Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations

[Officer of Engineers]

While back in one of your posts you mentioned that the blue prints package for CICH-4 warhead which IRI had acquired through Abdul Qadir Khan did not include the research data necessary for assembling a test device. Now you are saying they've already got all the research they need to get to assembly stage.

Actually, I now assessed that the Iran also have pre-1998 Pakistani warhead designs which were more advance than the CICH-4. Also through AQ Khan. The plans were discovered in Geneva through one of the computers of an AQ Khan associate. Through open source material, it was reported that both that AQ Khan and a Pakistani General, whose name escapes me at the moment, confirmed that they have transferred those blueprints.

Where do you think they might have gotten the data? Home grown may be?

I don't think they've got the data. What they did was to go through the entire design piece by piece, add in data that they got from somewhere else (read Vyacheslav Danilenko's equations) and came up with the modified designs. Others reading the IAEA report have concluded that Iran has already done a zero yield test. It certainly is very well possible but I have not seen any credible reports of it.

[RoccoR]

Doktor, et al,

You bring-up a very good point.

USA has signed multiple documents with the state of Israel, besides many things they are one of the original Major Non NATO Allies to USA.
IDK what is to be gained or loosed in high politics, but in my world when one of your allies is not on the map any more, your word is worth nothing.

(COMMENT)

Israel is not a "Major Power;" ie self-sustaining. It is a "Nuclear Ambiguous" Regional Power, beyond treaties and the international law.

Yes, there is an argument to be made that, with respect to Israel, that the US has painted itself into a corner. Israel is the albatross around the neck of the US. It has to sustain Israel, no matter the cost - and no matter the cause. It is Israel, right or wrong (Part II, Article 8, Section 2b(viii), ICC).

But regionally, the reputation of the US could hardly get much worse. It is not the voice of democracy, and it is not the voice of peace or justice. So, for the US, it is a lose-lose situation. It must protect the remaining support bases for the hegemony at all cost. If Iran became the Regional Power, and the Dominant Resident in the Gulf, the US would lose the last of its major stations in the region and that portion of the hegemony would collapse.

You have a very good argument. The question becomes, would the US go to war over the dominance in the Gulf. Would the GCC want war to break-out if it might jeopardize oil facilities in the Gulf?

And, what would the US reputation be with the GCC (Oil Producers) if the war hurt GCC members?

Most Respectfully,
R

[JAD_333]

But regionally, the reputation of the US could hardly get much worse.

Rocco:

How do you quantify reputation? Do you have any citations, polls?

[Doktor]

Rocco

Yes, there is an argument to be made that, with respect to Israel, that the US has painted itself into a corner. Israel is the albatross around the neck of the US. It has to sustain Israel, no matter the cost - and no matter the cause. It is Israel, right or wrong (Part II, Article 8, Section 2b(viii), ICC).

I thought USA had it's own remarks on the Rome Statute.

But regionally, the reputation of the US could hardly get much worse. It is not the voice of democracy, and it is not the voice of peace or justice. So, for the US, it is a lose-lose situation. It must protect the remaining support bases for the hegemony at all cost. If Iran became the Regional Power, and the Dominant Resident in the Gulf, the US would lose the last of its major stations in the region and that portion of the hegemony would collapse.

If something can't go worse, how doing or not doing anything is lose-lose situation? I mean, after all, you've hit the bottom. It is only natural to do what is in your (and preferably, your friends) best interest now and sort the situation later.

You have a very good argument. The question becomes, would the US go to war over the dominance in the Gulf. Would the GCC want war to break-out if it might jeopardize oil facilities in the Gulf?

The way I understand it, the countries in the region with firm ties to USA prefer US hegemony over Iranian one. At least for the moment. If the war (as the last resort - as usual) is inevitable would it be better for USA to just give up the region in which they invested so much over the years? All that without a fight.

And, what would the US reputation be with the GCC (Oil Producers) if the war hurt GCC members?

A war in the ME will hurt many countries not directly involved in the process (mine included, or Mexico, or Malaysia while we are at countries starting on "M")

As for the GCC, the price of oil will rise and they will get compensated. As a matter of fact they are already compensated with all this waiting making the stock exchanges nervous. What about the other countries?

[Double Edge]

"Right, wonder where S2 got that from."

Out of the thin blue air. Iran has not, to my knowledge, admitted such. I stand corrected.

There are oblique references by various Iranian leaders that cloud the picture here.

