Iran will be bombed before we leave Iraq

[the_birds]

Did anyone else hear the interview on NPR this morning? It was basically spelling out our rights to attack Iran. Personally, I don't think W. has the support at home to invade Iran, but they seem to be laying the groundwork for justification to at least bomb Iran. And I think W. can get away with that. I don't think its good for the U.S., but I don't think anyone can question the fact that Iran is negatively affecting the war in Iraq.

But does it justify a bombing? This liberal actually thinks it does. Not an invasion, not a prolonged campaign. But I'd love a little strategic bombing run to remind those f*ckers (and anyone else) to mind their own beeswax.

[Unrequited]

This would be a tragic mistake. I've posted before that Iran will have a stable democracy in place long before Iraq will. Their democracy is emerging naturally. Tom Friedman wrote a great piece in the Times this week.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and %20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20F riedman

January 31, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Not-So-Strange Bedfellow
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Here’s a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — “Country A” and “Country B” — and you tell me which one is America’s ally and which one is not.

Let’s start: Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A’s women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force.

On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A’s radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it’s a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda’s nihilism.

Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.

Country B’s private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B’s mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B’s leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

Question: Which country is America’s natural ally: A or B?

Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.

Don’t worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the U.S. and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that.

Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran’s two biggest enemies — the Taliban and Saddam — “there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans,” Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran’s former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. “There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States.”

More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.

That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran’s active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.

This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.

How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.

Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.

[Duemellon]

The connections made between the Iraqi Civil War & Iran is not only tennuous, but the intel is suspect at its source. We have been made well aware of the neoCon desire to establish clear influence in the middle east & we have also seen how much they are willing to skew the facts or withold contrary information to justify their actions.

In no way do I feel we are justified in attacking Iran in any way shape or form for people coming from there of their own free will to interfere with the process. Just as we have "contractors" running rogue in Iraq who do not report to US chain of command like modern day Italian Blackshirts, they may have elements who operate outside of government influence in Iraq.

[DLDude]

You know, if i'm a major country near Iraq right now, I think I would probably take advantage of it too! We keep forgetting that in the history of the world, countries over-take other countries. It's the natural flow of things. I wouldnt be surprised to see Iran try to control Iraq in some way. It seems like a good business move for them. :confused:

[Duemellon]

I wouldnt be surprised to see Iran try to control Iraq in some way. It seems like a good business move for them. :confused:It seems like a strategically sound defensive move for them.

Iran & Iraq had a long ugly war that ended in a "both lose" scenerio. If Iraq was to be controlled by Iraqis that remember that, it will just be more problems. Not only that, a new & dubious government may just perform sabotage & terror against Iran.

Syria & Iran have serious & strategic reasons to be involved in calming Iraq down & being a visible part of the process. Not only to shape their relations with them, but to protect their own security as well as prevent a spillover of the conflicts into their territories.

After all...
If the people inside Iraq are fighting in there without borders, why would they care of other countries' borders?

[jneale]

It was basically spelling out our rights to attack Iran.

I’ve been 100% against any movement to impeach the little tyrant – but if he & his cabal actually initiate a bombing of another country – there should an investigation resulting in picking little daisies till their heads pop off…

[BigSugar]

relax. Israel will do it for us, just like last time. sheesh. have faith in the black ops. ;)

[markalot]

I heard the same interview this morning and got the impression we would not bomb Iran over this.

Doesn't matter, though, I don't believe a word they say anymore.

[the_birds]

U.S. Official Says Diplomacy Can Ease Iran Tensions

Morning Edition, February 1, 2007 · The United States says Iran is involved in attacks targeting American forces in Iraq. In recent days, the United States has captured alleged Iranian agents in Iraq, and it is investigating whether they were involved in the deaths of U.S. soldiers.

"We have picked up individuals who we believe are giving very sophisticated explosive technology to Shia insurgent groups, who then use that technology to target and kill American soldiers," says Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs. "It's a very serious situation. And the message from the United States is, Iran should cease and desist."

