I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.
Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.
Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.
But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.
At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.
Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:
● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.
All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.
● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.
● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.
● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.
● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.
● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.
● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.
Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.
So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
You could be right. Only Nixon can go to China and only Obama can out Bush Bush. I'm just hoping he doesn't out Carter Carter and such an operation turn into a debacle.
The image of a swarm of 50 loaded F-4s on a mission to find their 41 virgins by suicide attacking the carrier task force does make me a bit apprehensive.
Andrew: I do hope your conclusion is spot on but very recent RCP polling numbers point the other direction and Mr. Obama's bizarre jingoism appears to be working its necromancy on the weak minds of those who prefer the antics of the Kardashians to genuine reality.
An aside: How in the hell did those shows come to be called Reality Shows?
something of a real life "wag the dog" except it is not fair to call Iran phony. The other thing I wondered about is if he would let Israel do it by loaning or giving them some of our best stuff. Based on this, it seems more like we will conduct the mission ourself.
Interesting analysis. I have to think about this and get back to you. Good luck convincing the people who think Obama is a secret Muslim of this though.
I believe you are correct, to me F-22 Raptors are the conclusive proof. It could be saber rattling, but you know the mad mullahs of Iran will not back down, so we’ll see.
Stan, That's my thinking too. The Air Force doesn't put F-22's anywhere where dangerous until they're ready to use them. The risks are just too high. So the fact they've deployed these to the Gulf now means they are getting ready for something.
DUQ, There is a lot of OBD syndrome out there, especially when it comes to Islam. And you'll never convince those people otherwise. But when you look at his real actions rather than just being angry and spinning everything, you see a very different picture.
Now, that's not to say he's been effective. I don't believe that. I think both he and both are following a neocon foreign policy which simply can't work, but the idea that he secret sympathizes with the enemy and wants to destroy the US is just moronic.
Libertarian Advocate, Most polling is a bit of a fraud and RCP's mix of polling data just amplifies the fraud. As I said the other day, only Florida and Ohio count. And in those states, Obama is finding it impossible to get to 50% no matter what he does. That means he's likely to lose.
On this helping with the Reality TV set, first of all, they don't vote. Secondly, they don't care about current events. Third, they absolutely don't care about foreign events -- few people do. And his war with Libya, his surge in Afghanistan, his killing bin Laden, and his "withdrawal" in Iraq all proved that he will get basically no bounce out of overseas issues.... a fading 3% each time.
Not to mention, he won't get a clear victory out of Iran because of the nature of the conflict, so he can't really win in any event.
Jed, Believe it or not, I don't think this is a Wag the Dog situation. I think Obama will attack because he genuinely believes it is necessary based on recent intelligence.
I thought at first we might quietly back Israel as well, but everything I've read says it's simply impossible. The stuff is too well-protected and too deeply buried and there's just too much of it. This will require a lot of bombing and the destruction of Iran's missiles and Air Force in the process. And it may even require ground troops in remote parts of the country.
K, On the one hand, both our politicians and our military have learned not to get cute with the military. The days of trying to send in a small, under-equipped force with no support are over. It's just too dangerous militarily and politically.
That said, this one could be a real danger. For one things, finding the targets and making sure they are destroyed will be incredibly difficult. For another, they definitely have suicide troops who will attack American bases and ships. I could even see them trying to crash civilian airliners into carriers to stop the carriers from shooting at them until it's too late.
Beyond that, Iran has one of the more effective intelligence/spy networks in the world and I could see them carrying out all kinds of bombings and assassination.
All in all, this is a major can of worms. And even if things go right, we still won't know if we've done enough. This one will be very difficult.
Andrew, your last point really puts a cap on the whole thing. Obama seems incapable of not politicizing everything, and given his past weak/schizophrenic defense rhetoric, he laid out a helluva spin-job for himself and his team. Regardless of the very real need to deal with Iran, the half-wits will read this as cynical and, unless they give up their own cynicism, RWR will gladly lead them down that path.
As to Israel's involvement/non-involvement, I still think that Obama is leftist enough to believe Israel can be right on Iran but at the same time wrong when it comes to Palestine. So while he will accept them as an ally in one matter, he still won't buddy up to them. It won't be until every single Muslim country has posed a direct threat to the US that the American left will even consider the possibility that Israel is not the bastion of evil in the world.
Finally, this seems like a good time to drag up some Paul Shanklin
I don't particularly want to attack Iran, but I think it's become necessary. In fact, I think it became necessary a couple years ago. On the plus side, if Obama does it, the left won't whine and scream and try to make us lose!
Doc, I suspect that waiting has made things much worse. I would suspect that 3-5 years ago, we could have dropped a couple of huge bombs on their facilities and been done with it. But now that they've had all this time to prepare, I suspect the facilities are spread out all over the country and in places that will be harder to hit. We'll see though.
I wouldn't be surprised if we either need to send in ground troops or if we have to repeat any bombing off and on for a couple years.
Doc, that's one problem with even electing Democrat presidents. They won't undertake even the most necessary of military actions for at least three years after their elections because they all campaign against "warmongering" Republicans. Then they campaign against changing horses midstream.
tryanmax, Obama is more practical than people want to admit. Look at ObamaCare for proof. He wanted a single payer, socialized system. The moment he got resistance on that, he changed to "whatever, just get me something I can call my own." He's been like that time and again. So I have no problem seeing him looking at Israel on an issue by issue basis.
But this issue goes way beyond Israel. A lot of people want to claim this is about protecting Israel, but it's not. It's about stopping Iran from getting a bomb they could use on an American or European city. It's about stopping Saudi Arabia from going nuclear. It's about the control of the Gulf. It's about a political struggle we've been fighting with them in the region for 30 years.
