The Bush administration is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran again. Whether that “old dog” will still hunt is yet another matter. What’s important, however, is that our gang seems to be launching into its eerily familiar pre-attack dance.
Press reports at the end of last week carried the usual accusations that Iran is smuggling weapons and munitions to Shiite militants over its 900-mile long mutual border with Iraq. The reports generally contained the caveat that there was no known proof that the military contraband was coming from Iran, or that the Iranian government was involved.
It’s also a little strange that there is never a mention as to where the Sunnis obtain their ordnance. That’s the group that has been responsible for nearly all the major terrorist incidents in Iraq. We never hear any similar concerns regarding the 400 mile border shared between Iraq and the Sunni nation of Saudi Arabia.
Vice President Cheney has also been on the stump, laying out the administration’s case for an attack on Iran. He even ventured out on Sunday to say that Iran’s intent to build nuclear weapons was obvious and that the U.S. and other countries were “prepared to impose serious consequences” if that nation doesn’t change course.
For its part, Iran has said that any attack will be met with a retaliation that will include the launching of 11,000 missiles into “enemy bases” within 60 seconds. The country has been asserting for some time now that it has developed a high tech capability to cause considerable damage to U.S. military interests in the Gulf region, not to mention that its targets could also include whatever oil tankers might happen by
Without knowing whether it is based on exaggeration, reports have claimed that Iran's arsenal includes the following advanced weaponry:
-- A missile, the Fajr-3, that is invisible to radar and able to strike several targets with multiple warheads.
-- A high-speed torpedo, the Hoot, able to move at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo, and fired by ships cloaked to radar.
-- A surface-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, with remote-control and searching systems that cannot be scrambled.
-- A "super-modern flying boat," undetectable by radar and able to launch missiles with precise targeting while skimming low over the surface of the water at a top speed of 100 nautical mph.
Meanwhile, in the face of Washington’s hostile threats, and Israel's bombing raid into Syria, there appears to have been a more cooperative strategy coming out of Iran, lately.
For example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, in September, that his country would provide tighter controls of their mutual border.
Since then, as can be seen in the chart to the left, the trend of weekly deaths among the American military forces has been significantly reduced.
The first bar on the far left represents the average of weekly deaths during the three months prior to the Iranian pledge. That weekly average was 23. The remaining bars represent the deaths each week since the pledge was made. The most recent number, last week, was 10.
Also, as can be seen by this second chart, weekly U.S. deaths from improvised explosive devices have also been trending lower.
Again, the far left bar represents the average weekly number of American deaths from IED’s in the three months prior to the Iranian pledge. That weekly average was 15. The remaining bars represent the deaths from IED’s each week since the pledge was made. The most recent number, last week, was four.
In addition, the rate of civilian deaths has fallen. A week ago last Saturday, the toll fell to its lowest level in recent memory. Only four people were found dead in the entire country.
Obviously, terrorist attacks are continuing and they may even increase but, at this point, the Shiite involvement clearly seems to have lessened.
And, as far as that important issue concerning Iran’s potential nuclear threat is concerned, it was reported 12 days ago that Iran and the U.N.’s atomic watchdog agency had ended three days of talks aimed at clearing up suspicions concerning Iran’s activity. Those preliminary talks, at least, were described as “satisfactory.”
Yesterday, discussions continued in Rome, and it was considered to be an excellent sign that Iran decided to include Ali Larijani as a member of its delegation. Larijani, who recently resigned as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, is considered a relative moderate who has worked effectively with western officials in the past.
Just as there is no hard evidence that Iran is arming the insurgents, so too, there is no hard evidence that the improvement in the situation in Iraq is related to Iran’s alleged efforts to control its border. Similarly, we do not know at this point that Iran is not building a nuclear capability.
However, there is definitely some optimistic circumstantial evidence surfacing. Enough, possibly, to justify a reduction in Washington’s saber rattling which, given its track record, is unnerving a good percentage of the world's population.
In the words of John Lennon from 35 years ago, perhaps this is the right time to “give peace a chance.”
Dave McGill, News Correspondent……………….
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week………….
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development…………….
You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.