In an interview Wednesday, Burns spoke with Steve Inskeep about the ambiguous relations among the United States, Iran and Iraq.

Have you linked Iranian involvement to a specific incident or operation?

Well, we've been tracking this for about two years, and there's been increased evidence over that time that Iran has given this kind of assistance to the Shia insurgency groups in southern Iraq. They've attacked British soldiers near Basra, and they've now begun to mount those operations throughout the country, at least in the Baghdad region as well. And so we're very concerned about it. Now, we warned Iran, privately, on a number of occasions over the last year and a half, and the Iranians, of course, did not appear to listen to that. So now we've begun to detain those Iranian officials. And we think it's absolutely within our rights to do so under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which is self-defense. Iran should not seek this type of role in Iraq. It should try to become a force for unity in Iraq itself, but it's not choosing that path right now.

There's been much interest in a particular incident in recent days near the city of Karbala, where a number of insurgents in U.S. military uniforms, or what looked like them anyway, got past a number of checkpoints and were involved in a gunfight in which a number of Americans were killed. Do you believe Iran had a role in that specific incident?

That was a despicable event, and we did lose five young Americans in that attack. We don't know who was responsible. That's under investigation.

Are you looking at Iran?

You know, Steve, it's hard to say. I don't want to say anything that would be inaccurate. And, obviously, we're looking at all sources, and we'll try to find those who are responsible and hold them accountable. But right now it's not possible to say exactly who those people were. But the larger point is this: Iran is seeking a position of dominance in the Middle East. It's very clear. Iran has a regional agenda, which is very much at odds with that of the United States.

Mr. Burns, you mentioned that the United States has the right of self-defense here. Does that right of self-defense give the United States the right to strike targets within Iran in response to this, should the president choose to do so?

Well, the president has said, and others have said, that we don't intend to strike into Iran itself. We're concerned with our obligations and our interests within Iraq. As you know, American military forces are in Iraq under a United Nations resolution. So we have every right to be there. We're there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The Iranian paramilitary and intelligence forces who we believe are in Iraq are not there under U.N. authorization or at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So there is a clear legal and, I would say, political and moral difference between what the United States is doing — which is to try to unify Iraq and bring the country to a greater measure of stability — and what the Iranians are doing.

I just want to clarify something here. President Bush, in an interview with NPR earlier this week, said that the United States did not intend to invade Iran. Are you saying the United States does not intend to strike Iran in any way, which I suppose would say you don't intend an airstrike or any other kind of military operation?

Well, we have said for a number of years that all options are on the table concerning Iran. But we've also said very clearly, and we've followed this very assiduously, that we're on a diplomatic path. We believe it can be resolved by diplomatic means.

But I want to understand which of the statements is operative: You don't intend to invade, or you don't intend to strike, given this particular context.

We've been very clear we don't intend to cross the border into Iran, we don't intend to strike into Iran, in terms of what we are doing in Iraq.

In terms of what you're doing in Iraq.

Exactly.

All options may be on the table with other issues, like Iran's nuclear program.

Well, that's been American policy for many, many years. In fact, that predates the Bush administration.

Mr. Burns, one other question. On this program, we heard from Professor Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at Scotland's St. Andrews University. He was talking about the consequences of this confrontation. And he said, this is a quote, "By raising the tension, and by raising the level of armed forces in the region, even if both sides are not interested in military conflict, you're increasing the likelihood that an accidental escalation is going to take place." Is there any truth in that?

