If there really was a strike against Iran in the offing you can damn well bet the farm that there would be nothing about it in the news ahead of time. This smells like a planned leak, which probably has two purposes in mind.

1) Reassure the increasingly angry War on Terror hawks that the Bush Bunch hasn't gone squishy soft with all that fancy- shmancy Euro-diplomacy stuff and we are taking some sort of military action too
2) Bluff the Iranians into thinking that we are preapred to strike if they don't negotiate meaningfully

For sure there will be no Iran War before the election. Gas prices are just going down to where the GOP imagines they won't get creamed by the voters. They would let the Mullahs get away with anything short of an actual strike on Saudi Arabia or Israel before they would risk anything that might sink the GOP at the polls. Remember, these guys are all about politics. Iran, Iraq, even Osama bin Laden are just useful props for their Theater of the Absurd.

So, you're saying that if Bush orders air strikes on Iran -

- Iran would not make any meaningful response, like invading Iraq (which they arguably have already done)

- Iran would not send missles to Israel

- Democratic candidates would be "speechless." (and for that to happen, our citizens would have to be completely apathetic about yet another pre-emptive war)

- And because of all of the above, Karl Rove would be considered a genius (again) and the republicans would ride this brilliant tactic to victory.

I just don't see it. Surely the Iranians have a plan in place for this. If everyone in the US knows it could happen, surely the Iranians do too.

- IF Bush is horrible enough to do this, and
- IF the army doesn't mutiny against him, and
- IF an air strike goes forward, and
- WHEN Iran unleashes whatever retaliation they have prepared

-->Democratic candidates will have plenty to say, and the whole world will listen. I hope it doesn't happen, but nothing these criminals do can surprise me.

Jan Knaus

I just don't think China will sit back and allow the US to do that. They have way too much invested in Iran - Russians do too for that matter.

I never thought I would be counting on China and Russia to defend us from our madman, but they are who I am banking on to prevent another catastrophe from happening.

Hi Reed,

'Everyone believes that the Europeans supported the American go-ahead for the Palestinian invasion because they wanted to make sure the Iranians knew they were on thin ice.'

Eh?

'Everyone believes that as a going-away present, Blair would like to support President Bush in at least one more military incursion.'

Eh?

'It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.'

Eh?

You seem like a moonbat, please prove me wrong by reposting.

Regs, Shaggy

Billmon's take on "The Day After" nuking Iran should be required reading for everyone. I believe it is so important that I will quote it at length:

I've been trying to picture what the world might look like the day after a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, but I'm essentially drawing a blank. There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state – much less a rogue state willing to wage nuclear war against potential, even hypothetical, security threats.

......

[T]he current hegemony of American influence and ideas (backed by overwhelming military force) would be replaced by an overt dictatorship based – more or less explicitly – on fear of nuclear annihilation. U.S. foreign policy would become nothing more than a variation on the ancient Roman warning: For every one of our dead; 100 of yours. Never again would American rulers (or their foreign counterparts) be able to hide behind the comfortable fiction that the United States is just primus inter pares – first among equals. A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that they may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world’s other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement.

..........

But, barring another 9/11, or a worldwide financial meltdown, the day after a nuclear strike on Iran might not look that much different than the day before, at least to the folks back home. The impact on oil prices – and even more importantly, on prices at the pump – might be containable, at least in the short-term, if the Straits of Hormuz remain open and the strategic oil reserve does what it's supposed to do. (Very big ifs, to be sure, but not impossible ones. Neither of the last two wars in the gulf turned into the energy catastrophes everyone had feared when they started.) Financial markets might actually rally if Wall Street judges the strike to have been a "success." As for an Iranian-backed terror offensive in Iraq, at this point you have to wonder if anyone would notice.

For most Americans, then, the initial impact of war with Iran could play out in the same theatre of the absurd as the first Gulf War and the opening phases of the Iraq invasion – that is to say, on their living room TVs. And if there's one place where a nuclear first strike could be made to appear almost normal, or even a good thing, it's on the boob tube.

After all, the corporate media complex has already shown a remarkable willingness to ignore or rationalize conduct that once would have been considered grossly illegal, if not outright war crimes......

Let's be honest about it: For both the corporate and the conservative media, as well as for their audiences, an air campaign against Iran would make for great TV – a welcome return to the good old days of Desert Storm and Shock and Awe. All those jets soaring off into the desert twilight; the overexposed glare of cruise missiles streaking from their launch ships; the video game shots of exploding aircraft hangers and government buildings, the anti-aircraft tracers arcing into the night sky over Tehran – it would be war just the way we like it, far removed from the dull brown dust, raw sewage and multiple amputees of the Iraqi quagmire.

And to keep things interesting, we’d have the added frisson of nuclear weapons – a plot twist that would allow blow-dried correspondents to pose in borrowed radiation suits, give Pentagon flacks the opportunity to try out new euphemisms for killing people, and encourage retired generals to spice up their on-air military patter with knowing references to blast effects, kilotons, roentgens and fallout patterns.

