An interesting article and perspective, but rife with misconceptions resulting from not understanding the role of the neocons in the current administration or the US perspective on Iran.

The first error is thinking that neocons control US policy. While there are neocons in the administration, the administration is basically being run on the principles of a more traditional strong-defense conservative model. The neocons are there because PNAC provided a source for skilled personnel with a philosophy partially compatible with that of the administration. That's why folks like Dick Cheney signed on with PNAC. It doesn't mean that someone like Cheney who's an old school hardliner believes in the full menu of craziness PNAC promotes.
US self-interest, especially business interests are going to continue to dominate policy.

Bush and his neocon buddies might not even care all that much for changing Iranian regime.

Bingo. Bush and most of America don't give a rat's ass what happens in Iran and especially don't care aobut Ahmedinejad. IF they can be 'chastised' for their behavior without risking too many US lives beyond what's already going on in Iraq it won't be that hard a sell.

If an attack on Iran is in the cards it doesn't necessarily need to wait until after November. If the provocation is sufficient to make it look justified then a bombing attack might be a help in the election. All it would take is a good Hezbollah attack on Americans - perhaps those helping out with evacuations in Lebanon and such a mission would be a go. The military is already working on plans to pull more troops out of Iraq and redeploy them in places like Lebanon.

As for Iranian reprisals, since we're already effectively in a state of war with Iran, and they have already repeatedly attacked us, through surrogates in the world terror network and in Iraq, what would be different about future reprisals from what they're already trying to do? All of the things you mention are already happening.

As for attacks on oil tankers, that's not an issue for the US anymore. The recent increase in oil prices has demonstrated several very important things. First, Americans didn't cut back buying because of higher prices. The highest estimates suggest oil purchases declined no more than 3%. This means that oil companies didn't lose any money, in fact they gained money because of higher prices without even having to profiteer, because their profits are based on a percentage of the base price and if the base price goes up then their perentage brings in more money, and most people in the US seem to understand this. So if shortages make more money for the oil companies and make Iran look evil, it's a win-win situation for the administration. The only losers are the American people, but even they don't really lose out, because higher oil prices will accelerate the transition to alternative fuels and more efficient engines and that benefits them in the long run.

You suggest that instability in the middle east is viewed as 'manageable' by the neocons. That's dead wrong. It's totally undesirable from the neocon perspective. Their ideology requires stable governments which can be subverted into their hegemony. Chaos is anathema to their philosophy. However, since the neocons are just along with the ride here, that's largely irrelevant. Instability may serve the purposes of the more traditional warhawks in the US, because the more people in the middle east are fighting each other the less of a threat they are to us.

Personally, I'm quite convinced that a US led attack on Iran will most likely end up harming US interests in the long run. It will almost certainly further damage their standing and influence in the Middle East,

I think that at this point the administration doesn't care about standing and influence in the middle east. For their opinion of us to matter they need to have something we want. That may no longer be the case.

further bankrupt the nation,

The cost of a bombing campaign in Iran is negligible compared to the cost of the War in Iraq, and I guarantee an argument will be made - with some validity - that if we can bomb Iran to its knees their efforts in Iraq will be weakened.

and will probably decrease their own security.

Highly speculative. What more could an Iran in chaos do than they aren't doing already?

The Bush Neocons haven't altered their basic policy and are still committed to completely reshaping the politics of the region.

The neocon policy was abandonned more than two years ago when it failed in Iraq. PNAC is falling apart and the neocons are fighting among themselves and redefining their philosophy on the fly. At this point it's much more likely that a traditionall warhawk mentality will come to dominate, and in that view winning doesn't mean hearts and minds, it means scorched earth.

Dave

lets call a spade a spade and admit world domination or just staying one step ahead of the pack is the order of the day for the U.S. and its the same case whoever you are Iran, Isreal or Korea. Its the underhand tactics that are employed to achieve this objective that causes so many problems.

"I have NEVER written macho war-speak."
- Dave Nalle (several past BC comments)

"The cost of a bombing campaign in Iran is negligible compared to the cost of the War in Iraq, and I guarantee an argument will be made - with some validity - that if we can BOMB IRAN TO ITS KNEES their efforts in Iraq will be weakened."
- Dave Nalle (comment #1, above)

