Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable

U.S. Military is now poised for a 2 weeks surgical strikes inside Iran.  The American public and the Obama campaign better be ready because with the pending bill on Iranian Naval Blockade in the congress, engagement is now inevitable.  And it'll occur at the earliest September 5 and no later than October 13, 2008.  The confrontation will last for 2 weeks in which the US will completely destroy Iranian nuclear capability and also disable the overall Iranian military establishment to the point that they couldn't pose a reasonable threat to little Jordan or Kuwait.
*    Here are my reasons for predicting that military confrontation is by now inevitable:
*    GW Bush will use his military capital to fight a war that would be swift and victorious; thus redeeming his image from the Iraqi debacle.
*    Iran as an Islamic Republic will not cower to the blockade and thus would resist.
*    The Iranian government sees resisting US as a service to Allah and thus a religious obligation.  They'll even fire the first shot, if US tries to impose the Congress-authorized blockade; therefore predicating the 2 weeks bombardment.

Now, let's move and make some more prediction before giving Obama some advice (I'm a pragmatic Obamacan and for the records, I like Gen. Clark and also believe that flying a plane does not qualify one to be president).  So here are my money predictions:
*    First oil will spike after the initial confrontation but will plummet below $100 after the US Navy has secured the Strait of Hormuz.
*    The action will resemble the bombardment of Belgrade but will not involve any major ground troop deployment inside Iran.
*    The whole Arab World will condemn the military action but nothing further than that.

Now, what is my advice to Obama campaign on this?  Be ready and know that it's coming and also get your talking points ready since you've moved to the center now.  
What are Obama's options on this inevitable bombardment of Iran?
*    Get his General together and start condemning Iran's nuclear pursuit in the strongest terms.  So long as he is unequivocal in his condemnation, he does not need to support or oppose military actions against Iran; he should keep his mouth shut and just keep condemning Iranian nuclear pursuit.
*    Declare that if this is the last resort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, then so be it.
*    Recommend that the action be swift and quick with no ground troop deployment or military occupation.

Update: Here is the Bill below: H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."


Poll
Do you think that an action is now inevitable?
Yes
Not quite clear
No
Not Possible in an Election Year
Never

Votes: 6
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

The Arab governments will be, privately, pretty happy.  The Sunni governments are scared as hell of Iran, especially if they get nukes.

Doesn't mean I think this is a good idea.  I flat-out think this is another attempt at a military shortcut to a diplomatic problem.  And it's gonna cost us.

The Arab governments will be privately pleased, publically pissed.  However, those groups that hate us and are making war on us will be able to recruit ever more willing soldiers because we will have, yet again, proven that all we seem to do is bomb and invade their countries.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

Reaper,

good post...but I can't help but think...dang, we can't let them have nukes.  Not the homophobic women-supressing Iranians.

No way.

If it has to be done, I would rather Bush do it so the blame gets laid at the Rethuggies feet instead of at ours.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the diarist is most likely wrong... (none / 0)

...at least as far as how we end up in a war with Iran. I do believe that we will end up in that fight, eventually.

But, there are just too many other variables on the table...

1.) The Israelis will most likely be the ones at the forefront of any strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, per this article from yesterday's Guardian in the UK: "Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle."

2.) The diarist's comment:


"The whole Arab World will condemn the military action but nothing further than that."

...represents a huge leap into the unknown. First of all, our pathetic reputation around the world would sink even lower (if that's even possible). Secondly, the Russians and the Chinese would (and already are, apparently) asserting tremendous pressure against us taking action there. Hence, the Israelis appearing to act unilaterally, makes much more sense, if for nothing else other than from a practical standpoint.

3.) I do believe that there will be a war in the mideast that will arise out of this, but it will be the Israelis that drag us into it. If nothing else, it's too tempting of a prize for the Republicans, as they make a last-ditch effort to maintain the White House in November.


by bobswern on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

A ground troop deployment or military occupation of Iran?

Yeah and the Arab and Persian people will greet you with flowers and candy.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

Exactly. Iran has a standing army of over ONE MILLION. We on the other hand have only 130,000 troops in the region and basically none that could be deployed fast enough to fight a ground war there.


by venician on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

They're not thinking ground war.  They're thinking taking out his nuke facilities.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:27:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)

"GW Bush will use his military capital to fight a war that would be swift and victorious; thus redeeming his image from the Iraqi debacle"

1. What military capital does Bush have?

2. "swift and victorious"  Your kidding right?
    who would believe that, except neocons and desperate repugs.  Are you either of those?


by venician on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST

Re: Bombardment of Iran: Inevitable (none / 0)


I have a feeling that if anything does happen, the Israelis will be up front with the US acting covertly at best.
What remains to be seen is if Israel has the good sense to stand down...attacking Iran would lead to a far bigger fiasco than Iraq.
by GrahamCracker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.