What I'm suggesting here is that it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. Iran has been demonized too successfully – thanks in no small part to the messianic delusions of its own end-times president – for most Americans to see it as a victim of aggression, even if they were inclined to admit that the United States could ever be an aggressor. And we know a not-so-small and extremely vocal minority of Americans would be cheering all the way, and lusting for more.

More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country – the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue.

......

It’s possible, of course, that I’m dead wrong about the short-term effects of a strike on Iran. It could quickly lead to economic catastrophe and a wider war, or evolve into a full-fledged U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – i.e. “regime change.” This may be the entire essence of the neocon plan. The resulting quagmire could make the Vietnam War look like a minor colonial skirmish with the natives. But even if none of these nightmares come to pass, it’s still a fair bet – based on recent experience – that the long-term consequences of war with Iran would be wholly bad, both for America and the world.

But my thought exercise – What if we started a nuclear war and everybody pretended not to notice? – is still useful, if only as a reminder of how easy it can be to lead gullible people down a path that ends in a place no sane human being would ever want to go. A nation that can live with the idea of launching a nuclear first strike isn’t likely to have much trouble with the rest of the program – particularly when its people, like their leader, are convinced they’ve been chosen to save the world.

Please remember that casualty estimates from such an attack number in the millions.

Isn't Hillary saying "keep all options on the table" regarding Iran. Et tu, Hillary?

Tom

Speaking of moonbats, how are Cheney, Rummy, and Boy King George doing.

Tom

Uh, yeah Reed, can you back this up a bit? Give us a little bit of sense that this is grounded in something other than rumours and speculation.

I'm repeating the post I had above.

The dems can't just sit back and wonder whether or not this is going to happen.

LETS GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS. NOW!

Run Lyndon Johnsons Daisy/Mushroom cloud ad from 1964.

Use Lyndon Johnsons voice over.

Look the ad is already cut and ready to go. It just needs minor framing for the present. That ad was crafted when democrats still had some stones. No one respects someone just waiting to be nocked senseless. Its like the French during the phoney war.

That ad will creap everyone out just enough to bring the electorate to their senses and just maybe paralyze the Neocon apparatus and put them on the defensive.

It doesn't matter if the Iran talk is a false leak or leak. Get in front of the event. Run the ad now. Give people something to think about.

If Bush doesn't bomb Iran, he pays a price anyway. If he does bomb Iran, that ad will help people determine their positions before the actual shock of the event stuns them into submission.

AND, GOD DAMMIT, GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS, NOT BEHIND THEM!!!!!

Its time the Democrats do their job.

This is it.

I'm sick and tired of the limp response and waiting like shaking rabbits for the next shoe to fall. Do something now, proactively and put the bastards on the defensive. Americans respect vigor, Not the Kerry-esque do nothingism.

Quit being Rove's patsy. Make them pay a price for bellicosy NOW. Its not about applying a hammer. Its about strength and smarts. Paint them into a corner with their bellicosy. That's our job as the rational opposition party. Make them look irrational.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Bush will pull the trigger before the election. Here's why:

1. It will look too political so clode to the midterms.

2. It will drive the the price of oil up, and gas prices will end their slide. Gas prices are a factor in consumer confidence.

3. Bush has the terror issue which should be enough keep the GOP in the game (if not winning) for the rest of the 2006 campaign.

4. I don't think Bush has a gameplan for
what to do after the airstrikes. He will need to come up with a credible plan for Iran when he's still bogged down in Irag.

5. Iraq is a much larger country with lots
of mountainous terrain. It's possible the
airstrikes will fail.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think we're
in the saber-rattling stage.

It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.

Why should that be so clear? Why should that be so?

The administration has been saber-rattling for quiet some time, if you believe the likes of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter remember him?)who have been writing about the administration's Iran war ambitions for well over a year....Doing it now would not be politically astute, although you never know what this administration is capable of...Keep in mind it took quite awhile for the build up to Iraq. Certainly more than the 50 or so days we have until the election (Also, it wouldn't take a display of Shock and Awe to dumbfound the Democrats. They haven't found their voice for the past 5 years).... Should the GOP control Congress after Nov. 7, it wouldn't surprise me to see the administration take its "crusade" to the next level ... Regarding the torture debate: I don't think that is a subterfuge. I'm more in line with NYT columnist Bob Herbert who thinks the call to change the (Geneva) law is the brass trying to save its ass.

I have got a nickle bet that says we don't invade. But as CVille Dem says, nothing they could do would surprise me.

The Stain of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam has not yet been expunged, and won't be until the Course has been Stayed, the Troops have been Supported and they have proven themselves Not To Have Blinked. God in heaven, deliver us from these bereft anti-communists gone amok.

