I vote for bombing Tehran. Also, we don't have to worry about invading Iran since all their troops are conveniently coming to Iraq - we should reward appropriately them for being so considerate to our needs.

Openly declare war against Iran. Give the 48 hour Saddam Special. Iraq II - the Sequel.
Bomb nuke targets but stay away from cities if possible. Use our bases in Iraq for staging.

The Iranians been begging for it for 25 years. Time to give the mullahs a hellfire haircut.

Don't we need to get a UN Resolution authorizing us to use all appropriate measures to prevent Iranian destabilization of Iraq first? Oh wait, before we can do that we first need to get a UN Resolution warning Iran of severe consequences if they continue to support actions detrimental to the security of Iraq.

No, wait, before that we need to get a UN Resolution denouncing Iranian actions and suggesting that they should stop said actions at their earliest convenience.

Ooops, France vetoed that.

I hate to be the voice of reason...

1. We really need to stabilize Iraq before we go haring off.

2. The attrition numbers really are on our side. The bad guys are checking into the greater Iraqi Roach Motel, and not leaving.

3. I still hold Iran to be ripe for counter revolution. Invading will not improve that situation. Let them get the counter revolution well under way, and then offer to help.

4. Syria...

Da_Wiz Sends

Gotta agree with OW, especially points 2 & 3. Regarding 3, if..... rather WHEN the revolution occurs, the only military intervention we should consider would be some SF teams.

Oh, sure. Bring reason into the discussion.

You guys are totally harshing my war-related mellow.

At the bare minimum we should be supplying arms to potential revolutionaries. They can't overthrow the mullahs without weapons.

ccwbass,

I'm sorry, man. want I should remind you that we can still urge the Pres to get on with it and waste Sadr?

Ken,

Oh, yeah, I agree, but I also thing a couple of teams would help.

It'd be great, Ace, but the trouble is that we're just stretched too thin as it is, in military terms alone. The political fallout would be another beast as well.

Bomb them--don't invade them. A big big difference!!!

Bombing the revolutionary guard into submission takes away the mullahs weapon against the common people, and frees the people to revolt. At the same time send in special forces teams to help the people revolt, as per Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I personally favor bombing nuclear facilities and oil refineries as well, but that can perhaps wait until we see what destroying the revolutionary guard accomplishes.

Poltical fallout is a genuine concern. That's one reason I hope GWB wins this election: he will have four years to take whatever steps necessary to win the War on Terror without any fear of political fallout. He can do whatever it takes (military or otherwise) in N. Korea, Iran, Syria, or wherever else. But realistically, he can't do any of those things immediately before an election, especially if his critics are making headway with their "he rushed to war" argument.

That said, I also agree with Eric's statement that we're stretched too thin. Geographically, Iraq is about as nice a country as you could hope to invade. Everything is in a nice straight line, with a neat little starting point in the Persian Gulf. Iran, on the other hand, is a wide scattering of major cities, such that capturing one means you're surrounded on nearly all sides by others that have not yet been captured. Obviously, America has the greatest military in the world. But we would need to be able to concentrate it a little better for an undertaking as big as Iran. And let's not encourage anything as Clinton-esque and sissified as just lobbing a couple of missiles and hoping that does the trick. Wars are won with boots on the ground.

Of course, Ace's causus belli argument does rise or fall on the assumption that the captured terrorists really are Iranian government agents.

But assuming the reports are accurate, I'm all for invading. I think the democracy movement in Iran could use a little impetus, and that those Iranians who are disaffected with the government will react positively to American intervention. But we have to do it carefully, with our troops well-prepared and deployed, and we should do it some time after November.

Well, I agree we probably ARE stretched too thin right not. As good as our military forces are, we do need numbers as well as quality. However, bombing is a game anyone can play, and we really cannot afford to let the Mullahs think they can try to kill Americans with impunity. So:

1. Take out the nuclear research facilities and reactors.
2. Take out as many missile and artillery batteries along the Persian Gulf as we can find.
3. Sink the Iranian navy.]
4. Take out their air bases and air defense sites
5. Kill a couple of divisions of revolutionary guards.

