Rusted Sky

What we are seeing is the consolidation of power away from the mullahs and *to* the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council. This has been a slow and steady accumulation of power by the IRGC, which started like all Revolutionary Guards, as the protectors of the first revolutionaries. What happened is that they were given the oversight of continuing and spreading the revolution. This may not seem like much, but internally the mullahs have been seen as becoming more corrupt over time and drifting from that perfect standard of spreading revolution. The Iranian National Army *was* a totally separate operation outside of the IRGC, but has been brought *under* them in the last few years. The IRGC also consolidated the entire nuclear program of Iran under them and then were able to pressure the mullahs to put a leader aligned to the IRGC in place. That's Mr. Ahmadinnerjacket.

This is eerily reminiscent of 1930's Germany as the plurality National Socialists conducted a campaign to bring all State organs of power under them. What we are seeing now is the equivalent of taking the Rhineland and looking for Allied responses... of which there were none then and none *now* for this latest episode.

While the IRGC is more well educated, their fantastical belief system will make them no better and understanding the economic basis of Iran, but make them much more efficient and capable of exploiting it. Those are the changes we are now seeing in Iran: from Islamo-Fascist Non-State Imperial outlook *to* State based Fascism with revolutionary outlook and desires of expansionism Globally.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to get from here to there. History offers prime examples in Germany, Italy, USSR, China, and a host of minor Fascist States in the Middle East and S. America. And like the Germanic version I expect there to be some effort to 'purify' Iran... and it has a host of ethnicities and minority religious groups to choose from: Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchs... just to name a few. As I had pointed out a long time ago, the first place an Iranian WMD can be used is to solve the 'impurity' problem inside Iran. A Weapon of Mass Destruction has a utilitarian capability: destroying a given mass that is gathered together.

And that fits the fantastical beliefs of the mullahs and the IRGC pretty well.

At some point President Bush is going to have to decide if he wants to keep trying to win the hearts and minds of people who are never going to do anything but vilify him or if he is going to make the unpopular choices that defending this country against future atomic attack requires.

Anything built by man whose location is known can be destroyed by repeated precision attacks. We have the capability to overwhelm the Iranian air defenses and send in wave after wave of heavy bombers each one dropping its full bomb load in the crater made by the first one. No matter how deeply those centrifuges are buried eventually we'll dig our way down to them and blow them up.

Once our National Command Authority decides that America is safer with those Iranian centrifuges blown to very little bits and gives the Air Force the go ahead to start bombing their remaining useful life should be measured in days if not hours.

Of course we'll catch hell in the Media and the UN but we do that just by breathing.

otpu

"At some point President Bush is going to have to decide if he wants to keep trying to win the hearts and minds of people who are never going to do anything but vilify him or if he is going to make the unpopular choices that defending this country against future atomic attack requires."

He already is. The Bush administration is funding Sunni terrorists of all people to harrass the Iranian regime. I guess it's a matter of pay them to fight over there, so they don't follow us over here. Or something. The rhetoric is very confusing.

Suppose there is a reason that info on this program was released last week?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm

What do you call an underground facility when you collapse the exit tunnels and ceilings?

James - I believe I referred to such places during the recent Hezbollah-Israeli tussle as 'Instacrypts'. One could find them by the smell a week later.

The Iranian regime has had numerous problems with: Kurds, Azeris, Baluchs... their strange ideology is alienating the people of their Nation but the IRGC has the guns and thugs to keep things going. One really doesn't need to add much funding to these groups to get results, and some are getting only localized support from their ethnic neighbors and families.

Making a multi-ethnic Iran was a pretty bad idea post-WWI. As was breaking up the various other populations amongst Nations so as to ensure ongoing ethnic problems across the region. This is neither good nor stable in the long run or, at this point, the short run come to think of it. The problem is that Iran could convert over to a peaceful, democratic State *tomorrow* and its survival as a Nation would not be assured due to the infrastructure problems that the regime has put into place. And the fact that Syria tends to serve as a repository of knowledge and WMDs. Everyone is so concerned about Iran. No one seems concerned about their yellowcake supplier: Syria. That country has played everyone for the fool since the 1960's... USSR, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, KSA... consummate experts at being the so very necessary 'weak sister' of the Middle East while accumulating the deadliest arsenal of any Nation there, save, possibly, Israel.

AJacksonian - As with so many decidedly stupid-in-retrospect decisions in history, it 'seemed a good idea at the time' to someone to partition the ME the way they did.

Does it ever make you wonder what folks who actually pay attention to history will be saying in a hundred or two hundred years from now about our current decisions? Will they shake their heads over Bush's policies, or read with disgust about the Democrat's attempts to grab power by whatever means regardless of consequences to the country?

All because of the 'It seemed a good idea at the time' excuse. Chamberlain certainly used it... and look what happened as a result.

J.

J - The partitioners were France and Britain after WW I. Many like to point out that Pres. Wilson opposed those plans, but he had done the one thing that would not allow his views to be put on the table, nor taken seriously, at Versailles and then all the way to Lausanne - He had decided that *trade* was more important *with* the Ottoman Empire than opposing them and going fully to war against an Ally of Germany. Pres. Wilson had many fine ideas of individual homelands for various ethnicities, including the Armenians and Kurds and Azeris... He had ample warning before asking for War to be Declared that he was not asking for enough. That was in the good old days of 'deference to the President' from Congress. There were, indeed, many in Congress pushing for more... one had been President. Teddy Roosevelt... and he rightly pointed out that by not putting the backing to his convictions, that Pres. Wilson was not going to be a *part* of the peace planning.

Pres. Wilson preferred trade. France and Britain had no one that they saw as an equal partner that they would listen to. America was left out because it had left *itself* out. France and Britain did not care about ethnicities, as colonial empires are wont to do. America did, especially with the Armenian Genocide that had happened and that Wilson had heard about since 1915. He asked the Ottomans to stop in 1916... they said they had no choice but to get rid of this 'ethnic enemy'.

Remember the next time you hear someone saying that 'free trade frees people' that the Middle East comes directly from that view. We knew it was not a good idea when it was going on, but the man who ran on an Isolationist platform would *not* commit the Nation to full war to support Allies.

Taking the approach of going for 'half-a-loaf' against tyrants makes them want your half *more*. If you are not willing to fight fully, then do not go to war. There are no 'half-measures'. That is a harsh view of the world, but it has one positive track record that no appeaser can live up to: it works. Whenever you see 'war on a dimmer switch' you are looking at a failure. Better to *win* and live with those consequences and try to make something *better* than to 'not lose' and make things much, much worse. That did not work in the '80s in the ME, nor in SE Asia before that, nor on the SW border against Mexico although there had two sides looking to 'not lose' so it was a mutual affair. If you can't stomach a fight for survival then do not fight... and every single war is a fight for survival. That is what we are in now and best to treat it as such. And once you start forward you do *not* question *why* you went to war, you *win it*. Or die tryiing. Hashes can be settled after you win, and blame apportioned only *then*. If you think you can do anything else, then you are 'not losing'. The moment you put 'lose' into the concept you guarantee you will also 'not win'.

Diplomats make poor peace. Soldiers make damn good peace, as they are on the ground and know what needs to be done and *why*. Diplomats are too far removed from everyday life to have a good clue as to how their lofty views will make future trouble. Diplomats are great for trade agreements, and awful for peace negotiations unless you are surrendering...