RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,153106,00.html

Excellent observation. Peter Brooks seems to put the Iranian-Russian relationship into perspective. I can see a Russo-Persian alliance, though with wary eyes on each other to counter what appears to be growing U.S. success in Iraq and the inevitable long term U.S. presence in the middle of the Middle East.

However, I have to wonder whether or not Sunni Islamic fundementalists, and that includes many Arab nationalists such as the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states; birth place of al-Qaida, would actually cozy up to the ex-Soviet empire in light of their long time distrust of their northern neighbor.

I believe that it is now clear that the Bush administration has underestimated the ambitions of our foes in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Today, the Iraqi government announced that it will not be allowing a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. In an attempt to downplay this statement the Bush administration then came out and suggested that it would continue to press those very Iraqis responsible for the decision in question to abide by certain recommendations from the U.S. government. At nearly the same time, Iraq has announced its plans to award contracts to Iranians and Chinese, both of whom compete with the United States for access to Iraq's resources. Next we might wonder what Russia's postion might truly be, knowing that things are not always as they appear.

Were this the first sign of bad news I, and the rest of the American People, might take these developments with a grain of salt, but we have gone well beyond that point now. Now we are forced to recognize the seriousness of the matter, if only to stop the bleeding.

There will continue to be those who would suggest that everything could be turned around with the right move, but those listening have learned after four years of listening to the same claim that nothing short of a well developed plan can bring us back from the brink of the cliff we now look down from. But first, we must put an end to the reactionary policies of an administration that put more faith in a tough stance than it has in many of its best and brightest military leaders, specifically those who have continually asked that the administration use caution and thoroughly examine its plan of attack before making commitments.

Of course, this is nothing new in American history. Upon occassion it does become clear to Americans that a certain policy has not delivered what it was promised to deliver. Next, given the determination of those responsible for the policy's implementation to stay the course, it becomes clear that no option but removal of those responsible remains.

At that point the rebuilding can begin, and along the way a more successful strategy can be developed and employed. A strategy whos development has typically been purposefully retarded by individuals too stubborn to relinquish control voluntarily.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TinyTerror,

Quote:
"In short, the Russians almost certainly distrust the Iranians deeply - but find them very useful. A real Russian-Iranian entente isn't a certainty, but it's certainly a new reason to worry about Putin's Russia."

One never should stop to take Russia into consideration, it's too obvious the goal Mr. Putin follows, bring Russia back to its previous state of a superpower and of glory.

Russia has the means; oil and gas reserves are valuable in a time of rising energy prices. Mr. Putin made a nice coup in crony-ship with our former chancellor Schroeder to build a gas pipeline to Germany, this way he assured steady income for Russia, and dependency of Germany. Btw., the same chancellor was responsible for denying any support for US concerning Iraq. Schroeder has today a well paid a job in a Russian energy (gas) company. Easy to see the red line.

For Mr. Putin, yes, he's an intelligent guy, for Mr. Schroeder he was imho a well paid tool.
But it shows how Mr. Putin works and thinks, no wonder, he has to have some brains for his former job, as boss of the Russian secret service.

For that he does not like a rocket shield near Russia's borders, that he tries to do the best for HIS country, and that he tries to bring back Russia to its glorious position in the world, is obvious and from his POV easy to see. He does not care for wellbeing of the US, and if he could do something, that hurts US and benefits Russia, he will do without any doubt. No friendship, only cold calculation.

For Iran, easy to catch two flies with one strike, bomb out the mullahs and destroy the nuclear facilities, so the threat of an Iranian nuke disappears. This way the rocket shield becomes unnecessary and could be abandoned. The last will Make Mr. Putin happy, the first of course not at all. But what will he do ? Start WWIII ? Doubt it. He's a bright guy, but he is not crazy.
His warning gives him only a political benefit, as long other parties admit to play his game.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: NikeAjax,

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
For Iran, easy to catch two flies with one strike, bomb out the mullahs and destroy the nuclear facilities, so the threat of an Iranian nuke disappears. This way the rocket shield becomes unnecessary and could be abandoned. The last will Make Mr. Putin happy, the first of course not at all. But what will he do ? Start WWIII ? Doubt it. He's a bright guy, but he is not crazy.
His warning gives him only a political benefit, as long other parties admit to play his game.

Easy so long as the consequeces of said actions are not taken into consideration.

But what would the result be? Less interfearence from Iranians and less terrorism as a result of our decision to destroy a substantial portion of that nations defense/energy structure? Not on your life. These people are not going to lay down their arms and cease all hostile activities because we have struck. On the contrary, they are going to respond in kind. And that would lead to greater instability in the Middle East, which will hurt us in our efforts to remain intimately involved.