I suspect the information to which Obama is privy has just reached that point that something must be done.
That said, is there a political aspect? Certainly. Once they decide an attack is needed, he will make all kinds of political considerations like when and how to attack and what kinds of noises to make before he does. But the attack itself isn't political in nature -- this isn't Libya.
RWR won't admit that for reasons we've discussed. They are morons who are terrified they will lose their audience if they ever admit that Obama is anything less than a Muslim/Alinsky infiltrator who thinks about destroying the country 24/7. So they will spin this in the worse possible light and they will complain the entire time out of both sides of their mouths. And in so doing, they will immunize him to the charge that he's politicizing this war because they themselves will have politicized it for him.
tryanmax, I agree. The Democrats are weak, although Obama has been different. He's been trigger-happy (as Andrew put it).
tryanmax, That is one problem with the Democrats. They have this huge anti-war wing and they spend their time trying to paint Republicans as war mongers, so they end up wasting time appeasing their own side and trying to make sure no one thinks they rushed into things. That often results in giving the bad guys time to prepare.
Or you get the other effect, like with Obama, where he sought out ways to make himself look like a powerful warlord -- like Libya.
Doc, "trigger-happy" is an overstatement, but Obama has been the most willing to use the military since Johnson. I think this comes from a deep reservoir of anger within the man, which makes him want to prove he's the toughest guy on the block. He tried to be nice to Iran for three years now and they've just laughed at him.
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it. No, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama would bomb Iran. But in order for him to take such a step, I think Iran would have to make the first move with another overt act of some kind.
I think it's more likely that we get involved in Syria somehow between then and now, and if this stirs up Iran (which it probably would) or we find evidence in the process of them preparing some big strike against us or Israel, then maybe that gets broadened into a bombing campaign. But just going off like that? Nah.
Doc, Obama gets away with Libya and Syria because those are things that just "popped up" (if you believe MSM) and he had to take care of them. The same narrative can't plausibly be used on Iran, so he's had to go through "trying everything" as Andrew put it in order to assuage his pacifist base.
T-Rav, They tried to whip up support for action in Syria and found none. And with Russian bases in the country, we're not going to start an attack. Moreover, the Saudis are now arming the resistance, so basically anything we would have done has been done.
And they don't really need a genuine provocation against Iran, they have plenty. All they need to do is claim that Iran has restarted some enrichment process. This isn't a Republican administration who needs to worry that the MSM and the Democrats will try to disprove the assertion.
tryanmax, Not only that, he campaigned on the idea that "if someone would just offer to sit down and talk with Iran, it would all work out." (As if no one had ever tried that.) So he had to go through those motions first.
Now he's done that and they've laughed him off. They've also laughed off attempts by France and by Brazil and South Africa to solve this problem. They've laughed off sanctions and UN resolutions. Obama has dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's.
And what did he get for his efforts? They've kept right on building. They've tried to assassinate diplomats. They've supported terrorists in Iraq. They are interfering in Afghanistan. They've tried to close the Gulf a couple times. Etc. Moreover, the "sanctions to end all sanctions" have proven they won't work either.
Even in Democratic party math, Obama has done enough to justify an invasion.
tryanmax, I am 100% confident that Iran would just "pop up" if he attacks. There is no way the media would wring their hands about an unprovoked attack as they would if a Republican had ordered the attack. They will find all kinds of needs for the attack.
Fascinating analysis Andrew! The pieces really are there for an attack, aren't they? It's interesting that no one in the MSM picked up on this? Any guesses why not?
Doc, You can bet the MSM will spin this in a "Obama had no choice" story and they won't look to hard at whatever he claims.
But don't forget, an attack is justified. There's no doubt about that. These idiots are a threat to the world and if there was ever a case for preemptive self-defense, this is it.
Also, let me say, that one of the things I like about your articles is that you give us a lot of solid analysis. You've predicted a lot of things and cut through a lot of the garbage because you look beyond the "conventional wisdom."
This is a perfect example. The ODS types have so convinced themselves that he's a secret Muslim who hate the country that they've completely missed that he's used the military almost constantly from the moment he got into office. He went after pirates, send troops to Africa, bombed Libya, drone-attacked Pakistan and Yemen, killed suspected terrorist all over the world. Yet the derrangement types think he's this total pacifist.
That's why I like your article, because you look for real information, not things you wish were true. Sadly, so much else in the conservative blogosphere right now is just fantasy garbage, just like the left was about Bush.
Thanks Ed! Yes, I think the pieces are there. The MSM hasn't picked up on this because they aren't thinkers, they are spinners. In other words, they don't put 2+2 together, they just wait for someone to tell them they found a 4 and then they spend their time trying to convince everyone it's really a 5.
To see this as a 4 would require paying attention to a lot of unrelated facts and connecting a lot of dots. That's what journalists are supposed to do, but they haven't done that since the 1960s.
Thanks Ed.
I've got to tell you, I have tuned most of it out. Right now, the conservative blogosphere a gathering of idiots who are "thinking" with their knees, whining about everything, relying on facts that don't exist, ignoring facts which disprove their claims, and reaching laughably stupid conclusions. Basically, they are acting like liberals. And they are doing this on issue after issue.
I am a firm believer in understanding the truth, not trying to prove that my prejudices are right.
That's one thing you learn as a lawyer. If you want to be able to win with juries and judges and if you want to be able to predict how cases will go, you need to be able to step back from your own prejudices and see the world in a more objective light.