Comments: 97
Fine article. The Bush administration's failure to respond positively to the reformer- government of President Khatami's significant help in Afghanistan and 2003 offer to negotiate all issues between Iran and the US (nuclear, support of Hizbollah, hostility to recognition of Israel) convinced the aging hardliners in Iran the US wants to attack Iran no matter what and led to Ahmadinejad's election in 2005. Ahmadinejad, unfortunately, doesn't believe the US would be so foolish to attack Iran because of the mess in Iraq. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority to determine policy the Supreme Leader does, but his rhetoric and Bush's is dangerous. The US is supporting anti-Iran group's in Iraq that even the US has designated as terrorsist organizations for some years.
Iran has some good stuff, but still, the military and technological power of the US will eventually destroy the Iranians. The problem is that they cannot hit our cities, our factories, or anything else. We can bomb them into the ground. We can destroy all their strategic positions from 5000 miles away. They cannot hit us at home. We have a bigger population, a much more powerful military. But as we are not going to go to war with them, it does not matter
Yeah, we could cream them I-ranies with one hand tyed behind our backs. Hell, even Mr. Bush couldn't screw that one up enough to scare you, huh?
Also, please note al Sadr (anti USA mullah) is taking a sabbatical in Theran. Prior to his R&R, he declared a 6 month ceasefire.
Last but not least there are over 2 million Iraqui refuges in neighboring countries and Europe. That number is growing by 1-2K per DAY. Wow, never thought of this but at this rate we will have cleansed all Iraqi's from their own country in a few years.
A war with Iran would be simply stupid. War is a measure of last resort and we haven't even begun to explore opening any channels for peace. Insofar as Iranian military might is concerned, its really no big deal as they eventually will be neutralized. What worries me is, what happens when Iran sinks 2 tankers/ships in the straights of hormuz. If that happens then there will be instant worldwide economic chaos (yes there are other countries that exist outside our borders) as all oil supplies from the gulf will cease to be exported. We really won't care too much since we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela.
Also, what will we do with the land portion of the war. Are we sending troops in? We don't have enough as it is so then what ... a draft? Maybe this is why they initiated the passport rule for people who want to visit other countries. Not for homeland security but rather to keep as many kids ages 17-25 (currently) from escaping to say Canada and becoming draft dodgers. How long does it take to get a passport these days ... a long time I believe and a long time does not bode well for those who do not want to be drafted.
I hope and pray some sensible men/women will stand up and pull us away from the brink of disaster.
Colonel, if you are right, I pray that it never happens.
Centrist, going to war with a nation does not always mean occupation. All we really have to do is destroy the government, the military, and WMD programs. We can do that without occupying Iran.
Superb analysis! I am struck by the claims Iran is making concerning new, hight tech equipment. Such statements as "cannot be scrambled" and "invisible to radar" sound to me like something they wish they had and may be working on but are really not likely to exist except on the drawing boards. I would assume they are closer to a nuclear weapon that to all of these.
They, like Saddam, do not want to be seen as vulnerable. Claiming to possess either nuclear of an array of other superior, high tech responses is hoped to deter any aggressor. That is why Saddam encouraged the tale of massive weapons of mass destruction and nuclear. It wasn't just the US that he was worried about.
If in fact, Iran does posses some of these, I would suspect that they got them from either Russia or China.
To attack Iran in the middle of this would be foolhardy and on a par with "we will be received as heros and greeted in the streets with flowers" and " it will be over in a few weeks." I don't trust this regime in Washington to see the handwriting on the wall or learn from the mistakes they've "never made." Until January 2009, anything is possible. This is why I feel we must continue with the push Dennis Kucinich has started with the move to impeach Cheney. They can do so much damage in the next 14 months yet.
David, as always, a well-written and thoughtful article. Thanks for all you do.
Good article overall with very good stats too.
However, if we were finding newly made, say Japanese equipment among the terrorists do you think that might be conclusive? Iran has few buyers for most of its military gear, surprisingly they are all nearby ones that aren't friendly to us. Enough Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been captured/killed by US/Iraqi forces to have pertty much mooted the whole debate. Problem is Congress has told the world they are torn over the whole issue and Bush does not have the political capital to do anything official about it.
Most of the hardware you've described is known and little of it is actually new. Sov based systems like the MOR1 AA system-supposedly very hot stuff- was just worked over by Israel with no casualities. The Iranian government is whistling in the dark now about being able to do real damage to any attacking US air/naval strikes. Plus Kharg Island is one helluva big target, it ships over 85% of Iran's oil exports...
I do agree with u that we can destroy the nation in no time. We topple & bring down every Iranian institution.. but then what? Who will control the mayhem & chaos after that? Iran will truly become a threat then. Due to lack of civil leadership, the leftover army will takeover as they are will b most armed & trained to fight anyone who stands in their path. The violence will surely pill over into Iraq & Afghanistan (already unstable nations) and will embolden insurgency in the area, as if we are not having enough problems already.