The nice thing about this list is that it can be accomplished mostly with air and naval assets.

If we're gonna go the bombing route, though, we need to be VERY sure of our targets. I would hate to see us pull a Clinton and do nothing more than assfuck a camel with a Tomahawk.

Although that might get Wonkette and her readers on our side.

Folks,

As regards the situation in Iran, until the counter revolution really breaks out, I'd advise a variation on the Warren Zevon Doctrine: Skip the lawyers, send money and guns.

Da_Wiz Sends

Just linked this on my blog:

Iran fires into Iraq

"An Iraqi military check point that is situated at the western bank of Shat El Arab north to the city of Faw at the Iraqi-Iranian border named Shehan was subjected to Iranian fire on Friday. The same thing happened to some Iraqi army patrols between Gazeel and Hadida north to Basra.

"Colonel Dhafir Sabah Al Timemi mentioned that this was the 4th time the Iranians have opened fire on Shehan check point during the last week in addition to several other aggressions along the line from the north of Basra down to Al Shalamja."

Nick, that's some scary crap.

Again let me reiterate, America has the greatest armed forces in the history of the entire world. We can rock anybody.

But we have yet to fully rebuild after eight years of Clinton-era reductions, and we are stretched tight in Iraq. If Iran wants to get the U.S. into a war, now is the best time they could possibly hope to do it, for the following reasons:

a) Iraq is still unstable. It's obviously not what the Lefties are saying it is, but it's also not a place I'd like to visit this year. If any Iraqi insurgency is going to happen, it's more likely to happen if there's a hot war with the Iranians.

b) America is committed to pulling our troops out of Iraq. Iraq is geographically one of the best staging areas we can ask for (although we can easily deploy air assets from the Indian Ocean).

c) A new front on the War on Terror going hot right before an election might hurt Bush, which of course the Iranians want. Because as everyone knows, John Kerry isn't about to get tough on Iran. Note: this could backfire - if Iran is a demonstrable aggressor, Americans are more likely to want him in charge. Nobody trusts the Souflee with a gun.

d) The more time goes by, the more time America has to build its army and pull units out of places like, for example, Germany, where we don't really need units. If they're going to fight us, better do it now.

Sound reasonable? Is Iran trying to provoke us into war?

Aaron: Yes, Iran is trying to provoke the U.S. This is the last ditch effort at the use of force to sabotage Iraq. They started by allowing jihadis to cross the border freely, then sent Iranian intelligence officers to help coordinate action against us, and now that the guerilla campaign has been revealed they are trying to sucker us into broader conventional war. This is a good sign. It means democracy has a real chance to succeed in Iraq. After this comes the political sabotage which will be much more difficult to deal with but I think the Iraqis will manage.

As regards the invasion idea, it sucks. The Revolution in Iran was as much a nationalist movement as a religious movement. That plus the 8 year war with Iraq has created a very strong nationalist identity among Iranians and invading would drive them back into the arms of the mullahs. Better to let them sort out their own problems.

If we can get the Iraqis on side here this might actually help us. A threat to Iraq from the outside is likely to bring Iraqis together and make them more greatful for having the world's strongest military "occupying" their country to help serve as a defense force. And if we played it just right we might could pin the last year of problems on Iran and Syria in the minds of ordinary Iraqis. That would be a tough job and delicate work, but I think it could be done. We certainly have the intelligence resources in the area.

Brian, absolutely agree on the teams.

Battleofthepyramids: I would only add that if it is Iranian intel officers, the intel head office should be on the list.

Nicholas and Aaron: Any unit that fires into Iraq should be immediately destroyed.

Kerry Is Unelectable: I don't agree on the nationalist issue, especially if we make it clear to the opposition that we oppose the mullahs, not democracy in Iran.
The original revolution was a coalition, ultimately hijacked by the mullahs. I don't believe the democrats would oppose force against the mullahs.