I would see it differently. I don't believe that a military conflict with Iran is inevitable. I think that if we're patient and we're skillful, we can have a diplomatic solution to these problems. We are trying for that diplomatic solution. But it's not reasonable to suggest that because the United States has put carrier battle groups into the Gulf, we are being provocative. You know, we've defended Gulf security for six decades. Our carriers have been there throughout that time. So it's not us who are being provocative or raising the stakes here. We're simply trying to protect our interests in Iraq, the security of the Gulf Arab states and of the wider Middle East. And this has been the American position now through many administrations, and the Iranians need to understand they can't come barging into a situation, and express what they want and seek a position of dominance, without some kind of reaction from the moderate Arab states and from the United States. We're trying to convince the Iranians that it's in their best interest to sit down and talk with the United States. That is the basis of American policy.

[markalot]

That's the one. Where are you finding the offending answer?

[the_birds]

Have you linked Iranian involvement to a specific incident or operation?

...Now, we warned Iran, privately, on a number of occasions over the last year and a half, and the Iranians, of course, did not appear to listen to that. So now we've begun to detain those Iranian officials. And we think it's absolutely within our rights to do so under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which is self-defense. Iran should not seek this type of role in Iraq. It should try to become a force for unity in Iraq itself, but it's not choosing that path right now....

The "not-so-subtle" warning and justification.



Are you looking at Iran?

You know, Steve, it's hard to say. I don't want to say anything that would be inaccurate. And, obviously, we're looking at all sources, and we'll try to find those who are responsible and hold them accountable. But right now it's not possible to say exactly who those people were. But the larger point is this: Iran is seeking a position of dominance in the Middle East. It's very clear. Iran has a regional agenda, which is very much at odds with that of the United States.

This is important, because Inskeep tries to keep him on point, and he quickly evades the point, and goes back to a broader reasoning that establishes Iran as the enemy.


Mr. Burns, you mentioned that the United States has the right of self-defense here. Does that right of self-defense give the United States the right to strike targets within Iran in response to this, should the president choose to do so?

Well, the president has said, and others have said, that we don't intend to strike into Iran itself. We're concerned with our obligations and our interests within Iraq. As you know, American military forces are in Iraq under a United Nations resolution. So we have every right to be there. We're there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The Iranian paramilitary and intelligence forces who we believe are in Iraq are not there under U.N. authorization or at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So there is a clear legal and, I would say, political and moral difference between what the United States is doing — which is to try to unify Iraq and bring the country to a greater measure of stability — and what the Iranians are doing.

Here, Burns gets what he wants. U.S. is the fair and just party, Iran = have been very bad, broken the law! and have worse intentions.



I just want to clarify something here. President Bush, in an interview with NPR earlier this week, said that the United States did not intend to invade Iran. Are you saying the United States does not intend to strike Iran in any way, which I suppose would say you don't intend an airstrike or any other kind of military operation?

Well, we have said for a number of years that all options are on the table concerning Iran. But we've also said very clearly, and we've followed this very assiduously, that we're on a diplomatic path. We believe it can be resolved by diplomatic means.

But I want to understand which of the statements is operative: You don't intend to invade, or you don't intend to strike, given this particular context.

We've been very clear we don't intend to cross the border into Iran, we don't intend to strike into Iran, in terms of what we are doing in Iraq.

In terms of what you're doing in Iraq.

Exactly.

Here Burns makes his threat. He serves the notice. We're telling Iran, they've got to meet our demands, he's really not being "diplomatic" at all. Burns is in essence demanding Iran start addressing U.S. concerns, or face consequences. He's also telling the us, the U.S. Citizenry, that this isn't another Iraq.

All options may be on the table with other issues, like Iran's nuclear program.

Well, that's been American policy for many, many years. In fact, that predates the Bush administration.

Again, Burns is saying to Iran and the U.S. citizenry, what is at stake, what a target might be, he's placing complete thoughts...

The last question and paragraph responses just further establish the rights of the U.S. and our role of 'security' in the region.

To me, this is a huge effort to "run it (a strategic bombing) up the flagpole." To see what if any reaction amongst us is going to happen. I think its a no-brainer idea to rally some support behind the war effort. Politically, its genius.

