Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

UK military experts (updated): US attack on Iran is beginning

Posted by Charles II on August 30, 2007

The study was made available by Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story (via Avedon and Chris Floyd). The authors are Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher of the University of London. They state that:

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan.

That means we are already at war. But Bushco is keeping it under wraps until they are ready for the air strike. They say:

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

As inevitable as this madness seems, they haven’t dropped the bombs yet. You can still protest, call, etc.

Update (8/30): The article by Larisa and Muriel Kane is here.

Barnett Rubin has stated that his sources say that the campaign for war, not war, begins in mid-September.

Colonel Patrick Lang says that Plesch and Martin are way too optimistic about what air power can accomplish. As I commented, the sheer stupidity of the apparent Bushco plan for the destruction of Iran makes it plausible.

17 Responses to “UK military experts (updated): US attack on Iran is beginning”

  1. whig said

    Will protest stop the bombs?

  2. Charles said

    I don’t know. I do know that Congress ought to be alerted, since they seem to be the last to know anything.

  3. whig said


  4. jo6pac said

    Check Juan Cole today for more on this.

  5. Charles said

    Thanks, Joe. The direct link is to Barnett Rubin’s piece. It’s anonymously sourced, but plausible.

  6. Nudnik said

    That means we are already at war.

    Well, Iran ha been at war with us for 25+ years, perhaps its time for us to actually respond in kind.

  7. Hey, nudnik, you putz. I thought you’d volunteered for the war, but no. Best wishes from the gang at Corrente.

  8. Of course he didn’t, Lambert.

  9. Charles said

    Actually, we illegally removed Iran’s lawfully elected leader, Mohammed Mossadeq, in 1953, setting off hostilities.

    That means that we have been at war with them for ca. 54 years.

    However, during most of that time, we have avoided killing one another. Yes, there was American support for Saddam Hussein in one of the most pointless wars ever waged. And there was the suicide bombing of the Marines in Lebanon.

    But if the Nudnik would read Plesch and Butcher’s analysis of what will happen, he might not be so eager for a hot war. The US is more likely than not to lose it, at least in a strategic sense, very possibly leaving Israel essentially friendless and alone.

  10. Nudnik said

    I read part of the analysis, and it is somewhat weak. The part about Israel attacking Iran, uses the Sunday Times almost as its only source. The Sunday Times has been coming out with an article about every month about Israel bombing Iran in the “next two weeks”, and the have been consistently wrong.

    The data on the number of missiles Iran has that could reach Israel is also wrong. The analyis states that Iran has 500 missiles of that range. Those would be the Shihab 3, and according to most other intelligence Iran has significantly fewer of those missiles…by a factor of 5-10. Also, the Shihab 3 has experienced technical problems.

    Finally, you seem to miss the very important point that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that is already a huge strategic loss for the US.

    I am not eager for a hot war with Iran, but at some point we have to acknowledge that it may be the only option left to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

  11. Charles said

    It’s wonderful to hear that you’re not so eager for a hot war with Iran, Nudnik.

    Now, are you familiar with open source analysis? I would guess not.

    It reviews huge amounts of literature available publicly or semi-publicly, and winnows it down to a self-consistent picture. When one writes a report, one often quotes certain sources that say the right thing even if one thinks they are, overall, putzes (Contrary to what you wrote, however, Plesch & Butcher quoted the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies and Dennis Ross as other sources).

    The open source analyst would look at the Sunday Times suggestions of an attack on Iran not as being wrong, but as being a tool of official policy. Indeed, James Bamford, writing before the Sunday Times started beating the drums, wrote

    In recent weeks, the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel have given neoconservatives in the Bush administration the pretext they were seeking to launch what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls “World War III.” Denouncing the bombings as “Iran’s proxy war,” William Kristol of The Weekly Standard is urging the Pentagon to counter “this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.” According to Joseph Cirincione, an arms expert and the author of Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats, “The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both.”… In a victory speech of sorts on Inauguration Day in January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney warned bluntly that Iran was “right at the top” of the administration’s list of “trouble spots” – and that Israel “might well decide to act first” by attacking Iran.

    The plan to attack Iran goes back many years and doesn’t have much of anything to do with Iran’s actual behavior.

    Since Iran manufactures the Shahab and has been for nearly a decade, I don’t see any reason to doubt there are 500 of them. Plus, they have upgraded them to improve the poor accuracy (see Shahab-4/5/6). Plus the Russians have been working with the Iranians for some time.

    As for Iran getting nuclear weapons, we lived with the Soviets/Russians having nuclear weapons for almost 60 years. We can live with Iran having them. What we do need to do is improve counterproliferation to prevent the movement of nuclear material across borders. The capability we have is pretty impressive, but not good enough yet. Still, while huge amounts of weapons grade plutonium and uranium is sitting around in poorly-unguarded Soviet-era facilities, Iran is not our number one threat.

  12. pizzaman said

    it is very obvious that we can not live with a hostile nuclear armed regime in Iran
    and it is also not prudent to enter into hostility with them as it seems complicated and can turn very ugly before it gets better
    that leaves of with one option
    and that is negotiating with them. we can come to an agreement of lets say 10 year freeze on their nuclear r&d in return for a normalization of relations with some human right conditions or something in this line.

  13. Pizzaman, read Charles’ comment here. The planned attack on Iran by the PNAC Platoon has nothing to do with any legitimate casus belli and everything to do with the Ledeen Doctrine that states that the US should beat the crap out of any given other country in the world, just because we can. (Or could, prior to Bush’s destroying our military in Iraq.)

  14. Charles said

    Thanks, PW.

    We can live with a nuclear armed, hostile Iran. We lived with a nuclear armed, hostile USSR for many years. But anything that goes into or out of the country ought to be checked for alpha-particles.

  15. whig said

    It’s worth remembering the consensus of the US intelligence agencies is that Iran is at least ten years away from nuclear capability anyhow.

  16. Charles said

    No one really knows, whig. I understand that our intelligence is so bad that we don’t have even a rudimentary idea of where they are at or what their goals are. My guess is that they could accomplish this in five years. With all the loose stuff lying around Russia and Georgia, they could have one tomorrow.

    The solutions are political and technical, not military.

  17. […] As Charles points out here, the Bush Junta’s attack on Iran has been planned for a long time and has little if anything […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: