A story out of Venezuela confirms that the US was assured of internal help to oust Maduro.
The question of the day is: who's playing that role in Iran? If you haven't noticed, we now have substantially more firepower in theater than we did before the Gulf War or the Iraq War. Iran also breaks the last link to the West and Africa for China's Belt and Road project -- the Russia-based one was cut by the Ukraine war -- just as Venezuela cut China's main cord to the Americas. I don't get the sense that most commentators understand this, but as crazy as this team is, they're rolling it all up.
The main reason we should do it is not global-strategic, though there are global-strategic reasons that might suffice independently. It's definitely in the US national interest. Also, it's personal. The President gave his word that he would protect the protesters, and Iran murdered them by the tens of thousands. There must be an accounting for that. The world we live in only respects strength and honor. If we don't keep our word we show neither.
11 comments:
There must be an accounting for [the regime's butchery of its own people.
Indeed, and that brings me to another...misunderstanding...by pundits and news writers and opinionaters: ...the US was assured of internal help to oust Maduro.
True or not, that's irrelevant to the Iran case. There's no need for "internal help" in capturing Khamenei and his immediate deputies. There's no need to capture them at all. US and Israeli intelligence are fully capable of tracking those persons' whereabouts, and the only internal help they need is in facilitating that tracking.
The need is to take Khamenei, et al., out just the same as the Israelis and we did other terrorist leaders from Hamas, Hezbollah, Daesh...and Iran.
Of course, this time, the execution shouldn't happen in isolation, but as part of a broad cyber and military assault on, as Bolton has put it (and as has {ahem I), IRGC and Basij core facilities, air defense facilities, missile and rocket launch facilities, and missile/rocket and ammunition stockpiles.
Eric Hines
Col. McGregor opined that the US does NOT have sufficient firepower now, nor will it even with another carrier group.
Trump is a wily character, as the Danes have learned. It is not in his interest--nor that of the US--to be seen as assisting Israel in its most-desired conquest, that of Iran.
Whether or not we have sufficient forces depends on the target list and the ops tempo we maintain with the two carrier groups and the land-based air assets being moved into the region, along with (I hope) our domestically based intercontinental air assets.
As for the other, I'm unaware of anyone's desire to conquer Iran, much less Israel or us. Just a desire to eliminate the current regime's ability to threaten anyone.
Eric Hines
I don’t agree with the colonel’s assessment. Iran’s government is hanging on only by mass killings of its own citizens. We have plenty of firepower to tip that scale.
I have to correct this- the article states that they agreed to help in the aftermath once Maduro was ousted, not "help to oust Maduro".
First off, I mis-attributed. The doubters are Will Schryer, and "armchair warlord." Their comments here: https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/what-is-actually-going-on-re-iran
Granted, the host of that substack is near-delirious TDS sufferer.
"Conquest" takes many forms, friend. Boots-on-the-ground is only one of them. Owning the government is another.
By the way, it is NOT proven beyond a doubt that the majority of Iranians are unhappy with the mullahs. And it IS proven beyond a doubt that the CIA can scruffle up a bunch of demonstrators after a bit of work.
It is true that the politicians speaking on the record want to publicly insist on that point. It's not true, of course, but I understand that they have to say it being who they are and where they are.
We can say, however, that they were approached beforehand and promised to work with us. Exactly how is politically sensitive (as well as likely classified by both of the governments involved).
Surely none of us have any interest in conquering Persia. I’d rather disaggregate it; a free Kurdistan, a reunification of the Balochi, and a Persian state that was smaller but aligned with the era when Frank Sinatra used to play there rather than the one when the Ayatollah did.
OK, then. How do you propose to disaggregate it?
Kinetics?
Obviously, the CIA/Mossad "color revolution" failed, so what's left? And WHY should the US participate here? What national interest do WE have? Ol' Blue Eyes won't be available....
The national interest in cutting China off from its Belt & Road attempts to penetrate the West are clear enough. Eliminating Iran's support to networks that have targeted Americans since the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon way back in Reagan's day, as well as the Houthi actors who have raised the price of oil by making the Red Sea dangerous to transit, is another. It also reduces the power of the Turks, who have a semi-alignment with Iran and Qatar, giving the Turks more reason to act like the allies they supposedly are and less reason to swagger independently of American interests. National interest is overdetermined.
As for exactly how I would do it, that's a matter I'm not at liberty to discuss in this space. It is something I do have clear thoughts about, however.
When there is a reasonable opportunity, destroying the enemies of the United States is always in our best interest. The theocratic tyrants of Iran have been our enemies since 1979.
- Tom
Post a Comment