[juggles]

Tending to see this the way the birds does. I'd paraphrase to interview to read:

Will the US attack Iran over this issue?

No, this isn't the issue the US will attack Iran over.

[Dirk]

But does it justify a bombing? This liberal actually thinks it does. Not an invasion, not a prolonged campaign. But I'd love a little strategic bombing run to remind those f*ckers (and anyone else) to mind their own beeswax.
Yes, Iran shouldn't be involved in Iraq and how they decide to run their country. Just like the US stayed out of Iraq's business and let them run their country the way they wanted...

[the_birds]

Just like the US stayed out of Iraq's business and let them run their country the way they wanted...

We declared war on Iraq. We didn't try to undermine Saddam, we trampled him.

Granted, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but at least it was aboveboard. Iran wants to carry on with the shady shit, interfering with our war, well, that deserves a rebuke...

[Duemellon]

Granted, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but at least it was aboveboard. Iran wants to carry on with the shady shit,...What?

It was "above board"? The same people who gave you the intel about that war are the same people? How were the lies about the terrorist ties & weapons of mass destruction above the boards?

[Shlep]

What?

It was "above board"? The same people who gave you the intel about that war are the same people? How were the lies about the terrorist ties & weapons of mass destruction above the boards?

One thing I can never quite seem to get my head around is the notion that Bush and/or his evil neo-con Star Chamber did willingly and knowingly lie about the existence of WMD in Iraq and use this lie to establish casus belli for full-scale war. I mean, aside from the fact that the belief that Saddam maintained piles of nasty bugs and gas and was either seeking to acquire more, reconstitute his dormant WMD-related programs, or both was one supported by any number of intel agencies from various countries, I have a hard time imagining how Bush and his cronies could have talked themselves into using such a lie to start a war:

"Okay guys, I've got! We've been trying to figure out how we can knock over some Mid East country so we can bring the region into our sphere of influence and plunder their oil, right?"

"Well, *DUH*!! Yes, of course. What's your idea?"

"Okay check it out: we tell everyone that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling an assortment of lethal chemicals, germs, and possibly nuclear weapons and that he wants to give them to terrorists! It's so great it practically sells itself!"

"BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Yeah, we'll just *lie*!! Oh, why didn't *I* think of that?! Brilliant! The easily-led masses will swallow that one, no problemo!!"

"BWWWWAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Yes! And then we...whoa, hang on a sec guys."

"What?"

"I don't want to make it seem like I'm nit-picking here...I mean, it's a really good idea...just that one thing concerns me."

"What?"

"Well, we all know we're totally lying and pulling this 'WMD-to-terrorists' bit out of our asses, yeah?"

"Yes."

"Which is to say, there are no WMD in Iraq, right?"

"Bingo."

"Soooooooo...at some point, you know, like after two years or so of tramping the breadth and length of the country leaving no stone unturned looking for the stuff, we're gonna have to acknowledge that there aren't any, which of course we already know."

"Look, where are you going with this?"

"Well, at best we're going to look like idiots and at worst we're going to look like pragmatic bastards and in either case we're gonna go down in history as being responsible for one of the most shockingly expensive, bloody, and diplomatically-disasterous fuck-ups in the history of this country. Am I the only who's worried?"

"About *WHAT*? We're rich and powerful!"

"Oh, yeah..forgot about that. Never mind...hey, anyone wanna grab lunch at West 24? I can get us a good table!"

"Carvilles's place? Are you shitting me? I heard he has a container of his own saliva sitting in a pitcher in the kitchen for the cooks to pour on our food in case he isn't there to spit on it in person!"

"Whoa...wish I'd have known that yesterday before I let the NRA guys buy me dinner."