Andrew, I'm the same way now. I have stopped reading/listening to a lot of people. And it's not just Obama. These same people just grate me on every issue now.
Ok, here's my thought. I think it would be good for us if Obama did this rather than Romney because if it's Romney, the left will do their best to guarantee we fail, and we to make sure this one succeeds.
That said, I am very concerned about the potential for long term blowback on this. Iran will retaliate and I am concerned about assassinations and bombings around the world.
I think it's worth the risk, but I am concerned.
Andrew,
Excellent as usual.
Ed, Don't get me started...
Conservatism is by it's very nature an intellectual philosophy, i.e. it requires significant thought to understand, to explain, to implement and to maintain.
Right now, we are at a low intellectual point with conservatism where most conservative thinkers are just being anti-liberal. That's bad.
Joel, Thanks! :)
DUQ, Terrorism is a very real concern, and honestly the best answer to that would be regime change rather than just bombing. I doubt we would go that far.
Like you, I think bombing is necessary. The alternative is that we wake up in a year to learn that Rome or Miami has been destroyed by an Iranian bomb. A military strike to avoid that is more than justified.
In terms of the politics, yes, we would be better off with Obama doing it because the left will be forced to be loyal this time.
That of course raises the question, can we trust Obama to do it right? I would think we can because our politicians have learned to leave these things to the military and then to claim the credit when it's over.
Andrew: Though I agree with the idea that the Bush and Obama policies have been very similar, I still consider Obama's actions to be both feckless and cynical. He doesn't drive events, events drive him. If he does assist Israel in attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities (which I think your article forcefully and logically says he will), it will be a matter of doing the right thing largely for the wrong reasons.
Obama doesn't appreciate American strength, but he's willing to use it if it suits his purposes. I also think you're right about it not helping him much in the presidential election, but he does see a big military action as vitiating his image as weak on foreign policy.
I genuinely believe that Obama came into office thinking that he could do all the things he promised to do--including bringing an immediate end to the war in Iraq, closing Guantanamo, conducting civilian trials of terrorists, wrapping up Afghanistan in a neat little democratic package, and instituting world peace by a wave of his hand. He got mugged by reality, and found stiff opposition even within his own party. His foreign policy has evolved into doing what he is forced to do rather than what he would like to do.
I don't think it's entirely deranged to distrust the motives behind Obama's every move. He has given us an abundance of reasons to do so. It simply seems to me that it is just a mere matter of convenience when the best interests of the United States and her allies converge with the best interests of Barack Obama.
Doc, the way I see it, yes and no. As complicit as the MSM generally is with the Democrat party, going to war is the one area where that isn't always so certain. The MSM gets its panties in a wad over "human rights abuses" so that makes them willing to pretend Democrat military action are justified in those instances. But the MSM has been complicit in ignoring the human rights abuses in Iran for decades. Even the kings of hypocrisy know they can't change the tune on that one so quickly. Plus, they've been fostering a narrative which says that Iran has every right to nuclear whatever and who are we to say otherwise. It doesn't seem that the MSM put a contingency in place for the possibility of a Democrat president going to war with Iran, but we'll see what they come up with.
Lawhawk, I think you're right that Obama came in with the idea of instituting a different foreign policy all around. On the one hand, he wanted a more muscular foreign policy that prior Democrats, who proved chicken. But on the other hand, he wanted a less "aggressive" and less self-reliant foreign policy than Bush had. I think he believed that if he told the world that the US didn't want to go it alone and wanted everyone to work together in these international groups, then governments all over the world would join him and a lot of problems could then be solved by a combination of talk and group action.
That blew apart when Costa Rico flipped him the bird, when the BRICs went without him at Copenhagen, when nothing changed in the Middle East, when China laughed him off, and when he realized that these international groups are incapable of direct action. Then the reality hit him that just being nice wasn't going to stop terrorists or rogue states or solve problems.
Since that time, he's reverted to Bush II and, frankly, lost interest in the world.
In terms of doubting his motives, it depends on what motives are ascribed to him. I don't doubt that he has different views about how he thinks the country and the world should be run. I don't share his views and I will fight them tooth and nail. But people who claim he hates America or is a secret Muslim are suffering from ODS, just like their leftist cousins were with Bush.
tryanmax, I have to disagree. When was the last time you heard about the mistreatment of our guests at Gitmo? Or about the inhumanity of secret renditions or torture? Not since Bush.
It's the same thing like with the homeless or AIDS or any other leftist cause. They are only bad when they happen under Republicans.
If Obama attacked Iran, I can guarantee you that every MSM person and most leftists (excluding only the Code Pink types) will suddenly find loads of reasons why Obama had to act, none of them will look into his justifications, and they will hail him as a great warrior.
Look at Libya as an example. He went to war against a country with no US interests, without ever going to Congress. The only person who cared was Dennis Kuchincic. The MSM just happily went into analyzing the battles and bragging about weaponry and how great the US was doing. They never spoke of casualties, never showed a single dead body, never asked if we should be there or if Obama had a right to do this. They totally went into the tank. They'll do that on Iran as well.
Andrew, Do you think the French election will affect this?
Ed, I'm not all together sure.
On the one hand, I know we weren't planning to rely on them militarily. They are maxed out in Afghanistan and so even Sarkozy wasn't going to send much help (if any) if we went into Iran.
But here's the bigger question. France has been a friend of Iran and probably has a lot of intelligence information that has been given to us to help us find targets. Will Hollande allow that sharing to continue? I have no way to know that or what the effect would be.
