Comments on: More post-Fallon overheating: “6 signs the US may be headed for war in Iran”

By: Medicis

Medicis — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:24:12 +0000

Re: “Israeli airstrike on Syria” — Five month old news, so not exactly a Defcon 1 alert.”

I am not ‘pushing’ the ‘Iran about to be attacked scenario’ but, if the Israeli air strike on Syria were to test the standard Russian built defenses (as I assume these are) then a few months to figure the best way to circumvent them is not out of the question. It would be a prudent action if a strike were contemplated.
.
.
Fabius Maximus: Unfortunately this logic works just as well the other way. If we thought the Russian-build air defenses had hopes, Israel’s strike this blown our operational advantage. Iran has had months to upgrade and otherwise adapt to the lessons provided by Israel. That suggests that the strike was not a prelude to hitting Iran (by either Israel or the US), or if so (as you suggest) the strike should have followed more closed — before Iran too could adjust.

By: Troy

Troy — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:43:48 +0000

“Warships off Lebanon” - yes because if I wanted to attack Iran, I couldn’t think of a better place to put my warships than someplace with Iran’s sole ally between them and their target.

That would actually be there to deal with Hezbullah, Iran’s proxy there. The line they keep giving about Iran having some sort of secret program is another signal of intentions against Iran.

By: Robert Petersen

Robert Petersen — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:29:33 +0000

I think you are right. But the story is interesting in another way: The US government today reminds me today of the old Soviet regime and even the most subtle changes in rhetoric or a sudden change in the leadership give rise to speculation. A bit sad for American democracy I think.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Interesting observation! Some of this might result from size, as the government is so large that we must guess at what goes on inside the beast (as it grows, volume increases faster than surface area — so it grows more “opaque.”) Some of this perhaps results from decay, as the government increasingly responds largely to internal factors. This is the “court politics” model of Versailles-on-the -Potomac, where policy decisions are made on the basis of competing factions (both individuals and departments) — not on their effect on the outside world.

By: John M.

John M. — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:46:57 +0000

It seems that the logical strategy would be to ‘contain’ Iran while working toward aiding and/or influencing some form of internal change. I may give too much credit, but I suspect that we’re doing an adequate job in that regard.

The rest is just balance-of-power word war with a faint redolence of brinksmanship. I’d wager that every time the words ‘invade’, ‘attack’ and ‘Iran’ show up close together, people over there get pretty nervous.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:46:28 +0000

“Warships off Lebanon” - yes because if I wanted to attack Iran, I couldn’t think of a better place to put my warships than someplace with Iran’s sole ally between them and their target.