Your SWJ article indicated an interview with the Shah where it could be construed that he would be in favour of them but this perception was denied immediately. The US ambassador at the time stated he had no reason to believe it.

Rafsanjani has said in a sermon that nukes might be useful. The same has also been attributed to one of the ayatollahs, Yezdi Mesbah, (A-Jad's mentor) in a booklet mentioning a 'certain special kind of weapon'.

These are not direct statements by the regime, they require some creative manipulation to create a perception. So I would be of the opinion that Iran has not made any official admissions to this effect.

[RoccoR]

JAD_333; et al,

Yes, it is a valid question. One is experiential. I served in the Middle East/Persian Gulf - 7 out of the last 10 years. I returned last August. There are to levels of reputation.

• Official Government relations at the "Ruling Level."
• The relationship by the Indigenous Population outside the government.

How do you quantify reputation? Do you have any citations, polls?

(COMMENT)

Now I could answer based on my personal experience; but I suppose that is much to circumspect as biased.

But there are a number of indicators:

These surveys chronicled the rise of anti-Americanism around the world for much of the past decade. Favorable ratings of the U.S. plunged in many countries following the invasion of Iraq and remained low through 2008. In 2009, we began to document a revival of America's global image in many parts of the world reflecting confidence in its new president, Barack Obama.

Exemplar SOURCE #1: Restoring America's Reputation in the World - Pew Research Center
by Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center
March 4, 2010

In other words, President Bush voiced support for regional democrats and then withdrew it and scuttled back behind the usual Arab authoritarian enforcers. In so doing, he helped bring the United States’ reputation in the Middle East to a historic low point. America’s power and ability to shape events in the region was significantly diminished.

Exemplar SOURCE #2: Middle East Progress » Blog Archive » Understanding bin Laden
May 5, 2011
By Matt Duss, AMERICAN PROGRESS PROJECTS

As the very first witness in a 10-hearing series with pollsters and regional analysts told the Subcommittee—“We have never seen numbers this low.”

June 11, 2008
The first of three reports on America’s International Image (covering Decline,
Impact on U.S. National Interests, and Recommendations) by the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND OVERSIGHT of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Exemplar SOURCE #3: http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/42566.pdf

The ongoing conflict is a major factor in the region’s instability, and American backing of Israel is a reason that many Arab nations distrust or despise the U.S., said Saudi native Zaki Safar, president of the CSU Muslim Student Association.

“(President George Herbert Walker Bush) said (U.S. forces) went into the Gulf War because they wanted to kick Saddam out of Kuwait,” Safar said Monday evening. “But if you look at Palestine, Israel has occupied Palestine since 1967, yet the U.S. is turning a blind eye to that – it’s a double-standard.”

Exemplar SOURCE #4: Rocky Mountain Collegian: CSU Muslim: U.S. policy to blame « ArabianSaudi Blog

US Iraq embassy, plotting base in ME
PressTV - US Iraq embassy, plotting base in ME
Dec 19, 2011 – The Middle East analyst said the US reputation during Iraq war has been gravely tarnished throughout the Middle East region.

Quasi-Exemplar #5

These are only indicators over time. Now there is an anomaly. The reputation of US Forces among nations has gone "up" (government level) not down.

The Official Home Page of the United States Army | The United States Army › News Archives Feb 10, 2012 – REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala. -- The reputation of the U.S. and its Army stands tall with foreign governments.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

Doktor, et al,

I thought USA had it's own remarks on the Rome Statute.

(COMMENT)

First, came the official remarks, then the US "unsigned" the treaty.

United States and the International Criminal Court — Global Issues
United States and the International Criminal Court 1998 – This part of the globalissues.org web site looks at the issue of U.S. resistance to the International ... The unsigned the Rome Statue in May 2002.

WHY UNITED STATES “UNSIGNED” THE ICC'S ROME STATUTE
www.bentleymun.org/backgroundPapers/ICCandUS.doc File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
WHY UNITED STATES “UNSIGNED” THE ICC'S ROME STATUTE .... [27] When the Rome Statue was being drafted, many of the negotiating countries were ...

If something can't go worse, how doing or not doing anything is lose-lose situation? I mean, after all, you've hit the bottom. It is only natural to do what is in your (and preferably, your friends) best interest now and sort the situation later.

(COMMENT)

While the reputation cannot get much worse, the security and stability of the region can deteriorate further. Of particular interest is the vulnerability of the oil infrastructure.

The way I understand it, the countries in the region with firm ties to USA prefer US hegemony over Iranian one. At least for the moment. If the war (as the last resort - as usual) is inevitable would it be better for USA to just give up the region in which they invested so much over the years? All that without a fight.