Andrew: You're absolutely right about ODS. We've both addressed that issue. Those who are obsessed with his alleged religious beliefs or his birth certificate are missing the big picture. This guy is plenty bad enough without creating things to distrust him about. Those of us who look at him with total distrust based on his socialist schemes and one-world political philosophy combined with his disdain for American exceptionalism and perpetual apologies for American greatness are not the same people who distrust him because he's a "secret Muslim" or equally ridiculous side issues. I don't think he hates America, but I am convinced that he thinks America is just another piece of the international jigsaw puzzle, neither better nor worse than most of the others. That lack of a firm belief in America's basic goodness and exceptionalism is not hatred of America, but it does produce a foreign policy that is almost as dangerous as America-hatred.
Maybe we should just divide those who strongly oppose Obama into the ODS crowd and the Obama Realist Confederation (ORC). LOL
tryanmax, I need to go with Andrew on this. The MSM is just too shameless for me to believe they will do anything other than revel in Obama's glory. They'll save the doubts and investigations until Romney is put in charge of following up with whatever Obama had done.
Lawhawk, LOL! That's an idea! Here's the key in what you said:
I don't think he hates America, but I am convinced that he thinks America is just another piece of the international jigsaw puzzle, neither better nor worse than most of the others.
I don't think he hates America either. I think he views it as flawed and wants to fix it to be more like the country he envisions. But I see no evidence that he truly hates the country or wants it to fail. Too many of the ODS types really believe he's trying to engineer failures because somehow that will give him his jollies to see America brought down or it will allow him to rebuild from the ashes -- a truly moronic idea. All of that is bunk.
The reality is that he wants to remake America along the lines of European "soft-socialist" country because he thinks that's a better way, and as you say, he sees America as just one piece in the international puzzle which should do more to become like everyone else.
And while I despise those beliefs and I see them as dangerous, I also don't doubt that he genuinely believes they will be good for the country.
I think where the ODS people go wrong is in trying to make everything bigger and conspiratorial. He believes in bad policies, that's enough reason to oppose him. You don't have to then construct some secret plan to destroy America to explain those bad policies. All that does is make everyone else think you're crazy.
A friend reminded me our President must be a fan of Steven Wright: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize."
Eric, LOL! Nice.
And now that you mention it, he does owe the Nobel committee a couple achievements, doesn't he?!
Andrew, Doc, a point of clarification: I'm not saying the MSM would truly develop a sense of shame. I'm just looking to the fact that the WH is quietly lining up some justifications.
As you said, Andrew, Obama's numbers will slide if/when the bombing goes over three weeks. It's after those three weeks that the MSM will need those justifications. If Obama didn't think it was important to repeat the same steps that Republicans have gone through for the umpteenth time, I doubt he would have done it.
Iran is on a different scale. It didn't slide nicely under the rug the same way Git'mo did. Plus, this is one of the few things Obama could do that has potential to dig into his base. Aside from the Code Pink crowd, a large part of his base is of the mind that military action is fine, so long as they don't have to hear about it.
I have no doubt that whatever Romney is left to deal with will be subject to the MSM anal-probe. Doubtless, the 0ne will lay out a perfect plan and Romney will "botch" it.
tryanmax, Ah. I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that the MSM would actually cover this like they would if he was a Republican... that won't happen.
If this was a Republican, they would start almost immediately with tearing about the justifications and finding conspiracy theories... "President R has friends who sell Persian rugs!"
Instead, they will give him the benefit of the doubt at first. The problem will be that he over-promises. He will use the military estimate of three weeks and will promise "surgical strikes." And then if things last 5-6 weeks or there isn't a clear victory (and I'm honestly not sure there can be), and when the world gets outraged because of some faked image of a dead child, the left-left will turn on him. Then the MSM will slowly follow.
My guess, however, is that the MSM won't go on the attack until after the election in any event. But then all bets are off.
P.S. You're right about Romney "botching" whatever he's handed. The MSM will find a way to blame him for everything that goes wrong or doesn't go right-enough, no matter who really caused it.
Andrew:
"I suspect the information to which Obama is privy has just reached that point that something must be done."
And it's just a coincidence that it happens before Obama's "last election"?
Dude.
I agree that the MSM will hold off on attacks until after the election, if they can. That's where the WH having "tried everything" will come in handy. How long that will work as a justification will depend on how quickly I, er, uh, the anti-war crowd can Photoshop images of dead babies.
K, There is an election in America every two years (every year if you include off-year elections). So it will always happen near an election.
In terms of the timing, things related to Iran have been happening at regular intervals for the past 8-10 years. And the reason there are changes now is because of the IAEA report which all but says they're working on the bomb (the IAEA has never said this before), the failure of the virus attack, the Russian decision to begin work again on various nuclear facilities about a month ago, election-related pressure from Israel, and the Chinese rejecting the last round of sanctions (which Obama did not expecting to happen). Essentially, he's out of options and out of time.
Moreover, starting a war that probably can't be won in the traditional sense and will only result in images of destroyed buildings and dead civilians is a huge risk -- a bad risk, especially for a guy who is viewed as weak. Indeed, this thing has the potential to finally lose him his left flank without winning over any hawks. Attacking Iran is not smart politics. He would have been better off hitting something smaller and with an easier path to glory.
Is he doing this without any thought to the election? Hardly. But the evidence suggest that this event has made its own timing and all Obama can do is move it around a couple months in either direction, but there's no reason to believe he would decide to do this to support his re-election.
I do not believe that Obama is "practical", I think he is "opportunistic". He is practical only when it makes him look good. But whatever.
