Panetta: Israel could attack Iran as early as April

[Zevico]

Exactly what kind of grief could Iran cause in those areas that they haven't already, Wezil? Iran already funds and assists the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as well as Shiite militia groups in Iraq. Why and how would Iran's strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan change because of a strike on its nuclear facilities?

[Hauldren Collider]

Obligatory cultural reference/irreverence:

[DinoDoc]

Don't underestimate their ability to cause grief there. Karzai will be gone shortly after the US troops so it isn't like he heads a stable government now.

Other than actually sending their own troops over, I'm gonna have to go with Zev here.

[Wezil]

I have no doubt they are currently stirring **** (as is Pakistan), but like Pakistan it isn't all out. I guess we disagree on Afghanistan.

How about Iraq? All hunky dory there?

[Zevico]

I have no doubt they are currently stirring **** (as is Pakistan), but like Pakistan it isn't all out.

Then what is it? The basic stratagem is to attack the Americans and those who cooperate with them, as well as Karzai's government. Then, once the Americans pull out, take power again on the gamble that the populace simply isn't committed enough to Karzai's rule. Iran's role and interest is to support the Taliban in order to advertise itself as a leader of the Muslim (anti-American) world. I repeat: why and how would it change its policy?

How about Iraq? All hunky dory there?

If you're asking how Iraq is generally--well, I can't offer you a better answer than any well-read newspaper reader. Ethnic and sectarian conflict continues. The Iraqi government is best regarded as an instrument of ethno-political power sharing designed to continue a tentative cease-fire between some (not all) of its participants. Iraqi nationalism as a domestic political force is dead in the water, assuming it ever lived at all under Saddam's tribal Tikriti-Sunni-Ba'athist state. Iraqi-Iranian relations will probably governed by a mix of alliance of rivalry and alliance between Iranian and Iraqi shiites. Meanwhile the Saudi-funded Sunnis struggle to maintain relevance and the Kurds in the north run a de facto Kurdistan aligned against both Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites as well as Turkey, Syria and Iran (who feel threatened due tensions that might arise in the event of a more powerful Kurdistan as they have their own Kurdish populations).

So how will Iran's strategic priorities vis-a-vis Iraq change if its nuclear facilities get struck? I don't think they would.

Apparently one recourse Iran has in the event of a strike is oil related: trying to mine the Straits and to raise oil prices. I don't have the knowledge or expertise necessary to make any kind of judgement about their ability to do so successfully, and how much a US naval presence would assist.

Another recourse is to fund terror groups, which they're already doing.

A third is direct acts of war against the United States. Possible, but the retribution could be very costly. It'd be a war the Iranians couldn't even appear to win.

[Wezil]

Well there you go. Nothing to worry about from the US point of view.

I'm not reassured.

[Zevico]

Of course there are things to worry about from the American point of view. It would be irresponsible to pretend that a strike on Iran has no drawbacks. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[Wezil]

I said they could stir up trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which you provided a lengthy rebuttal as to why this wasn't the case.

If you think a major regional power like Iran has little influence on two of its immediate, war torn, neighbours then I suspect there would be little I could say to disabuse you of that notion.

[Berzerker]

There's not gonna be a war. There's going to be an air campaign which flattens the relevant Iranian military bases.

Yup, there's no way Obama pushes for another war before the election... The most we'll do is bomb and I doubt we do that before the election too... We'll probably promise Israel to attack once Obama gets re-elected, unless Congress wants to push the matter faster.

Dec 2012

[SlowwHand]

Unless Israel decides that it's time.

[Berzerker]

I said Congress might push faster

[Zevico]

I said they could stir up trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which you provided a lengthy rebuttal as to why this wasn't the case.

You asserted that they could. I responded that they were already stirring up trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're already exerting influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are influential there. I don't argue otherwise. I invited you to explain how a strike on their facilities would change their priorities or policies in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that this would necessarily happen but I'm willing to hear your arguments to the contrary.

[C0ckney]

Then what is it? The basic stratagem is to attack the Americans and those who cooperate with them, as well as Karzai's government. Then, once the Americans pull out, take power again on the gamble that the populace simply isn't committed enough to Karzai's rule. Iran's role and interest is to support the Taliban in order to advertise itself as a leader of the Muslim (anti-American) world. I repeat: why and how would it change its policy?

your analysis is poor and the outcome you predict seems very unlikely. iran has at various times fought against the taliban (and by this i mean the original pashtun taliban which emerged in 1998), funding its own warlords in the west of the country and supporting shia groups (mostly the hazara). it has more recently supplied weapons and funding to the 'taliban'. the tendency in the western media is to call all groups opposed to the NATO occupation and karzai government 'taliban', as if they are some monolithic entity. the real situation is considerably more complex. once the karzai government falls the various factions of the 'taliban' will break up along ethnic and tribal lines.

what is happening at the moment is that the various regional powers are positioning themselves for the post-NATO/karzai afghanistan. the pakistanis will continue to fund and support the taliban, the saudis as well as some gulf states will join them. the iranians will back their allies in the west of the country and try to support the shia minority. i would guess that the various former soviet republics will back the northern alliance or some successor group.

[Wezil]

You asserted that they could. I responded that they were already stirring up trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're already exerting influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are influential there. I don't argue otherwise. I invited you to explain how a strike on their facilities would change their priorities or policies in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that this would necessarily happen but I'm willing to hear your arguments to the contrary.

Like Pakistan, they are currently providing what assistance they can without bringing the wrath of the West down on them (You may have heard - they're trying to build a bomb). Start attacking them and the floodgates will open.

Why is this so difficult to foresee?

[regexcellent]

Iran has never cared about pissing off the West and isn't holding back just to create a bargaining chip in the event of an attack. If Israel attacks Iran the consequence will be that Iran will have its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas fire missiles at Israel. One would assume this is why Israel has been rapidly deploying additional Iron Dome batteries. In the event of this, Israel can just invade southern Lebanon and Gaza (again), roflstomp Hamas and Hezbollah (again), and everything will be relatively hunky-dory for a few years (again). Obviously Israel would prefer not to have to deal so strongly with the terrorists on its borders, but in a choice between that and Iran getting nuclear weapons which it could use to effect a second Holocaust, Israel's got a pretty easy choice.