I just got an e-mail from Ali in Tehran wanting to transfer $64,000,000 into my bank account. Do you think this is related?

I saw an oil market analyst talk about this the other night. His take is that any interruption of Iran's oil, either by them cutting it off or an embargo, would be a temporary blip. Other countries would fill the gap.

Even if this analysis is not correct I would support an embargo. And given my line of work it would hurt a good deal.

Yeah man, thanks for bringing me down.

Actually, Krauthammer makes some good points. But I just do not see the American people being willing to put up with high gas prices and/or shortages. Just look what happened after Katrina. Prices rose and Bush's poll numbers took a beating. Some said it was because of his handling of the hurricane, but as soon as the gas prices went back down, his poll numbers went back up. Was it really all about the price of gas?

It seems that most Americans could care less about Iran. That is very troubling, as you said, one day our cities may feel the effects of today's decisions. That being said, I doubt they will put up with disruption to their daily lives.

If we do this, Bush has got to be on TV every night talking about his plans for Iran and what it means IF we act and if we DON’T act.

I fear there is no good way out of this one.

*sigh*

Ok, I'm officially depressed.

Anybody got a link to that shot of bbeck's cans?

Those always cheer me up.

You know what we need? Pics of the hot chicks here holding firearms. (Man, I'm glad I avoided the word "guns")

I know that'd make my day!

On a "neener neener" note, I get on a plane tomorrow starting my week on vacation. Drinks are on me!

I think a lot of the problem we've had with pushback on Iraq is that it just doesn't feel like we're at war (unless you are part of a military family). We've had to sacrifice almost nothing -- our daily lives are almost no different than they were prior to 9/11. So it's hard to sustain a united front against an enemy we can't even feel.

Well, we will feel a war with Iran. Not so much from a military perspective -- Iran's military is if anything even more lamentable than Iraq's was. No, this is all about oil and the dreadful possibility of nuclear response. It will mean a global economic recession and possibly a depression. It could lead to currency crashes and possible revolutions in places like China and Indonesia.

Understand: if we go, it probably won't be against just Iran. Syria will almost certainly be included in any strike package. Iran will do their utmost to foment violence in both Lebanon and the southern provinces of Iraq (where they will probably succeed, at least in the short term). And just to make everything fun, the Russians and Chinese may try to break any U.S. naval blockade with force -- the Chinese in particular are freaking out about losing Iranian oil.

What I'm saying is that America may be moving towards a full-on, honest to God, all-out World War. I hope to God I'm wrong and that this whole thing is being blown badly out of proportion...but I'm beginning to doubt that.

I don't think we buy iranian oil and I know that china is the biggest consumer of iranian oil......so china is the only country that can mount effective sanctions on iran and the only effect on US producers would be much higher prices on saudi crudel. Ain't gonna happen.....wouldn't bother the mullahs if it did.

Monty,

I don't think the scenario you outlined with regard to depressions and an attempt to break a US Naval blockade would happen. I suspect we'll see a spike in oil prices, but those will come down as other producers produce more in response. As for the Russian and Chinese navies, the Russian one is in terrible shape and had only enough capability to defend their own waters, and that was in the Soviet days; the Chinese navy, although improved, has no significant experience with blue-water warfare and would lose whatever gains they have attained in any foolish attack on US forces.

What's more likely is that the Iranians already have nuclear weapons, and could use them as mines to halt an American advance into Iran. A single weapon could do serious harm to American ground forces, and could conceivably change the momentum in a battle. Although the US could retaliate, the shock on the public of an entire, say, brigade or even battalion being wiped off the map would be indescribable.

But Monty I do agree that it would be the real deal, even if the Iranians don't have a nuclear weapon. This would be a fight to the finish, and we can expect a fanatical insurgency, supported by foreign powers, awaiting us. The President will probably have to use the last of his political capital for this and he'll be fairly unpopular when he leaves office. But history will judge him fairly, and I think eventually, quite well when Iran is liberated and free.

I don't think the scenario you outlined with regard to depressions and an attempt to break a US Naval blockade would happen.

I don't share your optimism. Get a good Atlas and look at the Middle East. There is a feature called the Straits of Hormuz -- this is a chokepoint through which a goodly percentage of the world's oil moves. The Iranians could pre-emptively close it any any number of ways; scuttle ships to block the channel, mine it, or threaten passing ships with missile attacks. The threat would be enough to drive oil prices into the stratosphere.