I will throw this out there. How do you know he will attack Iran and not Israel? Just a thought...
tryanmax, That will be his real problem. The MSM will do their best to play cheerleaders, but the no longer control opinion.
1. Al Jazeera will run pictures of dead children 24/7 (even before the first bomb lands) and Iran will call everything hit an orphanage or hospital. That will inflame Muslim opinion and worldwide radical leftist opinion, who will accept this uncritically.
2. Rightwing Talk Radio will attack him for everything. He will have waited too long/started too soon, sent too many troops/not used enough. They will scream how they would have done everything differently. Etc. It's going to be mega armchair warrior time.
3. The radical left will do their usual protests, etc.
4. The mid-left (like Huffpo) will start well, but will quickly get upset about needless deaths and broken promises and should turn on him about a week after the bombing starts.
5. The center-left will probably hold until this "begins to drag." (Say 4-5 weeks.) The first sign of problems there will be when they start talking about "why are so many civilians being killed and why wasn't this more effective."
6. The center-right will probably hold throughout.
The MSM will hold out until the center-left finally turns.
Bev, That's an interesting distinction between practical and opportunistic. If he were just opportunistic, I would think he would be more willing to steal Republican ideas. I think he's ideological, but just not willing to fight for it. So he sets out to get his leftwing goals, but then caves at the first sign of resistance and takes whatever he can get.
Gingrich just announced he's quitting. It's about time. And unlike Santorum, he will endorse Romney.
"but there's no reason to believe he would decide to do this to support his re-election. "
It's as if you missed the entire Clinton administration.
Excellent analysis Andrew. Nice fact gathering too!
On whether or not this is political, everything is political to a degree, but I agree that it's paranoid to think that Obama would start a war out of the blue with Iran just to help his re-election.
Also, it's kind of an odd argument for conservatives to make that Obama should have already attacked Iran but if he does it now, it will be a political decision.
Thanks Terry. I can't say for sure that Obama will attack Iran, but I think the evidence suggests they're planning an attack.
In my experience, the best way to predict events is to watch for signs of what people are really doing rather than listening to official announcements. Also, always look for actual incentives.
Do you think we will be fighting with Israel or alone?
Ellen, My guess would be that we will do this without Israel directly involved. If Israel joined in, then the other Arabs (where our bases are) would refuse to participate. That would be a real problem. So it will probably be the US and a token British force along with unofficial help from India or Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
K, Read my entire comment and if you still have questions then I'll explain it to you.
I'd just like to point something out regarding those F-22s stationed in the UAE - they are part of an earlier block lacking air-to-ground capability, hardly the first choice if there were plans to bomb Iran.
http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/30/iran-f-22/
But they would be absolutely ideal to take out the Iranian air force and to escort other air to ground assets.
Also, moving the F-22s to UAE now could be part of making the locals comfortable with hosting American guests. These are defensive and counter-attack planes. Just what you'd move in before moving in the offensive equipment.
And, of course, you would definitely want these to be seen going in. So the highly visible stopover in Spain makes perfect sense.
tryanmax, That's true too. There's a lot of PR value in this. Plus, they are right there on station to dominate the Gulf and prevent Iran's air force from venturing forth and finding the carriers or dropping ordnance on the Gulf states.
The real heavy lifting in terms of wiping out ground air defense systems would be done by cruise missiles and long range bombers in any event. The F-22s primary purpose would be air superiority.
But again, this is all just speculation based on a series of recent moves. We have no way to know anything specific until it happens.
Interestingly, at the blog Jgrop cites, which I assume is his, people are speculating in the comments that the F-22s are meant to threaten Israel by suggesting Obama will shoot down any Israeli planes that try to attack Iran. I can't see that in a million years. That ignores a whole host of political realities.
I too think that such an action is long in coming and probably overdue, but I don't see how this will be good for Obama's election chances. The left won't support additional military action, independents won't be influenced by foreign policy, and the right won't support Obama no matter what happens between now and the election.
I only see a potential downside for Obama, even if I think that conducted properly, such military action would be of a benefit to the region.
wahsatchmo, I agree entirely, and that's why I say above that I actually do believe this will be Obama acting on a genuine need rather than political need if he does do it.
I see the response much like you say -- the left will rally around him for a week or two and then will turn on him. Independents can't find Iran on the map. Conservatives won't change their minds no matter what. And the resolution is unlikely to bring a victory parade in any event because there won't be a take over of the country. So this won't win anyone over and could lose him a lot of support.
In other words... doing this presents a ton of risk and maybe only a 1-100 chance of a boost.
Thus, if he does do this, it will be because he believes it needs to be done, not because he thinks it will benefit him politically.
Will it happen? It's very hard to tell. But the signs suggest he's run out of alternatives, that he has intelligence that they are on the verge of having a bomb, and that he's getting ready to do something.
Thus, I think it's reasonable to conclude they're getting ready to do something.
As usual, I'm late to the party. (I should stop beginning every comment that way. It's probably understood by this point.) I've been saying this since before Christmas. The chatter among the milspouse community is that we're about to enter a lull in activity, thanks to the drawdowns and shorter deployment schedules. I've tried warning them that war with Iran is on the horizon, sooner rather than later. I can't go into exactly why due to OPSEC, but from our point of view of upcoming training and deployment schedules - just ones we're aware of - I was I've been saying for months that this was all preamble to moving into Iran this fall. So everything you're saying lines right up.
As far as ODS, well, I hope I'm not a victim, and maybe he doesn't hate America the way Ahmadinejad hates America, but I certainly believe he dislikes enough things about America, real or imagined, that it's close enough. Like, I don't HATE this person I know, I just think everything they do is wrong and about the only way I'd like them is if they became a different person altogether.