[Breeze]

One thing I can never quite seem to get my head around is the notion that Bush and/or his evil neo-con Star Chamber did willingly and knowingly lie about the existence of WMD in Iraq and use this lie to establish casus belli for full-scale war. I mean, aside from the fact that the belief that Saddam maintained piles of nasty bugs and gas and was either seeking to acquire more, reconstitute his dormant WMD-related programs, or both was one supported by any number of intel agencies from various countries, I have a hard time imagining how Bush and his cronies could have talked themselves into using such a lie to start a war [...]


Doesn't all of that assume that Bush and his cronies thought things through to that degree? I mean, they did say that the war would last six weeks, would pay for itself, and that "coalition" troops would be greeted as liberators, etc. Seeing how those ideas panned out, is it that farfetched to think that the WMD thing was just another half-baked notion?

[Shlep]

Doesn't all of that assume that Bush and his cronies thought things through to that degree? I mean, they did say that the war would last six weeks, would pay for itself, and that "coalition" troops would be greeted as liberators, etc. Seeing how those ideas panned out, is it that farfetched to think that the WMD thing was just another half-baked notion?

Of course not; it's abundantly clear that speculation on everything from how the Iraqi people would settle into a state of foreign occupation to the length of time to make it happen to the number of troops the errand would require to how much it was going to cost the taxpayers was deeply flawed. That much is beyond discussion.

"Half-baked notions" is not what I'm taking issue with here. What I'm referring to is the "Bushs' lies" angle. I'm hard-pressed to recall any discussion regarding Iraq, at least as far as the underlying causes of the war, where someone hasn't chimed in about how Bush and his den of thieves brazenly and deliberately lied their asses off about WMD, knowing the very idea was bogus. If the architects of this supposed war of conquest and plunder knew that the vast stores of weapons they were lying about did not exist, it logically follows that they would know that they'd never be found. Knowing they'd never be found, they'd surely have to consider the political and diplomatic fallout that would attend the growing realization that once teams of military and civilian experts had trod around the country a few times and come up empty-handed, their entire justification was at best unverifiable and at worst either a colossal blunder or bald-faced lie and in any case would secure them a place in American history as having been responsible for one of the biggest debacles in US history.

I just can't see it.

[Breeze]

Of course not; it's abundantly clear that speculation on everything from how the Iraqi people would settle into a state of foreign occupation to the length of time to make it happen to the number of troops the errand would require to how much it was going to cost the taxpayers was deeply flawed. That much is beyond discussion.

"Half-baked notions" is not what I'm taking issue with here. What I'm referring to is the "Bushs' lies" angle. I'm hard-pressed to recall any discussion regarding Iraq, at least as far as the underlying causes of the war, where someone hasn't chimed in about how Bush and his den of thieves brazenly and deliberately lied their asses off about WMD, knowing the very idea was bogus. If the architects of this supposed war of conquest and plunder knew that the vast stores of weapons they were lying about did not exist, it logically follows that they would know that they'd never be found. Knowing they'd never be found, they'd surely have to consider the political and diplomatic fallout that would attend the growing realization that once teams of military and civilian experts had trod around the country a few times and come up empty-handed, their entire justification was at best unverifiable and at worst either a colossal blunder or bald-faced lie and in any case would secure them a place in American history as having been responsible for one of the biggest debacles in US history.

I just can't see it.

I see what you're saying. Outright lying is worse than simply fixing intelligence. I'm just not sure how much that distinction matters in light of the mess that has been made.

[yoshomon]

I'm looking forward to the anti-war rioting.

[Breeze]

I'm looking forward to the anti-war rioting.

Answer: Anti-war rioting.

Question: What's almost as silly as pro-life murder?

[juggles]

Has there ever been an adequate explanation for how the statement about yellowcake from Niger ended up in a presidential speech after it had been thoroughly investigated and proven false? I have yet to hear one. That wasn't bad intelligence, that was good intelligence that was ignored in favor of bad intelligence. I suppose it may be hard to say whether that was an outright "lie" or not, but it comes very, very close.

