I've seen a couple of references to this article in the news. So I'll just put this article up.
Basically, they are saying that the USA already has covert operations in Iran and they are prepping for the next invasion. Interesting idea. I've heard this rumor come and go for a while now but still no hard facts, just articles like this one.
I guess I don't see this as a plausible scenario for quite a few months if not more. Iraq needs to succeed. If the administration decided to move onto another front, many troops would need to be redeployed and may jeopardize the results in Iraq. I don't see that this would be a wise idea, in that it would stretch our present manning beyond a reasonable level.
Even if the plans are to trigger a collapse of the present Iranian government, I don't think that this gamble would be reasonable. Using just covert attacks, or remote attacks wouldn't be enough to collapse a government that may not be the most popular, but is typically rallied around in crisis situations. Especially if the attacker is seen to be the USA.
Just doesn't make sense to me that they would be setting up for another battle front. Covert actions aren't unreasonable, but the reactions to such would be undesirable to the present footing that the USA has in the area.
On the paranoid/conspiracy side, could this just be a bit of disinformation used to prod the Iranians to come to some conclusion with the EU and IAEA on the nuclear issues that they've been squabbling over for the past few months?
The EU is showing itself to be useless on the Iranian nuclear problem. They have been braying about being the counter to the power of the USA, but they can't even get Iranian negotiates to an end unless the USA plays. How do they propose to be a counter to the USA if they can't even get this done on their own? Maybe they only want to counter the USA in certain areas?
And I don't know about you, but I'm really getting tired of hearing everyone that is a civilian attached to the government that is in agreement with the administration being called a "Neocon." It appears that that brush just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I guess I don't see this as a plausible scenario for quite a few months if not more. Iraq needs to succeed. If the administration decided to move onto another front, many troops would need to be redeployed and may jeopardize the results in Iraq. I don't see that this would be a wise idea, in that it would stretch our present manning beyond a reasonable level.
Even if the plans are to trigger a collapse of the present Iranian government, I don't think that this gamble would be reasonable. Using just covert attacks, or remote attacks wouldn't be enough to collapse a government that may not be the most popular, but is typically rallied around in crisis situations. Especially if the attacker is seen to be the USA.
Just doesn't make sense to me that they would be setting up for another battle front. Covert actions aren't unreasonable, but the reactions to such would be undesirable to the present footing that the USA has in the area.
On the paranoid/conspiracy side, could this just be a bit of disinformation used to prod the Iranians to come to some conclusion with the EU and IAEA on the nuclear issues that they've been squabbling over for the past few months?
The EU is showing itself to be useless on the Iranian nuclear problem. They have been braying about being the counter to the power of the USA, but they can't even get Iranian negotiates to an end unless the USA plays. How do they propose to be a counter to the USA if they can't even get this done on their own? Maybe they only want to counter the USA in certain areas?
And I don't know about you, but I'm really getting tired of hearing everyone that is a civilian attached to the government that is in agreement with the administration being called a "Neocon." It appears that that brush just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
No comments:
Post a Comment