(COMMENT)

It depends on the scope of the battle damage and the impact on the economies:

• US domestic economy.
• Global Energy economy.

A war in the ME will hurt many countries not directly involved in the process (mine included, or Mexico, or Malaysia while we are at countries starting on "M")

(COMMENT)

I am in complete agreement. But to some degree, the amount of pain and the severity of the damage to international economies can be mitigated.

One might ask, which aspect deserves the greater concern.

• The US position on sovereignty relative to Iranian R&D (weapons or energy).
• An undefined threat against Israel.
• The potential adverse impact on the international economies dependent on the oil flow out of the region. (Potential damage to Oil Production Infrastructure).

As for the GCC, the price of oil will rise and they will get compensated. As a matter of fact they are already compensated with all this waiting making the stock exchanges nervous. What about the other countries?

(COMMENT)

So, is there a possibility the the cost of energy (gas and oil) can go further upward? Or, are we expecting that a regional war will not have a further adverse impact?

Most Respectfully,
R

[Doktor]

Rocco,

First, came the official remarks, then the US "unsigned" the treaty.

There was no way it will pass the Congress as Clinton knew when he signed it (but still did), he even told Bush not to go to Congress with the ratification.
There is a problem with US Constitution and the ICC jurisdiction.
I read your attachment and still fail to find any link with USA "unsigning" it as a sign of support of the State of Israel (your mentioning of Part II, Article 8, Section 2b(viii), ICC).

While the reputation cannot get much worse, the security and stability of the region can deteriorate further.

The way I see it it is a similar situation like in Yugoslavia: you have isolated the bad guys - Iran (Serbs), friendly guys - Israel, KSA, UAE, Bahrain... (Slovenes, Croats, Albanians) and neutrals - Egypt, Jordan... (Macedonians, Bosnians...).
All fared better then the Serbs and now approve US policies on the Balkans during the '90s. Even Serbs are opened to the west now.

Of particular interest is the vulnerability of the oil infrastructure.

The oil infrastructure is not on par with Iranian potential. It should and will be updated by the highest bidder. After the dust will fall of course.

If you are referring to ME infrastructure as a whole, I'd guess most of it will be secured from attacks prior the raids (if any). Hence the increasing military presence in the region.

It depends on the scope of the battle damage and the impact on the economies:

• US domestic economy.
• Global Energy economy.

How does the current stalemate reflect on the said economies? It's not the only factor, but recently is very popular when the crude oil price is in question.

I am in complete agreement. But to some degree, the amount of pain and the severity of the damage to international economies can be mitigated.

How? We can't influence the events, and we don't/wont receive subsidies to cover the price difference:red:
At the moment the petrol at the gas stations is 60% more expensive over here compared to the prices from 2010 (2 years), while overal inflation is 2%/a.

One might ask, which aspect deserves the greater concern.
[*]The US position on sovereignty relative to Iranian R&D (weapons or energy).

US had no issue to made a surgical strike on a Major ally soil.
Had no problem supporting allies attacking another nation, too. Without Congress approval.
Both occurred under current administration.

[*]An undefined threat against Israel.

How is it undefined? They support terrorist organizations against Israel.

[*]The potential adverse impact on the international economies dependent on the oil flow out of the region. (Potential damage to Oil Production Infrastructure).

You think there will be a disruption in the supply?
Then what's the purpose of strategic oil reserves (every country has them), pipelines, and the armada stocking near the strait?

So, is there a possibility the the cost of energy (gas and oil) can go further upward? Or, are we expecting that a regional war will not have a further adverse impact?

Yep, the costs will go up. But when? The costs of oil went up prior the start of Iraq war in February 2003, and were declining during the operation. In May 2003 they were as low as in Oct/Nov 2002. (20% lower compared to start of the operation). Then hit the roof in July 2008.

At the moment they are going up, up, up, for 3 years in a row and counting all while the troops are going home.

Can you link directly the price of oil with the military operations? I can't.

[RoccoR]

Doktor, et al,

Again, I know that I hold a minority opinion here. But I think it contains points that need to be said.

There was no way it will pass the Congress as Clinton knew when he signed it (but still did), he even told Bush not to go to Congress with the ratification.

There is a problem with US Constitution and the ICC jurisdiction.
I read your attachment and still fail to find any link with USA "unsigning" it as a sign of support of the State of Israel (your mentioning of Part II, Article 8, Section 2b(viii), ICC).

