Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[karoaper]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Tom, the article you posted underlines what a nightmare it is to be Armenia's leader. Without resources, in the middle of the game of tug of war between major powers, a position we sadly have found ourselves in before. I would like to see other world leaders take so much pressure. At the same time, our leaders are keeping alive the opportunities for future expansion and land consolidation. To be the leader of Armenia means to walk a tightrope that would make most leaders fall flat on their faces. Maybe I'm too sensationalistic about it, but it is truelly a nightmarish job where one wrong decision could mean the loss of Armenian lands, possibility of more cold winters to come, economic breakdown, etc.

[TomServo]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Tom, the article you posted underlines what a nightmare it is to be Armenia's leader. Without resources, in the middle of the game of tug of war between major powers, a position we sadly have found ourselves in before. I would like to see other world leaders take so much pressure. At the same time, our leaders are keeping alive the opportunities for future expansion and land consolidation. To be the leader of Armenia means to walk a tightrope that would make most leaders fall flat on their faces. Maybe I'm too sensationalistic about it, but it is truelly a nightmarish job where one wrong decision could mean the loss of Armenian lands, possibility of more cold winters to come, economic breakdown, etc.

Imagine how much more difficult it was in 1918.

[arziv]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

It is our fateful destiny to be at the crossroads and in the path of competing powers. Since our location can not be wished for even to our enemies, we have to contend with a sysyphean effort not to be caught in the crossfire, or be xxxxxled underfoot. Iran may not be worried about an eventual attack ? That is a gross understatement. They ought to be worried and they ought to be prepared. Whatever materiel and ordnances at Iran's disposal, the enemy has got the same but 50 times over.

Our position will be even more vulnerable, if and when sparks fly we need to be equally prepared ,for the unfolding catastrophe upon Iran and the ripple effect which will have in the entire area. There will be no telling what opportunistic powers in the region might conjure up with their adventures of expansionism and land annexation.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Imagine how much more difficult it was in 1918.

For me, even thinking about what it must have been like back then in 1918-1921 is like a nightmare. You have made a very valid point, one that most Armenians simply do not comprehend.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Scary question: Is the energy cooperation between Turkey and Iran, which has gone up in the last few years, an innocent economic thing or is it a sign that the gap between the two countries could be bridged

Your concerns are well founded, enker. There will always be a danger of the big regional powers getting too comfortable with each other at the expense of our national interests. It's not like it has not happened before.

Armenia's geographical location is perhaps the most unstable and complex, geopolitically speaking, in the entire world. And our nation's long and bloody historiography reflects this sad fact. Throughout history the political dynamics of the region has shifted constantly. The geopolitical conditions of the region have been very fluid because the region has essentially been an intersection where competing global powers meet. It's no different today than it was centuries ago. And the players of yesteryear are more-or-less the same as the players of the modern era. The one thing has remained constant, however, has been the historic rivalries between Russians, Turks and Iranians.

We Armenians have had our best luck in the region when the major powers have been engaged in high intensity competition and/or warfare, as long as it has not been on Armenian soil. And the only times when we have expanded our borders and have prospered as a nation have been when the major powers have fought themselves to the verge of exhaustion. The historic examples of what I'm saying are many.

Coming to the economic cooperation between Ankara and Tehran. Economically speaking, Russians today have much better relations with Turkey than do the Iranians. But this does not change the fact that Russians and Turks have serious geostrategic issues that will not be solved anytime in the near future. The same situation applies to Iranian-Turkish relations as well. Of course they will trade with one another, money is money. However, geopolitically they don't trust each other, they never have, and I don't foresee them doing so within the foreseeable future. As a result, regardless of lucrative economic relations with Ankara, it would not be in the national interests of Iran and Russia to undermine the Armenian Republic.

This is essentially the reason why the Republic of Armenia is in good standing with Moscow and Tehran. And that is why Russia is investing a lot of effort - military, economic and diplomatic - in making sure that official Yerevan stays within the Russian orbit. In my opinion, no amount of Turkish trade will change this fact for a major geopolitical player like Turkey will always pose a longterm political and economical threat to the interests of Russia and Iran.

The major geopolitical players in the region today are Russia, Iran, Turkey and the United States. The aforementioned, with the exception of the US, will always compete amongst themselves because they are large neighboring powers with vast differences in culture and national interests. And in the case of Russians, they would not want to see Turks, or Iranians for that matter, gaining too much strength in the region. Currently, Moscow has been friendly towards Iran simple because it sees Washington, Ankara, London and Tel Aviv having designs for the region in question. And naturally, the American factor plays in this as well. As the current supreme global power, Washington will not allow Ankara get too comfortable with Moscow and it will pit Ankara against Tehran.