I posted this (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p10/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html) article by Paul Riller, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East South Asia from 2000-2005, before but it got little attention aside from Markalot attempting to discredit it. It's lengthy, but well worth it.

[Duemellon]

I see what you're saying. Outright lying is worse than simply fixing intelligence. I'm just not sure how much that distinction matters in light of the mess that has been made. Outright lieIf this is so, then the participants took some old, bad, or just plain fabricated intel, held up as fact, & sent tousands people to die for their lie & their ambition Fixed intelIf this is so, then the participants took some old, bad, or intentionally distorted intel, held up as fact, & sent thousands of people to die for their altered truth & their ambitions Just plain ol' bad intelIf you believe it was just plain ol' bad intel, then why would u believe the stuff about the threat from Iran from the same source?It's just nutty how some loyalties to some concepts go far beyond reason or historical prescendence.

[Shlep]

Outright lieIf this is so, then the participants took some old, bad, or just plain fabricated intel, held up as fact, & sent tousands people to die for their lie & their ambition Fixed intelIf this is so, then the participants took some old, bad, or intentionally distorted intel, held up as fact, & sent thousands of people to die for their altered truth & their ambitions Just plain ol' bad intelIf you believe it was just plain ol' bad intel, then why would u believe the stuff about the threat from Iran from the same source?It's just nutty how some loyalties to some concepts go far beyond reason or historical prescendence.

*WHAT* loyalties to *WHAT* concepts, Due?

Of the three examples you give, the first two you give are (once again) predicated upon the notion that the guys who wanted this war-- whether it was for national security, fighting terrorism, saving the beleagured, noble citizens of Iraq from their despotic tyrant, stealing oil, doing the bidding of their Zionist masters in Israel, pumping up the valuation of their Halliburton stock, created a sufficiently permissive atmosphere for stamping out individual liberties of the citizenry, or shits and giggles just because they're evil and like to sit around in their overstuffed evil plutocrat chairs and swirl huge snifters of expensive cognac and smoke big, illegal Cuban Cohibas and laugh hearty evil rich-guy laughs about what they can get away with-- made a concerted effort to ramrod their agenda through Congress and get their war approved for reasons knew their justification was bullshit and would be found out to be such. Even if you believe that these people are pragmatic, self-serving, evil or whatever, this *still* does not make sense.

As for the third reason: I fail to see how assuming that one or a few errors in the gathering and analyzing of intel culled from various sources and drawing conclusions upon it (an imperfect science under even the best possible conditions) means that all analysis of all intel about everything else people are gathering and interpreting info about must also surely be just as flawed. Especially considering that Iran is not Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not Saddam Hussein, Irans' WMD programs are not like Iraqs', and many of the folks charged with providing analysis and advice on what Saddam was up to have been shit-canned and replaced.

[juggles]

If the architects of this supposed war of conquest and plunder knew that the vast stores of weapons they were lying about did not exist, it logically follows that they would know that they'd never be found. Knowing they'd never be found, they'd surely have to consider the political and diplomatic fallout that would attend the growing realization that once teams of military and civilian experts had trod around the country a few times and come up empty-handed, their entire justification was at best unverifiable and at worst either a colossal blunder or bald-faced lie and in any case would secure them a place in American history as having been responsible for one of the biggest debacles in US history.

I just can't see it.

I can see it.

I've been kicking this around all day and it's an interesting question. Consider, had the war been the success that the planners anticipated -- greeted with flowers, welcomed as liberators, a free, democratic Iraq as a model for the Middle East -- would anyone still be asking about WMDs? I doubt it. "Still no WMDs" isn't much of a headline and it would be a page 8 story at best. We would be so busy spreading democracy and patting ourselves on the backs that anyone who stopped to ask why we went in to begin with would be easily dismissed as an unpatriotic cynic. And I imagine they thought (and the intelligence at the time supported the idea) that they would find something and any shred of evidence of even a weapons program would be an adequate rationale. Who would nit-pick the difference between "Saddam had WMDs" and "Saddam was looking to build WMDs" had the war gone as planned?

