It seems that the runup to war with Iran has begun

[Alcibiades]

Let me first say I've been wrong before. I thought the Stark incident would result in war. Every other time, though, our various military adventures have been entirely foreseeable.

There was the "takedown" of the drone in Iranian airspace. If we are regularly violating Iranian airspace, that's probably an indication that we are ramping up for something else.

And now, there's this:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Denies-American-Sentenced-to-Death-in-Iran-Was-Spying-136952333.html

An Iranian-American former Marine was arrested in Iran for, of all things, attempting to infiltrate their intellegence service. He's described as "working for a contractor that serves the Marines in the Gulf," and the White House denies he's a CIA asset. Of course, if he were, would they acknowledge this? Not bloodly likely.

Also, remember who most Iranian-Americans are: folks who fled following the fundamentalist revolution. These are not folks who have any reason to imagine that they would be well-recieved by the Iranian regime. Now imagine that you're an ex-marine who has served as a translator, and someone who works for the defense establishment in some capacity in a contractor in the Gulf. Under what circumstances would you think it's a good idea to visit your grandmother in Iran last fall?

There are all the sanctions and talk of more sanctions, and now there's this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ffcf3450-3890-11e1-9ae1-00144feabdc0.html

Iran, Israel and the US are all planning exercises in the Gulf. Good for the constitution, maybe, but not for peace.

And, of course, the usual suspects in the media are gunning hard for war.

I am sure our disinterested Allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel, are sending the administration all sorts of very disturbing news. It may be the case that Iran even has access to aluminum tubes!

How many times does this have to happen before folks realize what's going on? I support the President, and I hope he's not going to ally himself with those who would have us rush into yet another war, but, politically it makes sense. Over the next several months, the Republican contenders will spend much time accusing Obama of being soft, particularly on Iran. All he would have to do is to sieze on some provocation in September (not October, to avoid allegations that it's politically motivated) to conduct some sort of massive military operation. Then all he has to do to respond to his critics is to say "We got Osama bin Laden. Also, I struck Iranian nuclear sites/the Iranian Navy/invaded Iran. Criticism is welcome, but I'm the commander in Chief in a time of war, and we have to get the job done for the sake of our national security and that of our allies in the region."

The administation has reached a decision point. The same forces that are always trying to gin up war are doing their level best. I hope this is a temptation that he will resist, but poilitically it would be a winner, because USA #1.

[SixthSense]

1. it is extremely frustrating

being able to see it telegraphed so far in advance, calling it out, and being able to do nothing to stop it

[Alcibiades]

12. Saw the other thread you did on this today

Ought to have linked to it, as there was a good discussion there.

We have such a long history of this sort of thing: the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, the imaginary WMDs in Iraq, etc. It's amazing that no one really asks any questions about this, or thinks to note "Hey, it's obvious what you're doing: you're trying to drum up another war." Another war overseas that would have been anathema to the founders.

It's also interesting that no one really questions whether this guy really was just a civilian. How many Iranian-American Marine linguists are there who have not been recruited by the CIA? Do you really go hiking on the Iran/Iraq border on vacation? Is it OK for the US to violate the airspace of Iran?

The Iranian nuclear program makes them an ideal target, because it's a permanent casus belli. Are Iranian nukes really more destabilizing than Pakistani nukes?

More and more, watching the US conduct its foregin policy feels like watching the Kremlin during the Cold War. Mass politics does not matter, and it's all become a ritual.

[leveymg]

2. Avoid holding Presidential elections as gas hits $8/gal.

This will be no 100-day walk-over, like Gulf War I. It will be a regional bloodbath that hits home, with significant American loss of life, somewhere, in some fashion.

Not a good idea, politically, or any other way, unless you're a Neocon, or defense contractor, or oil company.

[leeroysphitz]

4. Guess who's in charge. :(

[Alcibiades]

16. You're right

Not sure, though, that long-term consequences matter much. If it looks as though the Saudis are building up some sort of reserve they can release into the market in the event of war with Iran, that woul be a good indicator. And it might be that Obama would be presented with the option of a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy whatever it is the generals and our allies in the region would most like to destroy.

Plus, USA #1. Never underestimate jingoism. There are plenty of folks in the country who are tickled pink at the idea of the US military bombing the hell out of someone, and they don't really think about consequences, so long as it blows up good.