Therefore, as long as Iran feels threatened; as long as Turkey is stuck in NATO; as long as Russians and Americans are competing for global dominance - the Armenian Republic can potentially survive and prosper. And in order for us to do so we need to have a well prepared diplomatic corps, an educated population and an effective military.

Of course all this is contingent upon the region not having another earth-shattering revolution where the strategic outlooks of a given nation/region drastically changes temporarily, like when the Bolsheviks attempted to gain favor with Turks during the early stages of the revolution. Therefore, the Armenian Republic's geopolitical high stature in Moscow and Tehran would only be well preserved if Russia and Iran are pursuing nationalistic policies - for the existence of us Armenians simply serve the interests of Russian and Iranian nationalists.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Does anyone remember this Sanchez dude? It's beginning to look as if the US officer corps is first securing its retirement pensions before they being making their true opinions about the mess in Iraq known to the public. The bloody mess in Iraq is indeed an endless nightmare, a historic blunder, that the US has gotten itself into. Does anyone think that Washington will have any luck in achieving its objectives regarding Iran?

Armenian

*************************************************

Ex-general: Iraq a 'nightmare' for US


("The American military finds itself in an intractable situation...
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez)

The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday. Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.

He called current strategies — including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year — a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.

"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs. Sanchez avoided singling out at any specific official. But he did criticize the State Department, the National Security Council, Congress and the senior military leadership during what appeared to be a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership to oppose them.

Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign. The Bush administration didn't directly address Sanchez's critical views.

"We appreciate his service to the country," said White House spokesman Trey Bohn. He added that as U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have said: "There is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq and that's what we're focused on now."

Sanchez retired from the Army last year, two years after he completing a tumultuous year as commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq. As he stepped down, he called his career a casualty of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. He was never charged with anything but he was not promoted in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse reports. He was criticized by some for not doing more to avoid mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Sanchez told the gathering that he thought he had made mistakes and said he didn't always fully appreciate the secondary affects of actions the military took. He did deny reports that he and then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer were not on speaking terms. He said they spoke every day.

The retired soldier stressed that it became clear during his command that the mission was severely handicapped because the State Department and other agencies were not adequately contributing to a mission that could not be won by military force alone. When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" — the day he took command.

"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope" that things are going to change, he said. Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.

"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/...a/sanchez_iraq

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

It's beginning to look as if the US officer corps is first securing its retirement pensions before they being making their true opinions about the mess in Iraq known to the public.

From some rumors I've read, the very strong opposition with regards to attacking Iran, comes from the American generals. The neo-con jooz don't care.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

From some rumors I've read, the very strong opposition with regards to attacking Iran, comes from the American generals. The neo-con jooz don't care.

It's not rumor. Most of the retired generals in the US (and some active ones) are warning against a war with Iran. One of the most vociferous ones amongst them is the former Marine Corps commandant, general Anthony Zinni. It is the civilian members of government such as the neo-cons that are pushing for war. This following is an interesting piece written by Justin Raimondo about this topic of discussion:

************************************************** **********

SMEARING GENERAL ZINNI



General Anthony Zinni, formerly chief of Central Command, who voted for George W. Bush in the last election and describes himself as a "Hagel-Lugar-Powell Republican," has been among the most vocal and visible of the military critics of the Iraq war. Last year, he spoke for many top military personnel when he warned that an invasion of Iraq would unleash forces that could prove difficult if not impossible to control:

"You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it – if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion."

Zinni was right. So was Gen. Merrill A. McPeak. So was Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan. So was Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf. So was former Navy Secretary and much-decorated Marine veteran James Webb. So was Commander Maj. Gen. Patrick Cordingley. So were a host of other top officers, both retired and active duty, who saw another Vietnam – or worse – in the neocons' plans for postwar Iraq. They no doubt cringed whenever they heard neoconservative agitator and war profiteer Richard Perle describe the coming conquest of Iraq as a "cakewalk." Here was another brilliant idea dreamed up by civilian national security intellectuals soon to turn into a living nightmare for the grunts on the ground.

The War Party was never all that worried about opposition coming from the Left, which is all too easy to mock and marginalize. Antiwar conservatives posed a more complex but less immediate problem, since these amounted to a small if vocal minority on the Right. But when American military leaders began to speak out against their imperial adventure, the neocons had a major conniption. Claiming that the sacred principle of civilian control of the military was being violated, the neocons ordered the soldiers to go back to their barracks and never return to the public square. Yet they have returned, to wonder aloud why they were not listened to. A recent Washington Postprofile of General Zinni cites him attempting to answer this question:

"The more he listened to [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. 'The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.'"

