Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Obama And Iran - Wag The Dog?

The Iranians have formally denied any participation in the attempt to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

As usual, they're probably lying. We actually have one of the perps in custody.

But what they may not be lying about is the rationale for the ramping up of rhetoric by the Obama administration ( emphasis mine) :

An aide to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday denied US allegations that the Islamic republic was involved in a plot to kill the Saudi envoy to Washington.

“This is a prefabricated scenario to turn public attention away from domestic problems within the United States,” Ali Akbar Javanfekr, the president’s press adviser, told AFP.

“The US government and the CIA have a lot of experience in diverting public attention from domestic problems in the United States. We have to wait now to know the details of this prefabricated scenario to know the US government’s objectives,” he said.

Let's examine a few things.

Iran is a rogue nation and state supporter of terrorism who has been in a state of war with us since 1978. They or their proxies have killed US troops in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, supplied weapons to our enemies. There's even some credible evidence they may have helped facilitate 9/11.

They actually engaged in a shooting war with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf back in the 1980's, and then there's their illegal nuclear program, the constant threats and bluster and their direct arming of our enemies.

President Barack Obama has been an enabler and appeaser of Iran ever since he took office (and to be honest, so was President Bush before him to a large degree). Nothing I mentioned above ever caused him to falter a single bit in 'engaging' with the mullahs or extending what he called 'an unclenched fist' in their direction, no matter how often they spat in his hand.

Now, all of a sudden, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are pounding their chests and issuing war cries about an 'unacceptable escalation'? Why now?

What's changed, of course is the president's poll numbers. With an election coming on, President Obama might just see some forceful engagement in Iran as a way to boost those ol' approval numbers. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

This president frequently channels Jimmy Carter, and you may recall the boost in President Carter's popularity when the Iran Hostage crisis began. Before that, he failure to show even a semblence of acumen in running the U.S. economy or its foreign policy had him doomed to be a one term president.

But once the mullahs moved against our diplomats, the American people rallied around him - at least until they finally figured out that an incredibly weak president was going to be as feckless with the Iranians as he had with the commies and virtually everyone else. Then his ratings plummeted again. Meanwhile the mullahs were smart enough to release the hostages the day President Reagan took office even at terms that were actually far less than what they had been demanding of Carter.

If our current miserable excuse for a commander-in-chief has ideas of taking on Iran to bolster his political future, I applaud the action if not the motivation, provided it's done properly...which it likely won't be with President Obama in charge. A few things to consider:

  • The last thing we need is another war by diktat with foggy objectives. Unlike Libya, the president will need to make the case to Congress. I doubt he's capable of that, but will public opinion sit still for another war like Libya? Especially if the Obama Administration deliberately hampers our military with suicidal Rules of Engagement, encouraged by turgid presidential homilies about Islam, the religion of peace?

  • We have over one hundred thousand troops and billions in equipment stranded in a land locked Afghanistan surrounded by hostile territory. Some provision is almost certainly going to have to be made to get them out.

  • major strikes will need to be made on Iran's missile bases,infrastructure and nuclear facilities. And Iran's navy will have to be sunk, in order to keep the Shatt al-Arab in the Persian Gulf unobstructed. This is no time for half measures. Is President Obama capable of that?

  • Some provision is going to have to be made for our troops in Iraq.It's doubtful the Iraqis will aid their fellow Shi'ites, but they will not want the onus of sheltering U.S. troops, especially if the mullahs have the Iranian trained and armed militias like the Mahdi Army attack.

  • The Russians have billions invested in Iran, and the Chinese need Iranian oil. Depend on them to obstruct any of the UN resolutions or internationally based actions people like President Obama or Hillary Clinton are so fond of. Ditto when it comes to NATO,some of whose members depend on Russian oil and gas and with the European winter coming on.