[CanonRay]

3. I thought it was going to be last September

but it is coming, whether Israel starts it, or we do or the Iranians do it to themselves.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I honestly don't believe this will happen on Obama's watch.

Conversely I have little doubt it will happen if Republicans take the WH and Senate in November.

[DeathToTheOil]

10. I tend to agree on the first point

And have no doubt whatsoever on the second: With the sole exception of Paul, the GOP candidates are falling all over themselves in chickenhawkery.

[arcane1]

6. We are definitely poking and provoking them to an absurd degree

I sincerely hope the Iranian government is smart enough to avoid taking our bait

[RZM]

7. Quick question

Do you mean the 'Vincennes Incident' instead of the 'Stark Incident?'

The Stark was a mistake. The Iraqi pilot fired on the US ship in error. The Iraqi government later apologized and there weren't really any serious hard feelings over it.

The Vincennes was the US ship that shot down the Iranian civilian airliner. That was a pretty big deal and could have escalated further.

BTW, I've always wondered what happened to that Iraqi pilot who accidentally shot the Stark. I imagine Saddam was not happy with him.

[Alcibiades]

11. No, I meant the Stark incident

We have done some messed up stuff, but it would be pretty outrageous for us to invade Iran because we shot down one of their airliners--though sadly not unimaginable.

Not all the facts were out about the Stark incident at the time, and the usual folks were out as always to claim that we needed to retaliate. It probably helped that we were supporting Iraq against Iran at the time, so they didn't think it was in our "strategic interest." They waited five years to go ahead and invade to prop up one of our royal friends.

[sad sally]

8. Defense Secretary on Face the Nation yesterday - double-time drum beat.

The United States is not ruling anything out when it comes to dealing with Iran, including military options, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

When asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether a military response is an option in combating Iran's nuclear ambitions, Panetta said, "You don't take any options off the table."

He emphasized that current multinational diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions are the responsible response right now, but added Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear capability represent a "red line" for the United States.

"They need to know that if they take that step, that they're going to be stopped," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202951-panetta-all-options-on-the-table-for-dealing-with-iran?du

[onenote]

9. My recollection is that predictions of an imminent attack on Iran have been made here every year

for years going back at least to 2005.

Like many predictions on DU, one of these days those predictions may turn out to be true. But the track record suggests that they should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Alcibiades]

14. That's a valid point

There are plenty of folks who seem to regard the Iranian nuclear weapons program as a permanent casus belli, and so, if we take these folks to be as important as their as their own self-importance would have us believe is the case, we would have been at war with Iran already.

Yet there are now several important differences:

1. The Arab spring
With all the other regime changes, what's one more? With all the regimes that have fallen, some hawks are probably asking themselves "Why not Iran?" Also, most of the regimes that have changed were our "friends," i.e. pro US dictators who could be counted upon to support US interests. The Arab spring has created what some would see as a nightmare possibility of a pan-Shia alliance from the Med to Teheran and beyond. Some folks probably think it might be a good idea to preempt this by taking military action against Iran.

2. The end of the Iraq War
This has freed up US forces to be deployed elsewhere. Some folks see us as being in a "global war on terror," which has not ended though the current administration eschews this language. Eventually, every regime not "friendly" to US (read corporate) interests gets invaded.

3. The velocity is increasing
More stuff is happening. Events, whether created by us or Iran, keep happening at a faster pace. When was the last time Iran sentenced an former US Marine to death? I don't know, but it seems as though this might be some sort of tipping point, or ought to put us on notice that, for some reason, drones are flying over Iran and former Marine interpreters are headed there.

[Alcibiades]

15. And another acknowledgement of error

For pretty much my entire lifetime, I've been predicting the collapse of the US economy. I've been wrong more than right, until lately.

[SomethingFishy]

17. When you are young everything seems to take forever

and when you are older everything seems to go by too fast.

I agree about Iran. You can see it. The talk is increasing. THere was a thread a few days ago quoting some Republican pushing the meme that Iran was involved in 9/11. They want this war. Badly.

I'm not to thrilled with the Dems either, they seem to be getting right in line. Just... slower.

[lib2DaBone]

13. Watch the value of the US Dollar.....

If the dollar index falls... this will indicate the intentions of Wall Street....

If the dollar falls.. gas will go up to $7 a gallon...

The taxpayers will once again be on the hook to bail out Wall Street.