The lives of 26 million will be destroyed... do we not care? Yeah, I forgot they are evil & their lives holds no value. It's only us westerners who are morally right & only our lives are worth mourning for. How could I have forgotten the basics... :(
The Pentagon has had warmongering plans against Syria and Iran in place since years before they finally engineered the attack on Iraq. All the peacemakers/lightworkers I know have been working with prayers, earth healings, etc to shift all that creativity into positive mode - get out of the puritanical witchburning projection thing the USA has been doing for so long. What's needed is a healthy and large focus on t he potential for clearing up the messes in the Mideast, S. America, and Africa. Prayer circles, get to work. What we focus on is what the universe increases, so let's focus on peace for these areas.
Supporting JORDAN's gifts for the world with loving thoughts is another way to help.
Don't you think it's funny - all those missiles (penises, really - lol!) and their silly "boy" names? It would be funny if they weren't so deadly. But really, isn't it truly stupid how much wonderful time, energy, and attention is wasted on these deadly toys? Let's get all the warmongers of the world into a big video game parlor and let them play all the immature virtual-deadly war games they want, eh? One big game parlor. And we'd surround it with peaceworkers singing peace songs and praying and doing energy healings, and transforming all the negativity emanating from those warmongers - transform it into healing power. What-say?
Yeah, some would think that's a lame idea - and yet - hey! It ain't deadly. It's dowright friendly, when you think about it. (c:*
. . . What-say?
I say; I think you may be missing the "point" of those missiles.
Second what country could defeat us? China--wouldn't even have to fire a missle...just call in our loans! And we can thank shrub and his supporters for selling out our nation on credit so he and his mob can get a bit richer and not have to pay taxes like the rest of us!
As an Army veteran post-Vietnam (1975-83), I consider the 1968 Tet Offensive a military campaign we "lost" for the simple reason that just 2 months prior, our commanding general stated that the enemy was simply not capable of such an attack:Featured on the cover of Time magazine three times and named 1965's Man of the Year, General Westmoreland had become the public face of the Vietnam war. Time described him as "the sinewy personification of the American fighting man... (who) directed the historic buildup, drew up the battle plans, and infused the... men under him with his own idealistic view of U.S. aims and responsibilities."
Remind you of anyone? Seems we are reenacting Vietnam circa 1967 right now, with David Petraeus in the role of William Westmoreland.
I think it is most important that people continue to seek and speak the truth. Simply offering ones opinion has little effect, since there are many millions of opinions. But information, and informed reasoning are not so easily swept aside.
There are surely many in Congress who would like very much to "get us out" of Iraq, but they cannot make bold moves without significant "political" backing. The propaganda campaign to paint our "enemies" as inhuman monsters has gone very well, and so to the illusory linking of support for the "war" and support for the people placed in that chaos. Without convincing evidence that the public is beyond these manipulative tactics, those elected officials seeking the end of this nightmare cannot take a chance on being twisted and smeared beyond recognition, and so further empowering the "hawks".
Many citizens are no longer buying the swill they are given to drink, without a skeptical wince, and the time when the spin will be useless may be approaching. Even many in the military are growing very wary of what they are being told, and I mean the "combatant commander" types, who often take that oath to the Constitution rather seriously. Each "straw" of truth heaped on this camels back, is another burden it cannot bear much longer.
According to interviews with period North Vietnamese leaders, it was a tactical and political move that accomplished several things for the North. One, it put the lie to Westmoreland's claims, and thoroughly embarrassed the US, and it allowed them to get full control of the VietCong, by the sacrificing of inflexible leaders (as well as their units) that sometimes opposed Hanoi's aims. It was no defeat, from their point of view.
The minute a draft starts again in this country, the vast baby boomer mother's lobby will eviscerate the boob that proposed it, and politicians know that. Not bloody likely. It would be the shortest war ever.
I personally dont support the draft, as it would be too expensive and would destroy the professional military, which is one of the main reasons why we have the best military in the world. But we could beat Iran, no doubt about it.
Oh my God. We couldn't defend our country against an invasion by Honduras with the amount of troops that we have now.
Yeah, let's invade China and we'll see about that.