Umm ya Iran would likely respond by using oil as a weapon. You underestimate the impact on oil markets and what the Iranians are capable of. If Iran sinks a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz-or many tankers, war shios etc... it would block shipments of oil, it is a NARROW strait. Im no engineer but I imagine rasing and removing the wreckage from one of those bad boys would be difficult, time consuming and likely not much fun as Iranian mortar rounds rain down on the fixup crew. Another target is other oil installations in the region, the Iranians have already said they could attack the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia since theyre just US puppet regimes anyway. Im no oil expert but can you imagine the impact of a few missiles lobbed at say I dunno the BIGGEST OIL REFINERY in Saudi Arabia? Oil could easily go to $100 initially on any Iran nuke installation bombing regardless of how smooth it goes. Dont forget that its HURRICANE SEASON! until end of october, so say a another reasonably large one hits the Gulf, well right there oil could hit $100 on that alone before the Iran invasion would begin. then youre talking perhaps $150 a barrel in that scenario, dont kid yourself gasoline could easily go to $5 a gallon for starters, and you might have to line up and wait a couple hours for it too. As for Irans influence in the region, they could stir up trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq and make an even bigger mess of those places.

"...the recent massively disproportional response by Israel ..."

I have heard this so many times the last few days, especially on the BBC, that it provokes comment.

First of all, no one was calling for a 'ceasefire' when Hizbollah was happily shelling Israeli civilian cities, like Haifa. Nor when they were kidnapping Israeli soldiers, a tactic which still puzzles me. So, those who call NOW for ceasefire are suspicious, to me, anyway. IMO, they just want a hudna to give Hizbolah a breather to rearm.

And if the Israeli response to Hizbollahs provocations is 'disproportional', what would be proportional? Suppose there are 5 million Israelis and 100 million enemies, would that mean Israel could kill 100 enemies for every 5 Israelis that the enemies kill? That would be proportional.

No. I suspect that the answer would be that the Israelis can kill NO enemies regardless of how many Israelis the enemies kill.

What say you, Mr Shah, as to what would be 'proportional'?

What about Israel shelling the UN post and killing 4 people?-Mind you thats much less than the last tim ethey bombed it. What about the big celebrations around the anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel this past week, all the neocons were wooping it up, what about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967? You condemn Hezbollah but what do you say about this? hypocrite.

Step up to the plate, Geno, and tell me what reaction you would have permitted the Israelis.

MCH, you still seem to be incapable of telling the difference between my description of the beliefs of others and my own viewpoint.

Dave

"The cost of a bombing campaign in Iran is negligible compared to the cost of the War in Iraq..."
- Dave Nalle

Nalle, you still seem incapable of telling the difference between typing rhetoric safely on a keyboard 10,000 miles from the action, and the realities of the horrors of war.

It's easy to spout-off about "negligible cost," when the closest you've ever come to action is shooting stray dogs in your backyard.

MCH, I can count. Can you?

Attacking Iraq - hundreds of billions of dollars and 2500+ American lives.
Bombing Iran - a few billion and no American lives.

Do you disagree with my assessment of the costs?

Now. How the hell can you interpret my simple statement of neutral fact as an endorsement of an attack on Iran? Even taken completely out of context as you have done, it's just a description, not an endorsement. And in context I made it entirely clear that I DO NOT support bombing Iran.

Feel free to harass me for things I've said, but stop making these bullshit personal attacks based on twisted misinterpretations. I realize you get off on the attention, but it's idiotic.

Dave

Did anyone hear about the Ilyushin-76 full of guns that landed in Mogadishu yesterday?
At the end of the day, no matter who gets bombed next in the Gulf, it looks like us and the Israelis are in a race back to square one.

Bliffle,

The vast majority of reasonable people on the planet see Israel's response as disproportional. I won't bother repeating their arguments, I'll just give you a few links to some of their arguments.
thewashingtonnote.com
vdare.com
counterpunch.org

Shah. The vast majority of sensible people see israel as defending itself against terrorists. Your friends at counterpunch aren't sensible people by any normal measure and you are an apologist for murderers.

Lumpy,
So you dismiss something immediately based on the fact it's on a website you've been told to mistrust. Now, that's the sign of an open mind ;-)

So anyone who's critical of Israel intentionally bombing innocent civlians is an 'apologist for murderers'. That's quite the logic you demonstrate there. Impressive.

From the tone of your message I'm guessing you're watching the coverage of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon with great satisfaction. You're the one cheering on murder not me. You're the one who unquestioningly regurgitates spoon-fed opinions without any apparent grasp of the situation. Silly creature.

The first error is thinking that neocons control US policy. While there are neocons in the administration, the administration is basically being run on the principles of a more traditional strong-defense conservative model.