TinyTerror:
I've meant my words of "bombing out the mullahs" rather literally, I'm sure a change is possible if the heads are cut. This could take some serious efforts, I do not believe it could be done with a small strike.
If this small strike happens, then only for the reason to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities. This needs no US involvement, I'm sure Israel can handle that alone.
Stability with another government in Iran would increase. Allowing Iran to further destabilize Iraq like they do now, is similar to a wounded which wounds are not taken care of, and this way bleeding him to death.
But I guess, we soon will know, if I interpret the signs right...

quote:

Originally posted by TinyTerror:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
For Iran, easy to catch two flies with one strike, bomb out the mullahs and destroy the nuclear facilities, so the threat of an Iranian nuke disappears. This way the rocket shield becomes unnecessary and could be abandoned. The last will Make Mr. Putin happy, the first of course not at all. But what will he do ? Start WWIII ? Doubt it. He's a bright guy, but he is not crazy.
His warning gives him only a political benefit, as long other parties admit to play his game.

Easy so long as the consequeces of said actions are not taken into consideration.

But what would the result be? Less interfearence from Iranians and less terrorism as a result of our decision to destroy a substantial portion of that nations defense/energy structure? Not on your life. These people are not going to lay down their arms and cease all hostile activities because we have struck. On the contrary, they are going to respond in kind. And that would lead to greater instability in the Middle East, which will hurt us in our efforts to remain intimately involved.

There are no absolutes in this world. Anyone may promise to eliminate all opponents but it is a promise that is almost never fulfilled. It is similar to a promise made with regard to opponents to our presense in Iraq, a promise that has yet to be fulfilled.

Seeing that Iran is a larger more equipped nation than Iraq was, and that any coalition to act upon that battlefield is likely to act with a force proportionatly smaller than that used in Iraq given current commitments, any attack on Iran is likely to have less impact there than it has in Iraq.

As for the notion that terrorism might be reduced as a result of such an action, let us once again look upon our model in Iraq where terrorism became more frequent and still thrives to this day. From our model in Iraq we see terrorism in Iran becoming a clear problem and weapons in Iran becoming more readily available to extremeists, not less available, as portions of that nation's governing structure is destroyed or convinced that such action is required. Either way, weapons will become more available to extremists.

With weapons more available to extremeists inside Iran, and in quantities great enough to supply allies outside Iran as well as those within Iran's borders, we can expect the threat of terrorism against the aggressors homeland(s) to increase. Perceived allies of those aggressors would also likely be targetted, namely our United States.

Instability inside a nation only leads to more ambitious individuals taking more extreme postions in an attempt to gain more power. It in no way creates an environment in which a new government is easily manifested to replace the one overthrown. Once again, I point you to our experiences in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
TinyTerror:
I've meant my words of "bombing out the mullahs" rather literally, I'm sure a change is possible if the heads are cut. This could take some serious efforts, I do not believe it could be done with a small strike.
If this small strike happens, then only for the reason to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities. This needs no US involvement, I'm sure Israel can handle that alone.
Stability with another government in Iran would increase. Allowing Iran to further destabilize Iraq like they do now, is similar to a wounded which wounds are not taken care of, and this way bleeding him to death.
But I guess, we soon will know, if I interpret the signs right...

quote:

Originally posted by TinyTerror:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax:
For Iran, easy to catch two flies with one strike, bomb out the mullahs and destroy the nuclear facilities, so the threat of an Iranian nuke disappears. This way the rocket shield becomes unnecessary and could be abandoned. The last will Make Mr. Putin happy, the first of course not at all. But what will he do ? Start WWIII ? Doubt it. He's a bright guy, but he is not crazy.
His warning gives him only a political benefit, as long other parties admit to play his game.

Easy so long as the consequeces of said actions are not taken into consideration.

But what would the result be? Less interfearence from Iranians and less terrorism as a result of our decision to destroy a substantial portion of that nations defense/energy structure? Not on your life. These people are not going to lay down their arms and cease all hostile activities because we have struck. On the contrary, they are going to respond in kind. And that would lead to greater instability in the Middle East, which will hurt us in our efforts to remain intimately involved.

All these theories are predicated on the fact that you seem to believe we are dealing with reasonable people. We are not, therefore, you'd better start preparing for the worse case scenerio, either a Iran "nut bag" in possession of nuclear weapons or we take action soon to eliminate them.
It certainly is a risk, but waiting for them to obtain these weapons is suicidal on our part. Russia's Putin will stand on the side line and do nothing as I believe he distrusts the Iranian's more than the USA. Putin is not stupid. And if you think negotiations will rid the Iranian's of their intent to build nuclear weapon's, you'd better stop dreaming and re-examine why you are missing the reality of this situation. Our enemies only see weakness in our "whaffling."
Nobody wants war, but they are leaving us with very few options. And, I also bet the Iranian's are bluffing as to the extent of their military response. If it has to be, I'd rather not make it a fair fight and crush them now. Do you want to wait until they can nuke us? The longer the delay the greater this becomes a possibility. Keeping on dreaming about negotiating with the Iranian's and you'll soon find yourself at ground zero as their missiles approach. Make a choice, stand up and support our country or live a life of being intimidated, black mailed, or destruction. All the talking in the world will only fall on deaf ears in Iran and they are counting on that.