994, but i'm not buying into that narrative just yet. i think the system hugely favors incumbancy, and many districts have been so extensively gerrymandered by both parties as to reduce any meaningful run-offs bewteen members of different parties.

Perhaps its better to say that the war in Iraq is a liability for Democrats who support it, especially when it comes to their primary's.

at this point, this is probably the only definitive conclusion we can draw, though i would again point to Republicans in blue states like CT who are running away from Bush as quickly as they know how, and not just on the war -- many voters who had voted GOP in the past (and this includes many independents) are repulsed by the party's current domination by Christian evangelicals who regard stem cells, gay marriage, abortion, and anti-science education as the most important issues facing the country.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

[q]A better question to ask would be who do the Democrats have that could beat Bush at the moment? Bush is the only target in the media at the moment. Bush's current political position would actually improve if he had a single political target he could fire back at. Gallup poll right now has Bush at 42% approval, but that would likely rise a little more if all the focus was not on him and someone else had some more of the spotlight and mud thrown at them.[/q]

which gallup poll was that? most recent polls have him in the lower 30's and with huge disapproval ratings at nearly 60%. i agree that a direct one-to-one comparison might help Bush, as it did help him defeat Kerry in 2004

Its this Gallup taken from August 18-20. Go to www.gallup.com Then click "The Gallup Poll" icon. Then look at the chart in the lower right hand corner. It has three different polls flashing one after the other and one of them is the Presidents approval rating. The August 18-20 is the latest one and the W is now at 42%.





As for the 2006 congressional elections, if the Democrats can't gain 15 House Seats, then they do not have the political strength that is so often sited in polls and the media. If the Republicans still control both houses of congress, regardless of the reason, then you can only look at it as a victory for the Republicans. The Democrats will still be in the semi powerless position that they have been in since 2000.


The only time since 1900 that the United States homeland has been specifically and directly threatened or attacked was by Japan in World War II and Al Quada on 9/11. All the other wars and conflicts did not actually involve a direct threat to the US homeland. Germany never really threatened the US homeland in World War II.