This I couldn't disagree with you more about. The Bush administration has shown signs of imbalanced Neocon type thinking and influence from the very beginning. If his administration follows 'a traditional strong-defense model', how do you explain the rejection of his foreign policy from many of the oldest and most respected Conservative figures out there from the Reagan and Nixon and even his fathers administrations- William F. Buckley, Ken Phillips, John Dean, Brent Scowcroft, Paul O'Neill, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Clyde Prestowitz, Colin Powell etc. etc. Hardly the record of a 'traditional' conservative.

cbsnews.com

washingtonpost.com

US self-interest, especially business interests are going to continue to dominate policy.

There's some truth to this, but there is compelling evidence to suggest they decided on attacking Iran. See Seymour Hersh and James Bamford. Also, they've committed themselves to a program of 'reshaping' the region, they haven't shown any real signs of being able to shift gears, why do you expect them to do it now?

As for Iranian reprisals, since we're already effectively in a state of war with Iran, and they have already repeatedly attacked us, through surrogates in the world terror network and in Iraq, what would be different about future reprisals from what they're already trying to do?

To me this statement seems like massive exaggeration and/or outright distortion of the facts. What is your evidence for this?

As for attacks on oil tankers, that's not an issue for the US anymore. The recent increase in oil prices has demonstrated several very important things. First, Americans didn't cut back buying because of higher prices. The highest estimates suggest oil purchases declined no more than 3%. This means that oil companies didn't lose any money, in fact they gained money because of higher prices without even having to profiteer, because their profits are based on a percentage of the base price and if the base price goes up then their perentage brings in more money, and most people in the US seem to understand this. So if shortages make more money for the oil companies and make Iran look evil, it's a win-win situation for the administration. The only losers are the American people, but even they don't really lose out, because higher oil prices will accelerate the transition to alternative fuels and more efficient engines and that benefits them in the long run.

You profoundly underestimate how important the price of oil is the US economy. If supply is substantially disrupted for long period and oil hits $200 a barrel or so, it will have a terrible economic effect on the US. Very high levels of inflation and a huge shock to the American consumer. There would be a very high probabilty of stagflation since there would be less money for consumers to spend and the US economy is very dependent on this. It would be politically disasterous and possibly could possibly even trigger a depression or hyperinflation (depending on the policiies of the Fed) not only in the US but other countries as well. Developing alternative fuel/energy takes several years and massive investments in infrastructure and research, it wouldn't be able to mitigate the loss of oil in any reasonable time horizon.

But you'e right in that much of the anger internationally would be directed towards Iran. As I argue in the article, this is why I don't think the Iranian's would persist in disrupting this essential supply.

You suggest that instability in the middle east is viewed as 'manageable' by the neocons. That's dead wrong. It's totally undesirable from the neocon perspective. Their ideology requires stable governments which can be subverted into their hegemony.

I agree that the Neocons were not wanting or expecting this level of instability in the region, however compared to other conservatives they have shown themselves to be far less cautious and willing to destabilize the status quo. So they actually have a much higher tolerance for instability in the short-medium term than traditional conservatives. In the long run their goal is hegemony and greater stability, I don't think this Neocon attitude within the Bush administration has changed much at all.

I think that at this point the administration doesn't care about standing and influence in the middle east. For their opinion of us to matter they need to have something we want. That may no longer be the case.

It definitely is the case. Oil is absolutely essential for our modern civilization to function properly. The Middle East is probably the most strategically important region for the US in the world.

The cost of a bombing campaign in Iran is negligible compared to the cost of the War in Iraq, and I guarantee an argument will be made - with some validity - that if we can bomb Iran to its knees their efforts in Iraq will be weakened.

This statement is the height of folly. Attacking Iran would almost certainly massively increase the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq. The Iranian connections to the insurgents is massively overstated in the US media since it serves to prepare the public for a campaign against Iran.

The neocon policy was abandonned more than two years ago when it failed in Iraq. PNAC is falling apart and the neocons are fighting among themselves and redefining their philosophy on the fly. At this point it's much more likely that a traditionall warhawk mentality will come to dominate, and in that view winning doesn't mean hearts and minds, it means scorched earth.

The mindless warhawk approach would be 'scorched earth', which would more than likely greatly damage US interests in every respect. The traditional conservative approach would be caution, political pressure/isolation of Iran, and ultimately no military respone in the near future, esp. when America's military and political resources are stretched so thin.

This I couldn't disagree with you more about. The Bush administration has shown signs of imbalanced Neocon type thinking and influence from the very beginning.

In the beginning, I agree. Once the neocons failed disastrously they became discredited and either changed their rhetoric to something more typical of a militaristic conservative or got booted out of the administration.