(COMMENT)

The US is not openly going to admit that it cannot sign the Treaty because it would promote the position and give credence to the supposition that Israel is engaged in War Crime activity.

Most Americans don't even know that it is an International War Crime to:

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

For a US Politician to sign on board with this, would be political suicide. AIRPAC would tear them apart. No, they have to come up with another reason. Constitutionality was that out. And it fits the US Policy perfectly.

Certainly, neither the Administration, Congress or the Israelis want Part II, Article 8, Section 2b(viii), ICC, to become a domestic debate issue; especially around Election time.

As a matter of fact, I don't either. I don't support it for reasons related to the way US Forces are used. They could become subject to the ICC and that would be rather inconvenient.

The way I see it it is a similar situation like in Yugoslavia: you have isolated the bad guys - Iran (Serbs), friendly guys - Israel, KSA, UAE, Bahrain... (Slovenes, Croats, Albanians) and neutrals - Egypt, Jordan... (Macedonians, Bosnians...).
All fared better then the Serbs and now approve US policies on the Balkans during the '90s. Even Serbs are opened to the west now.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. We intervened. And Camp Bondsteel is still there. But your point is well taken.

The oil infrastructure is not on par with Iranian potential. It should and will be updated by the highest bidder. After the dust will fall of course.

If you are referring to ME infrastructure as a whole, I'd guess most of it will be secured from attacks prior the raids (if any). Hence the increasing military presence in the region.

(COMMENT)
Like I said, I was there, in the Region, when a terrorist suicide bomber attacked a Saudi facility. And although it was a complete failure, oil prices did spike.

If a strike is made against Iran, we will be extremely lucky if Iran does not consider it an "Act of War;" extremely lucky. It will have its consequences. And static facilities, even the ones in the Persian Gulf, that are heavily protected, are still vulnerable. They are not invincible and impervious to a concerted effect by a regional power. While Iran is not likely to close the Straits, it can tie-up a considerable number of resources in its defense, while using other assets it has at it disposal, to focus on Gulf oil facilities. It is like a huge professional boxer that can only defend, against an inferior, much small opponent. Given enough tries, a punch is bound to break through. These facilities are in more danger than is commonly believed.

How does the current stalemate reflect on the said economies? It's not the only factor, but recently is very popular when the crude oil price is in question.

(COMMENT)

The stalemate, at least, retards the rate of increase in the price of oil. Given the advanced state of the rhetoric, and the threats of an attack, the price will be gradually driven upward as the belief in an imminent attack(s) becomes more plausible. This cannot be helped, since military action is often used as the means of arbitration; particularly when the US is involved.

How? We can't influence the events, and we don't/wont receive subsidies to cover the price difference:red:
At the moment the petrol at the gas stations is 60% more expensive over here compared to the prices from 2010 (2 years), while overal inflation is 2%/a.

(COMMENT)

I agree. And I don't see any action that the US can take, political, commercially, or militarily, that will improve the economic conditions in cost control. However, if the US allows war to break-out, it can set the conditions for prices to further rise and at an enormous rate. The US can make it much worse than it is; but it is rather questionable if it can influence factors that will improve the conditions and lower prices. We (the US) need to take a lesson and "first do no harm."

US had no issue to made a surgical strike on a Major ally soil.
Had no problem supporting allies attacking another nation, too. Without Congress approval.
Both occurred under current administration.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. Both have occurred. To what end!

I can put forth any number of anecdotal successes in action and policy. But at the end of the day, what is the true nature of the accomplishment? Did America help build a better global economy? Did America set the conditions that showed improvement in Regional Peace? Has the cost of oil improved anywhere in the world? Is the domestic economy any better and has the critical infrastructures improved to any significant degree?

Attack is easy. The consequence and aftermath are much harder to deal with for most Americans. After the parades, the political speeches, the chest thumping, and the news sound-bites; after all the self praising - how much better off are Americans (the middle class) who pays the bills?

How is it undefined? They support terrorist organizations against Israel.

(COMMENT)

[Spoken Softly and Respectfully]: Oh come-on now!

Just about every nation in the Middle East and Persian Gulf has elements within the Regime that support organizations labeled as terrorist. From Saudi Princes, to the Arab on the street (anywhere) support organizations labeled as terrorist, if they are not a member themselves.

There is an aspect here, peculiar to Iran (IRGC-QF & MOIS) that I am concerned about (a concern I've mentioned in previous postings), a very dangerous aspect to their profile.