Obviously, I'm not speaking about any specific individual, but a general composite of individuals to use as an example.
Andrew: yeah, if Obama goes through with this, it probably will represent a true gutsy call on his part.
JG, No problem with being late! :)
One of the things I've found throughout my entire life is that the real predictive evidence is never the big stuff everyone looks for. It's the administrative stuff because companies, countries, movements and militaries simply can't move like individuals -- they need to gear up. So when you start seeing hints of that, then you know something is up.
In the political world, this is often slight rhetorical shifts (just like in poker it could be a nervous twitch). But in the military world, this is the repositioning of assets.
So when you see a second aircraft carrier move into a region, when you see high tech planes move into the region, when you see high tech sales of missile defense systems to the same place, and when you see troops in Iraq who would be excellent targets for Iran being pulled back to safer Gulf countries, it all starts to suggest that something is going on because that's how the military shifts focus. And the military doesn't shift focus without a purpose.
On the point you raise, I had a friend who figured out the Iraq War was coming because his unit was told a few weeks before anyone even heard the name Iraq that no one would be allowed to leave the unit until further notice. Sure enough, they were one of the first shipped over.
But most people aren't observant enough to put these things together. They instead just see lots of little unrelated events until someone points it out after the fact. So congrats on seeing the signs! :)
On the ODS thing, don't get me wrong. I can't stand the man or what he stands for. I don't think he loves this country because I think he sees it as deeply flawed and wants to change its fundamental nature. But I think it's wrong to ascribe conspiratorial ideas to him, like the idea of him hating America and wanting to destroy the country because he's a secret Muslim or part of some evil plan created in the 1960s. He's just a socialist jerk, that's about it. There's no mystery.
wahsatchmo, It would. This would be a high risk, low reward choice -- the kind of thing you only do when you truly believe you are right.
I guess we'll see what happens though. This could all be a bluff, or I could be reading it wrong. We won't know until it happens (or doesn't).
I just wish I better knew where to look for the facts and events that everyone else ignores. Hint, hint...
Truth be told, I probably wouldn't even be looking if I wasn't following Joel Rosenberg's news stream. But it's true, most often we don't see the signs except in hindsight. I do have a friend who works in avionics who believes conventional war with Iran wouldn't happen, because our unmanned capabilities are so much stronger than they used to be. Of course, he flies unmanned drones, so he might be biased. :)
tryanmax, You ask a difficult question without a specific answer.
Generally, this kind of information is never found on the front page because that would mean they figured it out. Instead, you'll most likely find this as snippets buried at the end of articles. It’s usually the stuff the reporter dug up and so decided to include, but thought was too boring to make the front of the article.
And most often, it’s in articles that aren’t related to the topic you are looking for. For example, financial articles are often great for finding political information. A good example of this occurred about six months ago when BH was talking about how politics is dictating the kinds of content found in films. If anyone had checked CNBC, they would have seen a series of articles about how film profits from China eclipsed those from the US and how Hollywood was now trying to tailor their films to China. At the same time there were articles in other places about China’s growing cultural demands. This explained everything BH was talking about and made more sense than the idea that people would try to bankroll projects just to offend Americans. But no one at CNBC put together that these two issues were related because they didn’t care about the politics, and no one who was writing the political end wanted to believe there was some other explanation.
Further, sometimes you have to extrapolate the data with known relationships for the information to make sense. The “lipstick” index is a solid example of this. Some financial guy discovered that when times are tough, women buy more makeup. Why? Because the need to compete for jobs means they need to look better. Ditto on gym memberships and higher hemlines. So when you start to see things like cosmetics sales go up, you know you're in a recession. Falling sports ticket prices mean the same thing.
(continued)
(continued)
I also watch for changes in behavior. If a country keeps pounding the table every day and then suddenly shuts up for three months, that means something. When the Saudis open the oil spigots without anyone asking, they are trying to hurt someone like Iran. Changing political behavior tells you what the internal polling is telling the politician. When a prosecutor start making noises about bad cops, they’re about to drop an important case. Etc.
So it’s hard to say where exactly to find this kind of information except read everything and as you do, think about what you are reading -- ask why something would be true and what it means. That’s the real key.
Take the F-22’s. The first question is, why send them to UEA? There are several possible reasons: intimidation, assurance, training, planning an attack or just because. Alone, we can’t tell. But then you start adding the other pieces. And as you get more pieces, the likely answers begin to narrow. When they narrow enough, you have a working theory. Then you look for more proof and wait to see if you’re right.
By the way, another thing worth pointing out is advertising. Forget the product itself because that’s pure spin. But look at the backgrounds. The backgrounds tell you what Americans aspire to.
JG, But the thing is, you do look -- most people don't. In fact, of the thousands of people I've met in my life, I would say that only about 10-15% really pay attention to the world around them. Those are the people who move the world because they understand how everything relates. The others are just passengers.
That's a good question about how an attack will likely go. Drones just aren't capable of doing this by themselves. They don't have the firepower, capacity or precision (yet) to take down everything that needs to be taken down. Also, there would be a HUGE outrage factors if we destroyed Iran's military with just drones... as twisted as that sounds.
I think what will likely happen will be a combination of missile strikes and bombings to take out any weapons that can counter-attack. Then they will use heavy bombers (conveniently stationed in the Indian Ocean last I knew) against the big nuclear targets. Then they will send in special ops teams to assess the damage. And if need be, we will probably occupy some parts of the country for a day or so. But I doubt we would send in a full-on Army-style invasion.