"…The goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the 'domino theory' in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent the rest of Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands. And that brings him back to Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies as the root of the problem. 'I don't know where the neocons came from – that wasn't the platform they ran on,' he says. 'Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.'"

As Iraq degenerates into a maelstrom of violence and warring ethno-religious enclaves, Lebanon writ large, the neoconservatives who schemed for years to drag us into this disastrous war have been flushed out of the shadows and thrust into the spotlight. And they don't like it one bit. Monsters love the dark. The bloody failure of their policy has forced the neocons out into the open, and they are screeching in pain, like Dracula pulled from the tomb. We can hear – in their shrieking cadences, their whiny shrillness, their sheer unpleasantness – what it means to be a cornered rat. The sound is music to my ears. But don't get too close: rats are often rabid, and they bite, as in the case of Joel Mowbray's recent column smearing General Anthony Zinni as an anti-Semite:

"Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the xxxs. Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney – nor for that matter Zinni's old friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell – was to blame. It was the xxxs. They 'captured' both Bush and Cheney, and Powell was merely being a 'good soldier.'"

Written in the style of a bathroom-wall scrawl – "General Zinni, what a ninny" is the title of this juvenile screed – Mowbray's ravings amount to a kind of political pornography. Pornography is, after all, wish-fulfillment, and don't the neocons dearly wish they could get away with marginalizing their most formidable opponents in this way. As the conservative scholar Claes Ryn has pointed out, conceit is the one defining characteristic of the neocons, whose political platform is the embodiment of hubris. They can get away with anything, or so they believe, even a vicious smear campaign directed against a man of unimpeachable integrity. Evidence? Mowbray doesn't have any, as he readily admits, except the rather odd linguistic revisionism that translates "neocon" to mean a person of the xxxish faith:

"Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say 'xxxs.' He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: 'neoconservatives.' As the name implies, 'neoconservative' was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90's, many people self-identified themselves as 'neocons,' but today that term has become synonymous with 'xxxs.'"

Some crimes against both nature and society are so awful or otherwise memorable that the transgressors have their transgressions named after them, such as Sadism, sodomy, and now mowbraying, which means telling a lie so brazen as to make every decent person within earshot cringe with embarrassment. Far from deterring the mowbrayer, however, such a response only emboldens him to raise the decibel level:

"And if anybody should know better, it's Gen. Zinni. It is well-known that those who are labeled 'neocons' within the administration – whether the number-two official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, or undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith – are almost always xxxs. … yet Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld – neither one xxxish – [are described] as simply 'key allies.' Policy beliefs and worldviews were not different between these two groups; only religion distinguishes them."

To begin with, the Business Weekpiece doesn't focus on the xxxishness of neoconservatives in high office, it merely names them. Are we supposed to understand these officials are above criticism because they are xxxish? Secondly, there are significant differences between the neocons and Rumsfeld, as Max Boot – writing in the January issue of Foreign Policy magazine, not online yet – and the Weekly Standard/Project for a New American Century crew have recently made clear. Rummy and a growing chorus of grumbling Republicans in Congress want an expedited exit strategy, which is one reason for the neocons' increasing desperation.

Jonah Goldberg once tried to pull this same "neocon = xxx" card trick, at more length but without much more success. According to the former editor of National Review Online, neoconservatism, having become the conservative mainstream, is a relic of the past: "We're all neoconservatives now," as David Brooks once put it. But Goldberg's argument fell apart soon after it was made, when Irving Kristol announced the neocons' revival in the pages the Weekly Standard, and we haven't heard a peep from him on the subject since then.

From a mode of self-denial, the neocons, it seems, have discovered the joys of Neocon Liberation. As various neocons have began to come out of the closet, so to speak, and identify themselves with the love (of war, of Israel, of "national greatness" and "big government conservatism") that usually didn't dare speak its name, Mowbray's contention that neocon – the n-word – is an ethnic slur just isn't with it. Look at this list of luminaries standing up to declare for Neocon Pride: "godfather" Irving, Max Boot, Richard Perle, who proudly defended the neocons in a recent debate with Joshua Marshall, and Stephen Schwartz, the Michelangelo Signorile of the neocon set in Washington, who "outed" Wolfowitz as part of a group of closet neo-Trotskyites (or Trotsky-cons, as National Review dubbed them).

In answer to an email query from me, Mowbray qualified his argument:

"I know there are still many self-identified 'neocons,' but I also know that in many, if not most, contexts, it has become a code word. Zinni knows that for inside-the-beltway types (which he is), 'neocon' has become synonymous with 'xxx.' But it wasn't just that; it was the way he used the term that I take issue with. Please note that I did not take Zinni to task for criticizing 'neocon' policies or even 'neocons' generally; I have no problem with that. What he did was take a known code word and combine it with a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that xxxs rule the world by acting as Puppetmasters. (Remember, he said that both Bush & Cheney had 'somehow' been 'captured' by the 'neocons.') That's a far cry from critiquing particular policies or even specific individuals."