Sure, the U.S. Navy would make fairly short work of any enemies -- but it would still take time. At mininum, a week to three weeks to guarantee ships shafe passage through the Straits. The world's economy can suffer a lot of hurt in three weeks. I agree that a scenario that would involve Russian or Chinese subs trying to break a blockade is unlikely, but it can't be ruled out, especially if the oil supply is choked off long-term. The PLAN (People's Liberation Army/Navy) has several Russian-built Kilo-class subs that are more than capable of taking out American destroyers or crusiers.

May you live in interesting times.

Prediction:

Europe and the U.N. won't lift a finger. Russia and China will undercut any efforts to sanction or blockade Iran. The left and the media will hamstring any attempt by Bush to move militarily. The American public will do anything to avoid taking casualties. We do nothing of substance.

Isreal will attempt to take out Iran's facilities and/or they will get hit with the first Iranian nuke.

After that, all hell's going to break loose as Israel is crippled and many millions of muslims cease to exist in a nuclear fire.

All the democrats will say, "it's Bush's fault."

I hope I'm wrong.

Maybe we can get China to invade Iran.

It would take care of the problem and it would also scare the crap out of the Arabs and Europe.

(Then we can nuke them and blame it on France!)

Monty,

I've looked at an atlas, and while you are correct that the Straits of Hormuz would be an obvious point to focus Chinese/Russian naval operations, the problem is the logistics for supporting such operations. This is a long way for Chinese/Russian submarines to go, even for their nuclear fleet. Their diesels (i.e. those Kilos you're talking about) are only good for defending home waters. Supporting operations that far from home with navies that have little experience with blue-water operations would be extraordinarily difficult. Please show me a supply line they could use that would not expose them to US forces. If they would have to fight or evade the whole way just to get to their patrol areas, that wouldn't be realistic.

They could try to use massive exercises near their home waters to try to distract US forces, but I doubt they could do more than that. In order to help Iran using their navies, they have to put them in position to disrupt US supply lines to the region. Those lines would force them to deploy far beyond their home waters. Iranian oil isn't that important for them to risk their entire navies on nothing more than a mere gamble with little to win.

Even if the Iranians themselves can close the Straits of Hormuz for a few weeks, oil comes from many places and disruption of one of many needed resources isn't going to be enough to trash the economy. We, and everyone else, can get it from other sources, and the market will bet on that.

The smart warplan for the Iranians is to try to draw the US into a PR disaster by getting the US to look like it is slaughtering civilians. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians intentionally detonate a WMD on one of their own towns and try to blame it on the Americans.

The Hammer hits it hard. This is where the rubber meets the road, I guess.

Be honest, how many of you have had to "sacrifice" in the WOT? Other than any direct victims of 9/11, or military duty, most of us have had only minor personal and financial inconveniences.

I may get flamed by the Patriot Act conspiracy theorists.

Western whiners know very little about sacrificing for their country.

I hate to say it, but LC's scenario sounds pretty plausible. I'm no fan of sanctions in general, for a variety of reasons but mostly because they hardly ever work. This one looks even less workable than most. A military strike coordinated with Israel would be the least unpalatable option, but the public simply isn't up for another serious military venture on Bush's watch.

Until, of course, all hell breaks loose. At that point the public will be up for it, but the death and economic hardship will be immense, much worse than if action had been taken earlier. And it will all be Bush's fault.

All the most plausible models for the next year or so in Iran strike me as some variation on the above. To paraphrase Jack Bauer, "the only question is how much you want it to hurt."

When you think about it, the whole dilemma is based around western weakness rather than Iranian strength. The Iranians are gambling that their adversaries simply lack the will to attack them; that the addiction to their oil will overcome qualms about their nuclear ambitions. And in this, sadly, they may be right.

Americans have not really had to invest themselves in a war since World War II -- and even then, we were the least-mobilized of the combatants. We are completely unfamiliar with rationing, constraints on our movement, and increased governmental control of our private lives. And yet, all of these things may become necessary if a theaterwide Middle Eastern war breaks its bounds.

I have little hope for a diplomatic solution; my hope is that the (inevitable) military confrontation does not embroil us in a larger war.

All of these scenarios are worse than any potential Iranian nuclear attack.

Remember, without a delivery system the nukes are worthless and we can destroy at will any delivery system they want to deploy. The only exception is the "suitcase nuke" in some sort of sneaky-ass shipping container or truck bomb. This is not a realistic threat to the U.S..

Granted, this is an existential threat--not to the U.S. but rather to Israel. I'm no Cedarford, but I am reluctant to go blustering around and precipitating a global war on the basis of a threat to Israel. I am simply not convinced the Iranians are willing and capable of such a tricky and suicidal manuever and I'm not sure I would advocate an attack even if I were.