But as Hamas and Hezbollah goes, they are not hard to find. Hell, they have signs up as to where they are. In many respects, if they are not quasi-governments receiving US Aid, they are considered benevolent social assistance elements by the indigenous populations. If they were really a threat to US interests, we know where to go find them. Oh hell, a blind, rookie, Counterintelligence Agent with a seeing-eye dog, could track them down. They are listed in the phone book for crying out loud. Hell, in the last month, the US held talks with Fatah-Hamas over the aid issue.

No, no, no! Terrorism support, related to these guys is a complicated issue. If you could walk through the al-Bekka Valley, you might get an eye opening.

You think there will be a disruption in the supply?
Then what's the purpose of strategic oil reserves (every country has them), pipelines, and the armada stocking near the strait?

(COMMENT)

Yes, understood. Good point. If the US is forced to open the Strategic Oil Reserves, the price of gas will become UNaffordable by the Middle Class.

Yes, I think if Iran is subject to an Act of War, they will make operations in the Gulf very difficult. They may not close the straits, but in addition to striking oil facilities, they will draw-in so many military vessels in the Straits, that you'll need a damn NYPD Traffic cop to sort-out the tangled mess; or place vessel traffic at risk (further driving prices up).

Yep, the costs will go up. But when? The costs of oil went up prior the start of Iraq war in February 2003, and were declining during the operation. In May 2003 they were as low as in Oct/Nov 2002. (20% lower compared to start of the operation). Then hit the roof in July 2008.

(COMMENT)

Yeh, I would, on occasion, be in a position to watch the tankers roll in to the transfer points. But the Iraq engagement only directly involved Iraq (Iraqi-on-Iraqi). It did not widen the conventional aspect of the conflict to an open war with Iran; although there was an asymmetric component that was driven by al-Maliki and his need for al-Sadr. I was in Baghdad during Easter 2008 for the great bombardment. I recall it the hard way.

At the moment they are going up, up, up, for 3 years in a row and counting all while the troops are going home.

Can you link directly the price of oil with the military operations? I can't.

(COMMENT)

The price of oil is driven by many factors. Military operations is just one of them. But anything that effects "risk" is a factor. I guarantee you, if a strike is made on Iran, the price will spike. If one (just one) oil facility is hit inside the region by the Iranians, the price will spike. If multiple facilities are hit, the cost will be enormous.

Most Respectfully,
R

[JAD_333]

JAD_333; et al,

Yes, it is a valid question. One is experiential. I served in the Middle East/Persian Gulf - 7 out of the last 10 years. I returned last August. There are to levels of reputation.

• Official Government relations at the "Ruling Level."
• The relationship by the Indigenous Population outside the government.

This interested me, and I wonder if our withdrawal did have a positive effect on our reputation in the ME, although in my opinion, our low rating was more an expression of anger than anything else.

Residents' Views on Actions the U.S. Can Take to Improve Its Image: In 2008, Gallup asked residents in 10 predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa to rate the extent to which various actions might significantly improve their opinions of the United States. In addition to asking about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, respondents were asked to rate actions related to economic development, technology, poverty, and governance*.

Overall, residents in eight of the countries surveyed are most likely to say the United States' withdrawal from Iraq would improve their opinion very significantly. However, opinions about the different actions vary within the region.

[ATTACH]28891[/ATTACH]

Opinion Briefing: U.S. Image in Middle East/North Africa

From another poll, I see that the US remains the favorite destination for immigrants even among ME populations. Just look at how many taxi drivers in Washington, DC, come from the ME.

In any case, Gallup did a follow-up poll in 2010 showing US image had improved but still was only in the 30% range overall. I don't know of any recent polls; it would be interesting to see whet the numbers are post-Iraq withdrawal.

[RoccoR]

JAD_333, et al,

There is a difference between the reputation America has in terms of life style and opportunity; and the reputation America has as a World Leader driven by policy implementation.

This interested me, and I wonder if our withdrawal did have a positive effect on our reputation in the ME, although in my opinion, our low rating was more an expression of anger than anything else.

From another poll, I see that the US remains the favorite destination for immigrants even among ME populations. Just look at how many taxi drivers in Washington, DC, come from the ME.

In any case, Gallup did a follow-up poll in 2010 showing US image had improved but still was only in the 30% range overall. I don't know of any recent polls; it would be interesting to see whet the numbers are post-Iraq withdrawal.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the US Withdrawal from Iraq was a positive step in terms of its reputation. As the rationale for the US Intervention evolved and changed over time, the component that fostered the idea that intervention was necessary to protect the regional neighbors from Iraqi Aggression became less and less valid.