Washington Times has some interesting stuff that dovetails with what you are saying. The Pentagon says that it can downgrade Iran's military capability in three weeks time. It seems, Andrew, you aren't the only one thinking along these lines.
Joel, Interesting isn't it? I guess people will now start looking for more signs.
Nope, it's not my blog, I just came across a link to it when reading a naval affairs blog.
Jrggrop, Ah, well thanks for the link anyway. They have some fascinating technical details. The stuff about kill ratios in particular was interesting.
And just to repeat, I'm only speculating here. It strikes me that a lot of things are coming together suddenly and the F-22's are just one little piece of the larger puzzle.
I guess we'll see if anything comes of this or not.
You left out how he personally gunned down the pirates holding Americans hostage. (Okay he only authorized the use of force, but the media trumped it up to sound like Obama himself pulled the trigger.)
Ah, advertising. You are speaking my language on that one!
LWA, True, that was indeed a brave moment for our heroic young president.
// sarc off
Actually, that incident was very instructive. It showed us right away that Obama (unlike Clinton and Carter) was more than happy to use the military. It also showed us that Obama (unlike all prior presidents) was happy to claim personal credit for military actions -- something he's done several times since.
tryanmax, You speakum advertising?
Then you know what I mean. Advertisers are very good at presenting an idealized version of what people want to believe about themselves at the time. . . and then they jam their product in there. So you have to ignore their product (which is spin) but look at the backgrounds and you'll see a perfect example of what the public desires.
Is this what Obama was talking about when he was plotting his reelection strategy with Medvedev and Putin? "Give me a free hand until after my last election?" And does that make you feel confident that he means to do the right thing?
(Btw, Russia needs high oil prices, which is why they fanned this conflict in the first place. They cannot lose.)
I have said as early as 2008 that Obama ultimately doesn´t care about foreign policy. He cares about changing the US. The left-wing agenda has always been about domestic victory, now and as far back as the Nixon years. If Obama has to kill a bunch of terrorists or bomb a country to achieve that, shoring up his right flank, he will do it. If he has to cave in, apologize to the world or make concessions, he will do it. And when there is no price to pay, he will default to the latter, and top it with some insults to American allies.
I´m not saying he is a secret musim. I´m saying I predicted as much and every action and utterance of Obama has been consistent with it. That doesn´t make him a hawk though, as the word is usually understood.
What he does not do is strenghten our influence abroad in the long term, or achieve lasting solutions which are in our interest, never mind Israel´s interest. He will do as little as necessary: Drone strikes and withdrawal timetables were also not a recipe for winning but for keeping different constituencies off his back and getting soldiers killed for nothing. And it worked, too.
Don´t forget: A war transparently started to win an election will finish off what little credibility the US has abroad. If Bush couldn´t have gone into Iraq in 2003, he wouldn´t have done it in 2004. There´s the difference.
And what about the F-22? That would be the super aircraft of which we only have about 180 because Obama stopped building it, yes? Which saved very little money - as if that mattered anyway - after all the development cost was already spent and production had just started, yes? Does that not tell you something about his true view of American power?
Finally, if we wanted to deal effectively with Iran, the best time is not now. The best time was years ago. We couldn´t do it. Because of people like Obama.
And you wouldn´t have to bomb the nuclear facilities at all. You just have to wage economic and political war. Destroy their ability to export oil and import oil products. Support the domestic opposition. Wage proxy wars, as they do against us and Israel. You don´t even need two carriers for that. But you needed to do it yesterday.
El Gordo, I've felt that too, that Obama does not care about foreign policy. I wrote about that here: LINK. That doesn't mean he won't act, it just means he will generally avoid it unless it looks easy or is truly necessary.
That's an interesting point about Russia. That may well have been what he meant? Wow. Hadn't thought about that.
In terms of dealing with Iran in the past, that would indeed have made more sense. Problems are always easier to fix before they have time to grow. But the truth in this case is that we've waited so long that it may just be that we have no choice but to act now. If Washington believes that Iran is now only months away from getting the bomb, then they have no choice left but to act. That could well be what Obama is seeing in his intelligence reports.
Andrew, if we face an acute emergency now - though one predicetd for many years - then yes, we must act. But they have not said that and I cannot help but question the timing.
Do not get me wrong. I am absolutely convinced that this Iranian regime must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. On the other hand, no one who was born after 1945 has ever lived in a world where the United States did not have a predominant and beneficial role. Four more years of Obama will ensure that we get to know such a world. The spread of nuclear weapons will just be postponed after the US is culturally reduced to a larger Britain, a feeble nation which is not even allowed to live off its former glory because the past has been rewritten, smeared or forgotten.
We will finally live in a multipolar world. And I fear it will be horrible.
Obama is not waging this war to solve a problem but to neutralize another tribe (see Krauthammer´s recent excellent column) and to win time (as he perhaps told Medvedev). We will inherit the resulting problems whether he wins or loses. And if he loses, Democrats will again exploit a war they started to advance their agenda.
But since we cannot change the past or the Left, the best outcome is that Obama bombs Iran and then loses the election.
Now I just wish we had more B-2s and F-22s. (Oh, and that we stop naming warships after mediocre politicians and leftists. Now there´s a symbol of decline! But that is another rant.)
El Gordo, I agree that the timing seems suspicious, but I think this has been a slow-boiling danger. So I suspect the window for action is defined more in months than days or hours, which is why I think they are slowly building up. If they had to act this week, they would be more direct about it. As it is, I suspect Obama is looking at intelligence which tells him Iran will have a bomb sometime in early 2013 give or take 5 months. And that will force him to act by the end of the summer. But we'll see. This could all be nothing?