Will the shrewd mercantile Yankees out-maneuver the ready-to-rumble Cowboys? I say yes. Baker is an encouraging sign.

There are at least a dozen known Iranian nuclear sites. Estimates suggest that the real number of sites, identified, concealed and distributed might number as high as thirty. Many of these sites are hardened, requiring potentially multiple strikes.

Assuming one bomber to each site, and an escort of three fighters, you would need approximately 30 bombers and 90 fighters or 120 aircraft in all. Factor in redundancy for hardened sites, and double your bombers, you go up to 150.

However, in order to successfully conduct the raid, you need to take out Iranian radar sites, so that they can't provide early warning of the attack. Add in a few dozen more military targets. And you probably need to take out airfields and fighter jets on the ground, which means a wide ranging campaign of airstrip denial and attacks on aircraft. Since civilian airstrips can be used by military jets in a pinch, you have to take those out too. And you need to take out missile emplacements and missile batteries. Dozens more targets. Of course, its also crucial to take out communications, so satellite phones, land lines, cell phone transmission, radio stations, etc., both civilian and military. You have to take out civilian facilities to avoid the military making back up use. You also need to take out military command and control structures. More and more targets. And you have to neutralize potential sea responses, so its a must to attack Iranian ships and shipyards.

Which means that the attack would involve 30 primary targets, and somewhere between 400 and 1200 secondary targets.

America simply doesn't have the aerial firepower to hit that many targets on one big raid. What we would be looking at are continuous air missions over a period of days.

Good luck, boyos.

We'd also be looking at decades of blowback.

Tom

I wonder if anyone actually heard the message of Ahmadinejad's speech. He was basically saying that he would give up his nuclear program for a seat on the Security Council. It may not be something we would be willing to do, but at least it's an opening for further negotiations. Now that we know what he's really after, a mutually beneficial deal is at least conceivable.

I expect the West to counter with a proposal to give a seat on the council to an Iranian ally, so that Iran can effectively have veto power without the West losing face.

"Air strikes on Iran would not risk many American fliers. Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation. Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel for payback. Is it thinkable?"

Reed Hundt makes three assertions and backs them up with nothing beyond the fact that he is Reed Hundt.

Reed. First explain why an air attack on an oil rich nation which started with an American trained and American equipped military and which while under sanctions from us has had 25 years to build up their anti-air defenses "would not risk many American fliers". People who blithely assume that attacking Iran by air is the same as attacking an Iraq that one, had a much harsher sanctions program, and two had undergone 10 years of 'No Fly Zones' where the US held continous and sustained air superiority under rules of engagement that allowed them to attack any air-defense site that lit up its radar really need to show us some military credentials. Iran is a much bigger, much more rugged country with a totally non-degraded air-defense system, well those people need to explain WHY an attack "would not risk many American fliers". God know we ate enough cake in the last Cakewalk.

"Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation". Again WHY do you make this claim. You base this on what? And Iran does not have to "invade", all it needs to do is to flood the zone with volunteers and 'volunteers'. A few thousand Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi clothing and a steady stream of suicide bombers coming over the border would make life a certain hell for American and British soldiers.

"Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel". No probably not, no percentage in it. But under the circumstances I don't think Hezbollah would exactly be restrained.

If simplistic air chair theorizing was not so dangerous it would be amusing. If there is a single person out there who has presented a serious analysis of how airstrikes would do more than delay by a few years a weapons program, that if it exists, and it may well not, is by everyone I have read at least a decade out?

Other than some transient political advantages in the mid-terms exactly what is this supposed to accomplish? Reed is adopting Bush Administration assumptions wholesale and asking us to think along Bush Administration lines.

Well I refuse. This is nutty talk from megalomaniacs and indulging in "What if" is suicidal. Strategic bombing is pretty much a proven failure. It doesn't work. What did England do when it underwent a severe campaign of nighttime bombing? What was their response to civilians getting killed? Was it riots against the government? Hell no, the Blitz and the collective reaction of Britons to it is a point of national pride.

Please someone present me a historical case where a population has blamed its own government for another country bombing civilian positions? Please for God's sake don't let us indulge another one of Michael Ledeen's mad fantasies. Hope is NOT a Plan.

There was an interesting report/analysis on NPR this morning of the reappearance, Dracula-like,of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon -- that special policy group to keep an eye on/trump up intelligence about Iraq, now brought back by popular acclaim to create an Iran war.

Forget strikes on Israel. They wouldn't play that card so early in the conflict, plus there's too much downside (sorry, crazy evangelicals, no Rapture this time). I think attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would be more likely. The oil markets would freak and we'd be back to, if not over, $3.00/gallon with winter energy bills looming. Energy is a pocketbook issue. Tehran knows this.

If the US attacks Tehran, expect burning tankers within minutes. The news cycle would start predicting the fallout and the Republicans would be seriously threatened. A strike may energize the conservtaive base, but it would also energize the opposition and reduce the swing vote.