If his administration follows 'a traditional strong-defense model', how do you explain the rejection of his foreign policy from many of the oldest and most respected Conservative figures out there from the Reagan and Nixon and even his fathers administrations- William F. Buckley, Ken Phillips, John Dean, Brent Scowcroft, Paul O'Neill, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Clyde Prestowitz, Colin Powell etc. etc. Hardly the record of a 'traditional' conservative.

You think Buchanan, Powell and Buckley are 'traditional' conservatives? One's an isolationist nutcase, one's a moderate and the third is a libertarian. Dean and Scowcroft are disaffected republicans with beefs against the administration and old scores to settle. And you forget to mention some other critics of the administration - prominent neocons William Kristol, Richard Perle, Steve Forbes and Francis Fukuyama.

"US self-interest, especially business interests are going to continue to dominate policy."

There's some truth to this, but there is compelling evidence to suggest they decided on attacking Iran. See Seymour Hersh and James Bamford. Also, they've committed themselves to a program of 'reshaping' the region, they haven't shown any real signs of being able to shift gears, why do you expect them to do it now?

That 'reshaping program was abandonned completely more than 2 years ago. As for Hersh and Bamford, they're speculating wildly. An attack on Iran was almost certainly considered at some point, but there's no reason at all to expect it now.

To me this statement seems like massive exaggeration and/or outright distortion of the facts. What is your evidence for this?

My evidence for Iranian funding and support of terrorists? You have to be kidding, right? Do you not read or watch the news? Are you unfamiliar with Hizballah and the Shiite militias in Iraq? Let's see, between them they're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq and hundreds more in the Beirut Embassy bombing. I'm pretty sure they're not on our short-list of international pals.

You profoundly underestimate how important the price of oil is the US economy. If supply is substantially disrupted for long period and oil hits $200 a barrel or so, it will have a terrible economic effect on the US. Very high levels of inflation and a huge shock to the American consumer. There would be a very high probabilty of stagflation since there would be less money for consumers to spend and the US economy is very dependent on this. It would be politically disasterous and possibly could possibly even trigger a depression or hyperinflation (depending on the policiies of the Fed) not only in the US but other countries as well. Developing alternative fuel/energy takes several years and massive investments in infrastructure and research, it wouldn't be able to mitigate the loss of oil in any reasonable time horizon.

You forget that the US has the potential to produce a lot more oil than it currently does once the price goes high enough to justify alternative extraction methods and to force drilling in areas we're currently not exploiting. Yes, there would be short term hardship, but the end result would be to force the US away from this disastrous oil economy more rapidly and that would benefit the nation in the long term more than any short term inconvenience.

I agree that the Neocons were not wanting or expecting this level of instability in the region, however compared to other conservatives they have shown themselves to be far less cautious and willing to destabilize the status quo. So they actually have a much higher tolerance for instability in the short-medium term than traditional conservatives. In the long run their goal is hegemony and greater stability, I don't think this Neocon attitude within the Bush administration has changed much at all.

The attitude of the Neocons has changed towards the Bush administration, that suggests that the Neocons are displeased with the way Bush is implementing foreign policy.

This statement is the height of folly. Attacking Iran would almost certainly massively increase the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq. The Iranian connections to the insurgents is massively overstated in the US media since it serves to prepare the public for a campaign against Iran.

You're seriously paranoid here. Do you live in the US or are you actually blogging from Iran? Virtually no one in the US has any expectation of or support for an invasion of Iran, except maybe some gung-ho Iranian expatriots I know.

The mindless warhawk approach would be 'scorched earth', which would more than likely greatly damage US interests in every respect. The traditional conservative approach would be caution, political pressure/isolation of Iran, and ultimately no military respone in the near future, esp. when America's military and political resources are stretched so thin.

Who ever said there were any 'traditional conservatives' in the administration? They're hard to find anywhere these days. I was talking about old-style hawks like Rumsfeld and Chaney.

Dave

"I was talking about old-style hawks like Rumsfeld and Chaney."

But why are you including "Chaney" (sic) here, Nalle, since "old-style hawks" actually served in the military and would never use five separate deferments to dodge the draft?

OK Dave Nalle, just to respond to your "I can count, can you" which was directed at someone else:

Here's a figure for you: 1, 2, 3 hundred thousand dead Iraqi's. How can you include 2500+ US soldiers when talking about the political impact of deaths; but not include the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's due directly to the violence. Let alone the indirect effects of war.

LOL, you haven't been around the block much, have you OB. Those figures on civilian casualties have been so thoroughly debunked that very few people are willing to even bring them up anymore.

Let me throw another figure out for you - an average of 5000 dead Iraqis a month for 20 years under Saddam. Was that better?

Dave