I agree that a multipolar world would be bad. There are just too many people out there looking to cause havoc and harm us and our friends to think a multipolar world would be better. On the one hand, it would be nice to see countries like Japan and India need to step up and start cleaning up their regions, but on the other hand, I'm just not convinced anyone else will keep the peace -- too much moral weakness, too many bad actors.
I agree about the F-22s and B-2s. I especially fear that we're underestimating the sheer size of what China can field once they put their minds to it.
Interesting predictions Andrew.
Although I do think it's possible, perhaps even probable, I think it's more likely that Obama is trying to scare Iran into backing down and accepting diplomatic solutions which would make him look better since this was one of his selling points as a candidate.
The evidence you provide makes sense of your prediction even if it would be cynical, but Obama's reelection campaign hasn't made much sense nor has his policies.
He has made one serious blunder after another, and appears to be more unhinged every day.
While on the surface, Obama's foreign policy is similar to Bush's, there are also striking differences, particularly in the way we treat Israel and our other allies and Obama's explicit support of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to name a few.
Add to that the fact that this will be seen as directly helping Israel (yeah, I know that wouldn't be Obama's motivation but nevertheless it would be seen as such).
Helping Israel is not supported by most of those on the left and would hurt his reelection chances among his base more than the gamble of appearing tough.
Of course, Obama could attempt to say it's only for our protection but he hasn't been talking that way and most on the left may not buy it since he hasn't made a case for it.
IOW's, since his "magic" is all but gone, I doubt Obama can be as convincing to his base on this level as he was 4 years ago.
Nor do I think Obama can convince Israel to hold off on their planned strikes given the way he has treated them.
I seriously doubt Obama would coordinate any allied efforts to strike Iran with Israel.
If Obama does do it, it would hafta be without Israel's help or it wouldn't matter (to his ego or his reelection gamble).
IMO, Obama will leave it to Israel, and will not try to stop them, although he will publicly condemn them for it afterwards.
However it all goes down I earnestly hope that Israel and/or the US prevents Iran from developing nukes before they do get the bomb.
I'm certain Israel will try but not so sure we will, with Obama as President.
Also, having reading a few more comments
i'll add:
We would'nt need the F-22's to take out Iran's air force (which is a pathetic and toothless air force in any sense), however that doesn't mean we wouldn't use them, small in number that they are if we were to attack.
There's a number of different missions the F-22 could do. I would think intel gathering and flushing out their ground to air missile systems and RADAR's (and maybe destroying some) would be some of the more probable things we would use them for.
One thing I learned about the Iranians while I was over there is that they are loath to pit their aircraft at risk and they have known for decades that we can destroy their air force easily so they would most likely hide their aircraft if we were to attack.
Their Navy is in the same boat. Snicker.
However, they do have a large army and it won't be easy to destroy.
Not that we need to do so to prevent Iran from developing nukes. Just saying.
Ben, I think the biggest concern with Iran would be the loss of pilots from ground to air missiles. Iran has been periodically buying Chinese and Russian stuff in that regard and the reason to use something like the F-22s would be to minimize the chances a pilot would be lost over Iran -- which would be the real problem.
If we did attack, I expect that the Iranian air force will try to hide.
Here's another interesting bit of news to consider. Israel just pushed off elections and brought the opposition into the government. That sounds like a move to create national unity before either attack or don't. Interesting times.
As for Obama, trust me, I view him as a cynical amateur, but even so, if the military and intelligence people tell him something must be done, I would expect he would do it. To not do it would be disastrous. As for his left flank, Libya kind of proved that they would rally behind him if they thought it would help them stay in power. So I wouldn't be too sure he's afraid of angering them.
In any event, this is all speculation and all we can do is wait and see.
Andrew: I fully expect Israel will strike Iran.
They have no choice. Netenyahu has done an outstanding job getting a coalition government in preparations to do so.
One thing I didn't mention is Obama's terrible treatment of Israel since taking office.
Because of that there is no trust that Obama will do anything but keep stabbing Israel in the back.
That will seriously hinder or perhaps make it virtually impossible for Israel to wait and coordinate plana with Obama.
Particularly since there really isn't much time left, if intel predictions are true about Iran getting the bomb by Jan 2013.
I suspect the Mossad has the most up to date information (most likely better than our sources) and Bibi will act on whatever they recommend.
I'm certainly not discounting the possibility that Obama will act, but his administration is rife with leakers (Obama himself being one of them).
They simply can't keep their traps shut for long without bragging to their hollywood pals like a stupid drunk without scruples.
But maybe they'll surprise me.
Personally, I hope Obama does strike Iran.
One, because we have to, if Israel can't do the job (and I have no idea if they can...probaly can but not sure).
And two, Israel shouldn't have to take the backlash they'll get for defending themselves.
If Obama strike Iran he will prevent that from happening and it will help Israel tremendously (although I think Obama will be loathe to help Israel. Is his love of the US great enough to do so in our best interest? It will be interesting to find out).
I do like your speculations because they are well thought out and as I said, it would make sense.
But like Bibi, I simply don't trust Obama to do the right thing (because of his ego; he'll hafta admit his plans didn't work)...or, if he does, it will be after Israel gets the ball rolling.
We live in interesting times.
Ben, I get the feeling that Israel will attack if we don't, but I also suspect Israel just doesn't have the firepower to pull this one off. We'll see though.
We definitely live in interesting times!
Post a Comment