Now a retaliatory attack is an entirely different thing but I just don't see how the Iranians think they'd pull off the attack that would precipitate one.

Finally, the last thing we need to do is back ourselves into a corner with bluster and threats.

Monty, here's a fun little quote that has some bearing on the lack of Western will:

They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): 'The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. The man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!' But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!

--Joseph Goebbels
Talk about history repeating itself.

On the verge of an Iranian Armeggeddon. How about a happy picture to lighten things up? Isn't that better?

You think it's possible Bush will say "You know what? I'll get impeached for this, but it's this is too important." and just go to war anyway?

I mean, in a choice between jail time versus global armageddon, a little sacrifice is required.

"The Hammer hits it hard. This is where the rubber meets the road, I guess.
Be honest, how many of you have had to "sacrifice" in the WOT? Other than any direct victims of 9/11, or military duty, most of us have had only minor personal and financial inconveniences.
I may get flamed by the Patriot Act conspiracy theorists.
Western whiners know very little about sacrificing for their country.
Posted by KevlarChick at January 20, 2006 11:47 AM"

Wait...... so is the military service not a sacrifice?!?! I don't get it?

All of these scenarios are worse than any potential Iranian nuclear attack.

This is not only wrong, sponge, but badly wrong. You can read the long posts on my blog for the details, but in short: Iran is run by religious loons who say they want to destroy Israel and bring Iran into ascendancy again. America ignores this danger at her own peril -- Iran must not become a nuclear power. The long-term consequences to American interests are more profound than you realize.

War is a terrible thing...but not the worst thing.

My prediction: we'll do nothing, and Iran will get the bomb. What happens then is up to Iran, and I can't possibly second-guess the mullahs.

Wait...... so is the military service not a sacrifice?!?! I don't get it?

Most Americans are not in the military.

I don't think any Iran oil policy will have an effect on the world economy. Even if it did it would be short lived. Most of the oil pumped out of Iran goes to the Chinese. We don't buy any of it. If Iran pulls its oil off the market- who suffers? Their economy is 100% tied into oil exports. How long do you think they can subsist without petro dollars?

Sure, there may be a temporary glitch in the world oil market, as there was after Katrina, but our Strategic Oil Reserve can outlast Iran's ailing economy.

I consider their threat to pull their oil off the market a non-issue.

I've read your posts on this for some time, Monty, and while I respect your opinion I don't agree with it. Yes, religious loons run the country. Now, does it necessarily follow that they all believe this one man is the Mahdi and that they have a green light into heaven by precipitating Armageddon?

And tell me how Iran intends to deliver this weapon to Israel. And this plan for knocking out the development sites like the centrifuges and such--why not wait until the weapon is finished and destroy the site? What indication do you have that the Iranians are going to use that nuke the moment it comes off the line?

Anytime you can overfly and destroy virtually anything on earth at your leisure, I fail to see the value of starting WWIII when you can simply make it impossible to use this weapon they're developing.

Finally, destroying Israel will not bring Iran into ascendency but rather lead to it's destruction. What's more, a huge part of this argument is always centered around the mullahs willingness to die. You cannot have it both ways--either they want Iran ascendent or they want to die. But you have to pick one.

Yo Max

I said military duty is a sacrifice. The vast majority of people don't volunteer for it. Folks in the military are part of the small minority who actually do sacrifice for their country.

Most of us stand back and whine.

If Irani oil is shut down, wouldn't China go after other oil-producing states? Everyone will have to do with less, unless the oil-producing states agree to dramatically increase output.

Let's not forget that Chavez controls Venezuela - I wouldn't rule out the possibility he would take advantage of Iran's departure from the oil-producing scene.

Let's not forget that we can just take Iran's oil and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Taking and holding that kind of territory is what the military does best. Of course, getting it out of there if the Straits are closed is a different matter.

spongeworthy:

I still think you're approaching the issue with a "western mindset". You're assuming that the Iranians are rational actors in this little drama, and I'm not convinced that this is the case. Were they rational, all they had to do is shut the hell up for a few years, and they could have cranked out some nukes with not a peep from Europe. But Ahmadinejad is clearly spoiling for a fight, as is Khatami -- they want a military confrontation because they think they can win it. The are deluded; but they are serious about it. It behooves us greatly to take them seriously.

Oil shock! Humbug! Seize the fields!

Here follows my only contribution to this thread, reflecting my usual bevity and profundity:

What spongeworthy said.