    The president is also likely to face hardline pressure from Putin to back off from Iran - something Obama has been notably deficient in dealing with in the past. In fact, the only real allies we're likely to have will be Australia and Israel, with maybe the Saudis and the Gulf nations in support roles. Given president Obama's hostility towards Israel, is he going to be prepared to make use of our mosy loyal ally in the Middle East?

  • Speaking of oil, the president is going to have to reconsider his de facto ban on drilling, something a number of his enviro-wacko supporters won't like at all. A war in the Persian Gulf would of necessity spike the oil market

  • Above all, is this president prepared to forgo the heady pleasures of nation building after the war's over? Aside from the fact we can't afford it (even less than we could in Iraq)rebuilding Iran would totally ignore the jihadi mentality, which is actually what we're fighting against.For that Islamist mindset, a large amount of rubble and casualties sends a certain invaluable message about the drawbacks of certain actions against America.

  • These are all things I hope President Obama is considering if he's contemplating a wag the dog moment.Frankly, I wonder if he has.

    please helps me write more gooder!


    Anonymous said...

    I doubt this brain dead moron has considered anything regarding the consequences of ANY of his actions; IE ( Fast and Furious) Flying low over Manhatten, pushing for a Mosque in Manhatten, raising our debt 4 triilion with a projected deficient up to 30 triilion in a few years, 4 wars as of the present...need I go on?

    B.Poster said...

    Its unlike that this is a "wag the dog" moment. Its more likely that US officials are simply getting fed up after attempting ever diplomatic effor they know of to resolve this conflict and getting now where. Its difficult to negotiate when one side, in this case the Iranians have no interest in good faith negotaitions.

    As long as they have Russian and Chinese support, they don't really need to negotiate. Even if I'm overestimating the power of those countries, taking them on is going to be problematic and they are not just going to sit back while the ally is attacked.

    If we start sinking Iranian warships, targeting nuclear facilities and things of this nture, we will suffer massive casualties and will lose ships as well. Also, Iran and its poxies will attack the American mainland resulting in massive non military casualties. The American people need to be preapred for this.

    I treid to point out on another thread the dependence onf some NATO nations on Rusian oil especially with the winter approaching but you stated the case better than I did!! As such, expect no help from them. In fact, if thir oil supplies are threatened expec them to be actively hostile to our efforts.

    while American officials are busy studying reports, holding meetings, and trying to "build acase" and "trying to "gaterh all the facts." The Irabian narrative of this being a "wag the dog", "false flag", or "prefabricated effort" is oing around the world and has laready been aroudn the world about ten times by now. By the time American leadership decides on a response the Iranian narrative may be so ingrained in the mnds of people around the world that it may be difficult or impossible to get the support we will need.

    The generally accpted narrative on teh the conflict with Iran has it going back to the early 50s when America orchestrated a coup against the peaceful democratic government of Iran that posed no threat to us in order to steal its oil. I'm not saying I agree with the naIrative. The truth is probably much more complicated than this. Nevertheless in order to get the support we need we will have to address this and hopefully change it or at least interject some doubt about the standard narrative.

    All of this and much more will have to be done before we can even begin to consider a military confrontation against Iran where we sink ships, target nuclear facilities and all of the other things associated with this. Essentially we must walk before we run. Trying to run before you've mastered walking will at best lead to major embarassment. At worst it will lead to unmitigated disaster.

    B.Poster said...

    "Speaking of oil..." Simply opening up all of our reseves for extraction would have greater utility for confonting Islmaic terrorists including Iran than any thing we are currently doing or have done. Had we done this immediately after 911 we would likely have a greater supply which would likely provide some insurance against a cut off of middle eastern oil and it might even be enough of an additional supply to help keep the price down.

    As it is, even if we get the enviro whackos and others who are opposed to domestic oil production out of the way and remove all of the exceesive regulations currently in place, it is going to take at least 10 year to fully get our infrastructe in place and fully producing. We can probably make a dent in our oil imports within five yeears.

    Given that htis is a much needed policy and it will take time to fully implement, NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT TO GET STARTED!!