I think the Iranians are trying to catch our attention.

"Without doubt, we have the right to bomb the living sh!t out of Iran."

It's delightful to have a pretext, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done whether we have a right or not.

:-)

Ken: The problem in Iran is that there is still a significant portion of the population that supports the mullahs. They aren't a majority, but they are nothing to sneeze at either. That's why the revolution hasn't popped off yet. In addition to this you have two other considerations 1) the majority of the revolutionaries are just kids (15-25) and 2) the mullahs use of militias and irregular forces make Iraq look like an ice cream social. The irregulars are easier to kill when you find them, being so poorly trained if trained at all, but they are incredibly difficult to find. Bottom line: a very, very messy invasion. I don't like it at all. Especially when they have such a strong pro-democracy movement of their own. It'd be nice to see a muslim nation free itself as an example to the rest.

Blaster: I don't know if I agree wholeheartedly that Iran is trying to distract us from Syria, but that was a really good post.

I don't think Iran is trying to provoke us into a war (with them) because the most significant alteration likely to occur over time in the regional balance of power is that Iran will develop the bomb. Hence, no need for them to bring the issue to a head right now.

Instead, they want to make life as difficult as possible for us in Iraq as well as try to separate us from our allies. They will, in other words, rattle every door but not necessarily shoot the lock off.

They know that with Iraq completely out of the picture and perceived in the Arab world as captive to us, Iran can become the loyal Islamic opposition. Should they develop the bomb, engineer an insurrection that drives us out of Iraq, and otherwise become the heirs of Nasser/Saddam, they'll be in a position to bid for regional domination--especially given that Israel is preoccupied with political survival.

They want to be what Bin Laden called the strong horse opposing the Zionist Crusaders.

OTOH, Iran doesn't have a single personality holding the camel reins and the Mullahs aren't the most rational group of people, so there's always the chance the fuckheads will miscalculate and pull a China/Korean War scenario (i.e., send a million or so fanatical "volunteers" across the border to liberate Iraq).

"Battleofthepyramids: I would only add that if it is Iranian intel officers, the intel head office should be on the list.

"Nicholas and Aaron: Any unit that fires into Iraq should be immediately destroyed."

Let's not have any tit-for-tat. Merely inflaming Iran is the worst among our choices, for "One ought not merely threaten the life of the prince" but, instead, one should harm one's enemies in such a mode that "they cannot even think of taking revenge." It's closer to good strategy to say that we should bomb Iran until Syria surrenders.

Doug, it's not tit-for-tat to hit the unit that fires, it's self defense - but I strongly agree that we need to make clear that we have the resolve to carry through if necessary.

Refusing to fight back sends a completely different message, one that we have sent far too often in the past.

Ken,

Given the very realistic possibility that Iran is trying to provoke us into a hot war, I'd say that destroying any units which fire into Iraq plays exactly into their strategy.

Nicolas Kronos argues that Iran is not trying to provoke us into war, but let's face it - firing weapons across international borders is an act of war. There is no other way to characterize such an action. Provocation? Sure, but provocation to war. It is an inherently war-like action.

I'm all for playing it tough with Iran, for destroying their military units to keep them in line. But I don't think right now is a good time for a hot war. I'd rather see GWB wait five months, until he is re-elected, and then retaliate without the same political fall-out which could result. GWB doesn't need another battle-front on his resume going into this election.

And of course, we should wait until our military assets are good to go. On this point, I'd like to revise some of my previous statements. I argued before that you can't win a war without boots on the ground. That's true for an invasion and occupation, but I've changed my mind when the only goal is to smack the other guy down. If we use missile strikes to hit all naval assets, air force, and key ground units such as suspected nuclear facilities, then we can end a war before it even starts. We won't need to take the next step (sending in ground forces) until we're damn good and ready, because at that point Iran can't hit us anyway. We can take all the time we need to arrange an Iranian revolution on our own terms, with minimal American casualties.