" I don't believe they have that much firepower to successfully launch and accurately hit 66,000 targets within 2 minutes, but I do believe the president there is crazy and will commit a lot of desperate and inhumane acts to cause the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians"
Well, except for that first bit about firepower, I would think many Iranian's would say the very same thing. In fact, the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005 can hardly be considered mysterious, given the nature of the neighborhood at the moment. Those folks ain't crazy, they're just a bit too much like us.
He is however, not able to initiate much on his own, and the Presidency is nothing like what has come to be in this country.
We are not going to go to war with Iran - Yes we will have a plan always to take out their munition areas however the only thing we want Iran to do right now is stop supplying arms and deadly bomb materials to the guys we are fighting in IRaq and Afghanistan.
Dave, as usual a great article and informative.
Ron..exactly. That's why they sent one of my friends who is in the National Guard, 5' 9" 280 lbs, and it ain't muscle. No way this guy was in any physical condition to go over there and fight. And by the way, he did see combat action.
And we can't even secure our own borders...hmmmmm.....
Odd how the MSM never got around to mentioning what the military has been telling folks about this for months now . . . don't you think?
"I have testified to the facts about our readiness and I remain concerned about the serious demands we face," said Schoomaker"
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html
That was in July of 2006!
If you fellas think things have gotten a whole lot better since then . . .
And we can't defeat drug smugglers and human traffickers crossing our borders and entering our ports everyday.Amazing.
writerlover
No one is "blaming" the military for anything. They are victims too.
Ty Phoo,
But then are many who are itching to go into Iran… what do u say to them? I hope u right abt not invading Iran but it's just that I have lost trust in the American govt.
"we are still the greatest military power on the planet"
We are most powerful military in the world, greatest.. I m not sure as that is more subjective. It be true from our point of view but to others they are just evil. But at least, u are better than those who we are the most powerful military in the history of mankind... how retarded! It's like taunting Romans that "look we have live telecast our games, could u do that for ur fights in the Colosseum". One should always compare ourselves in our own era. Most countries today would be many times powerful & stronger if they were to fight army from 1000 A.D. But since we don't have a time machine, we can't. Our strength is due to the modern weaponry we have & not coz we have some super humans on our side. But we have to make sure, we stay ahead of the curve in order to maintain the upper hand.
Karl, Iraq was not a war of aggression. The Iraqi government under Saddam is the only group that can be held responsible for this war. Congress gave 23 reasons to go to war, and almost all of them were the result of something Saddam did. Going to war with Iraq was not a mistake. The only mistake was not ending this war.
On a side note, the US can survive without that stuff, because we can supply our own stuff. We make our own cars, foof, comptuers, TV, and we can make a lot more oil. The US has over 1.2 trillion barrels of oil (thats trillion with a T). We can survive this war, but Congress has to lessen its restrictions on this country.
ty phoon, i wish I had the optimism & trust u have in the administration. After all the lies, deceit & the trampling of liberties... i have lost faith. :(
You don't understand what the Revolutionary Guard is. It is a distinct branch of the Government, like our Pentagon , Department of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force etc. It is functions like a corporation in that it contracts with businesses domestically internationally to supply its needs, plays a role in determining Govt.policy, does its independent research and development and so on. It has moderates and hard-liners. When Condolezza Rice met at the leaders of Middle East countries at the conference in Egypt recently, and , for the first time ther was "official" US contact with Iranian representatives in 27 years (although the US worked closely with Iran in 2001 , which made it is possible for the US to defeat the Taleban and establish a government in Afghanistan) , one of the two top Iranian respresentatives present was an influential member of the Revolutionary Guard, a moderate one. To declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is as absurd as saying the Pentagon, the CIA, the Army or the Navy is one.
Centrist, I dont have a lot of faith in the government any more. Its the military that I trust and have so much respect for. Most of the stuff that Bush says about the war comes from Petraeus and Odierno. The Military is one of the few sectors of the government that I still respect and trust.
I am just surprised what kind of dumb retards did we elect to make policies for us.
Oh yeah, really? Then why are there National Guard Troops stationed on the border?
Oh and BTW, that's ' Border Patrol ' ....not ' Border Control '
Please forgive ty phoon. She is in the Military and an obvious victim of their propaganda.
The National Guard is there to assist Border Patrol, not to tell them what to do.
I may be in the military, but I am not a "victim of propaganda." I have seen the situation first hand, and I know what is right.
Of course, I am one that wants our guys home from Iraq, now. We went over because of weapons of mass destruction. There were none, there are none. Bring them home.