While the indigenous populations might view the US withdrawal in a positive sense, the US still taints it reputation by its military presence in the Gulf; and its threat to use its power to shore-up US Interests. The withdrawal itself will not significantly move the regional populations to a greater approval of America as a World Leader. And the more America comes to believe that Israel is a non-negotiable and essential priority among US Interests, the less the indigenous populations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf will appreciate US Foreign Policy and Intervention.

Most Respectfully,
R

[S2]

RoccoR Reply

"...the US still taints it reputation by its military presence in the Gulf; and its threat to use its power to shore-up US Interests..."

Would you prefer if we maintained a military presence in the Gulf but definitively declared that under no circumstance would those forces be used to "...shore-up US Interests..."?

Or perhaps you'd prefer we withdraw our forces and cede the Gulf altogether to our Iranian friends?

For the record, I suspect the latter.

[RoccoR]

S2, et al,

This is a very critical point.

"...the US still taints it reputation by its military presence in the Gulf; and its threat to use its power to shore-up US Interests..."

Would you prefer if we maintained a military presence in the Gulf but definitively declared that under no circumstance would those forces be used to "...shore-up US Interests..."?

Or perhaps you'd prefer we withdraw our forces and cede the Gulf altogether to our Iranian friends?

For the record, I suspect the latter.

(COMMENT)

For the US to be perceived as a positive influence, the indigenous populations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf have to actually see the US act in their best interest and not solely the best interest of the US; even if it cost us something. America has to demonstrate the characteristics of a leader. It must show that America -not only can be courageous - but is courageous enough to act in a fair and honorable way with the entire neighborhood; including Iran. Courage is not simply the use of force, and heroism on the battlefield. America must rebuild the trust of the entire neighborhood. That is where the real authority of American leadership sits; that is how America extends its influences.

Maybe now is not the right time for Iran to be given the responsibility of the Persian Gulf; but, that does not mean that - given the right influences through demonstrated leadership, it cannot be in the future.

The military Force in the Persian Gulf is a deterrent factor, not an enforcement tool. It is there to maintain the "peace" --- not to start a "war."

Most Respectfully,
R

[S2]

RoccoR Reply

"...Maybe now is not the right time for Iran to be given the responsibility of the Persian Gulf..."

Ya think?

"...Maybe..." leaves some room for doubt though, eh?

"...that does not mean that - given the right influences through demonstrated leadership, it cannot be in the future..."

Oh wow. NOW I've read everything. Why would you even expend the energy to suggest such?

You do appreciate the insidious role Iran has played in Syria? How about its own adventures in Iraq, where the streets have been littered by the bodies of those unfortunate enough to intersect with an Iranian-manufactured EFP? Lebanon and the gentle guiding spirit of Ayaltollah Nasrallah and his merry band of Hezbollans?

The list goes on but here-at WAB, you promote a kinder, gentler, thousand-points-of-light Iranian beacon of hope for all.

It COULD happen.;)

Yeah, and my aunt could grow balls and become my uncle.

So...tell me, oh wise one-how do those sheep-in-wolves-clothing Iranians get there from here.

Oh! Before answering, you still haven't suggested your preference. Should we unambiguously declare that U.S. forces stationed in the gulf shall never use force in the defense of American interests or simply...withdraw?

Lot of groovy words about "courage" and "honor" and "fair" that you tossed about but I sensed you tap-dancing around my question. I'd love an answer.

Here's hoping that's not asking too much.:)

[Parihaka]

[B]

Oh! Before answering, you still haven't suggested your preference. Should we unambiguously declare that U.S. forces stationed in the gulf shall never use force in the defense of American interests or simply...withdraw?

Lot of groovy words about "courage" and "honor" and "fair" that you tossed about but I sensed you tap-dancing around my question. I'd love an answer.

Here's hoping that's not asking too much.:)

he's already stated his preference

Dreadnought, et al,

Please don't think for a minute that we did NOT waste that money. We did!

Not one of those countries is going to come to our aid - in any substantive way, should be need it.
(COMMENT)

None of the Persian Gulf States or Arabian Sea Neighbors wants us there. The Fifth Fleet is there because we wanted a Naval Support Base in the region, assuming our plans in Iraq worked-out. But they haven't. We could save a lot of money if we abandon the entire region and let the indigenous populations settle their own affairs.

That is just my thought,
R

His comments in the rest of that thread are equally interesting