[Peace-discuss] Caesar is turn'd to hear?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I posted recently what seems to me to be a good argument for
why the U.S. probably won't attack Iran, but it's by no means
a sure thing.  Here's an alternate scenario, and -- altho' I
do think it's less likely -- it is disturbing.  --CGE] 

   February 2, 2006
   The Next Act
   by William S. Lind

Wars, most wars at least, run not evenly but in fits and
starts, settling down into sputtering Sitzkrieg for long
intervals, then suddenly shooting out wildly in wholly
unpredicted directions. The war in Iraq has fallen into a set
pattern for long enough that we should be expecting something
new. I can identify three factors – there may be more – that
could lead to some dramatic changes, soon.

    * Osama bin Laden's latest message. Most observers,
including the White House, seem to have missed its
significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we
should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral
high ground). The Koran requires Muslims to offer such a truce
before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the
offer, after a long silence, suggests al-Qaeda attaches high
importance to it.

      Why? My guess is because they plan a major new attack in
the U.S. soon. I would be surprised if the plan were for
something smaller than 9/11, because that could send the
message that al-Qaeda's capabilities had diminished. Could
this be "the big one," the suitcase nuke that most
counterterrorism experts expect somewhere, sometime? That
would certainly justify, perhaps require, a truce offer from
Osama himself. Of course, al-Qaeda's plan may fail, and it may
be for an action less powerful than setting off a nuke on
American soil. But the fact that Osama made a truce offer
should have set off alarm bells in Washington. So far, from
what I can see, it hasn't.

    * In Iraq, Shi'ite country is turning nasty. The Brits are
finding themselves up against Shi'ite militias around Basra.
Moqtada al-Sadr has made it clear he is spoiling for another
go at the Americans, saying his militia would respond to any
attack on Iran. In Baghdad, the Shi'ites who run things are
finding American interference increasingly inconvenient. We
are now talking to at least some Sunni insurgents, as we
should be, but that means our utility to the Shi'ites as
unpaid Hessians is diminishing. Put it all together and it
suggests the improbable Yankee-Shi'ite honeymoon may soon end.
When it does, our lines of supply and communication through
southern Iraq to Kuwait will be up for grabs.

    * We are moving toward war with Iran. Our diplomatic
efforts on the question of Iranian nuclear research and
reprocessing are obviously designed to fail, in order to clear
the boards for military action. It will probably come in the
form of Israeli air strikes on Iran, which, as the Iranians
well know, cannot be carried out without American approval and
support.

In Israel, it was Sharon who repeatedly refused the Israeli
generals' requests for air strikes; he is now out of the
picture. His replacement, Olmert, is weak. The victory of
Hamas in the Palestinian elections gave Olmert's main
opponent, Likud's Netanyahu, a big boost. How could Olmert
best show the Israeli electorate he is as tough as Netanyahu?
Obviously, by hitting Iran before Israel's elections in late
March.

In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq
would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent
neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly
influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not
whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer
will be the same as Israel's.

Washington will assume Iran will respond with some air and
missile strikes of its own. Those may occur, but Iran has far
more effective ways of replying. It can shut down its own oil
exports and, with mining and naval action, those of Kuwait and
the Gulf States as well. It can ramp up the guerilla wars both
in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

It could also do something that would come as a total surprise
to Washington and cross the Iran-Iraq border with four to six
divisions, simply rolling up the American army of occupation
in Iraq. Syria might well join in, knowing that it is only a
question of time before it is attacked anyway. We have no
field army in Iraq at this point; our troops are dispersed
fighting insurgents. A couple dozen Scuds on the Green Zone
would decapitate our leadership (possibly to our benefit).
Yes, our air power would be a problem, but only until the
Iranians got in close. Bad weather could provide enough cover
for that. So could the Iranian and Syrian air forces, so long
as they were willing to expend themselves. Our Air Force can
be counted on to fight the air battle first.

As I said, when a war has been stuck in a rut for a long time,
thoughtful observers should expect some dramatic change or
changes. Any one of these possibilities would deliver that;
together, they could give us a whole different situation, one
in which our current slow defeat would accelerate sharply.

Beware the ides of March.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486