What's interesting about this response is that he acknowledges that there is such a thing as a neoconservative policy, after all: so the word isn't an ethnic slur, as presented in his original piece. His contention that neocon is a "code word" known only to Washington "insiders" (such as himself) – decades of scholarly books and articles on the subject of neoconservatism as a distinctideology to the contrary notwithstanding – is hardly convincing.

As for the "context" of Zinni's remark somehow transforming the formal meaning of "neocon" into a hate crime: why couldn't the adherents of an ideology – neoconservatism – proselytize and capture the allegiance of the President, the Vice President, and other high officials, especially in the wake of 9/11? Zinni's attack on those who pined for war with Iraq has nothing to do with the ethno-religious obsessions and persecution complexes of Mowbray, and everything to do with the neocons' destructive and dangerous policies.

Except for Mowbray's bald assertion that "everybody knows" what they don't know, there is not a single shred of evidence to back up the claim that Zinni is a Hitlerite. But the idea of mowbraying is that you don't need any but the most tenuous and improbable proof to slime the object of your attention: it is the political equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010204.html

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

General Zinni, probably is an "anti-semite".

Thanks for that article.

[karoaper]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Your concerns are well founded, enker. There will always be a danger of the big regional powers getting too comfortable with each other at the expense of our national interests. It's not like it has not happened before.

Armenia's geographical location is perhaps the most unstable and complex, geopolitically speaking, in the entire world. And our nation's long and bloody historiography reflects this sad fact. Throughout history the political dynamics of the region has shifted constantly. The geopolitical conditions of the region have been very fluid because the region has essentially been an intersection where competing global powers meet. It's no different today than it was centuries ago. And the players of yesteryear are more-or-less the same as the players of the modern era. The one thing has remained constant, however, has been the historic rivalries between Russians, Turks and Iranians.

We Armenians have had our best luck in the region when the major powers have been engaged in high intensity competition and/or warfare, as long as it has not been on Armenian soil. And the only times when we have expanded our borders and have prospered as a nation have been when the major powers have fought themselves to the verge of exhaustion. The historic examples of what I'm saying are many.

Coming to the economic cooperation between Ankara and Tehran. Economically speaking, Russians today have much better relations with Turkey than do the Iranians. But this does not change the fact that Russians and Turks have serious geostrategic issues that will not be solved anytime in the near future. The same situation applies to Iranian-Turkish relations as well. Of course they will trade with one another, money is money. However, geopolitically they don't trust each other, they never have, and I don't foresee them doing so within the foreseeable future. As a result, regardless of lucrative economic relations with Ankara, it would not be in the national interests of Iran and Russia to undermine the Armenian Republic.

This is essentially the reason why the Republic of Armenia is in good standing with Moscow and Tehran. And that is why Russia is investing a lot of effort - military, economic and diplomatic - in making sure that official Yerevan stays within the Russian orbit. In my opinion, no amount of Turkish trade will change this fact for a major geopolitical player like Turkey will always pose a longterm political and economical threat to the interests of Russia and Iran.

The major geopolitical players in the region today are Russia, Iran, Turkey and the United States. The aforementioned, with the exception of the US, will always compete amongst themselves because they are large neighboring powers with vast differences in culture and national interests. And in the case of Russians, they would not want to see Turks, or Iranians for that matter, gaining too much strength in the region. Currently, Moscow has been friendly towards Iran simple because it sees Washington, Ankara, London and Tel Aviv having designs for the region in question. And naturally, the American factor plays in this as well. As the current supreme global power, Washington will not allow Ankara get too comfortable with Moscow and it will pit Ankara against Tehran.

Therefore, as long as Iran feels threatened; as long as Turkey is stuck in NATO; as long as Russians and Americans are competing for global dominance - the Armenian Republic can potentially survive and prosper. And in order for us to do so we need to have a well prepared diplomatic corps, an educated population and an effective military.

Of course all this is contingent upon the region not having another earth-shattering revolution where the strategic outlooks of a given nation/region drastically changes temporarily, like when the Bolsheviks attempted to gain favor with Turks during the early stages of the revolution. Therefore, the Armenian Republic's geopolitical high stature in Moscow and Tehran would only be well preserved if Russia and Iran are pursuing nationalistic policies - for the existence of us Armenians simply serve the interests of Russian and Iranian nationalists.

Good points!