Bear in mind that we were a couple years into things before the failure to find WMDs got much play, and in that time, many Americans (especially those who got most of their news from Fox--and I'm not just being an ass, it's well documented) believed that weapons had been found. The scrutiny has come much later and only, I believe, because the war has dragged on and become unpopular. As a nation, we're Monday morning quarterbacking.

[Duemellon]

*WHAT* loyalties to *WHAT* concepts, Due?

Of the three examples you give, the first two you give are (once again) predicated upon the notion that the guys who wanted this war... made a concerted effort to... get their war approved for reasons knew their justification was bullshit...

(This) *still* does not make sense.Of course it wouldn't to you. It does to me. It's pretty darn clear, actually. They knew it was bullshit but did it anyway. Whether they exaggrated the facts or just made them up, the intel they were running with was unfounded, new, & contrary to intel held firm by most other world powers.

But you won't believe it, & u'll ridicule & belittle me along the way to make your side seem more logical. I guess you can look at me & say "Duemellon, you're no expert, so your determination of the validity of the facts presented doesn't have the proper credentials for me to believe you hold some knowledge well & above the average citizen."

To which I say:
"Yep, and I still saw it for what it was, just like millions of other people in the US and the majority ofthe rest of the world. That either means I'm some sort've genius (which would mean the majority of the world's population is on par) or the people who told these lies were only deluding themselves & those who willed themselves to believe it.I fail to see how assuming that one or a few errors... means that all analysis of all intel... must also surely be just as flawed.1st difference:
You believe the intel was bad in an "innocent" fashion. I can see, by the logic that it was so obvious the intel was wrong to a layman like me, if it was an innocent mistake someone was an innocent moron. I'll give the CIA/FBI/Pres enough props to say they're smarter than that, but that means the intel was intentionally deemed accurate despite it's shortcomings in accuracy, timeliness, & corraboration with other sources. That's what we call "intentionally obscuring the truth", being dishonest, and some would say: lying.

2nd difference:
When I have bad information at work, someone's computer data gets erased/lost, their computer dies, or they can't get their file resources for a few days. Since this intel was wrong more than 3000 US people have died & hundreds of thousands of non-US have died as a result of this war. Me? I'd be more forgiving to someone who lost a weeks worth of Excel sheets than someone who convinced my child to go to war on the premise of "an intel mistake".

3rd Difference:
Back to the idea of forgiveness/caution & the personal responsibility the person who was lied to/cheated on has, there's an old saying in Texas. I think they have it in Tennessee (that's where YOU live!), it goes: Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice,... fool me... if you fool... If you fool me I can't get fooled again!

[Shlep]

I can see it.

I've been kicking this around all day and it's an interesting question. Consider, had the war been the success that the planners anticipated -- greeted with flowers, welcomed as liberators, a free, democratic Iraq as a model for the Middle East -- would anyone still be asking about WMDs? I doubt it. "Still no WMDs" isn't much of a headline and it would be a page 8 story at best. We would be so busy spreading democracy and patting ourselves on the backs that anyone who stopped to ask why we went in to begin with would be easily dismissed as an unpatriotic cynic. And I imagine they thought (and the intelligence at the time supported the idea) that they would find something and any shred of evidence of even a weapons program would be an adequate rationale. Who would nit-pick the difference between "Saddam had WMDs" and "Saddam was looking to build WMDs" had the war gone as planned?

Bear in mind that we were a couple years into things before the failure to find WMDs got much play, and in that time, many Americans (especially those who got most of their news from Fox--and I'm not just being an ass, it's well documented) believed that weapons had been found. The scrutiny has come much later and only, I believe, because the war has dragged on and become unpopular. As a nation, we're Monday morning quarterbacking.

Perhaps; the picture you're painting here hardly stretches credulity or requires massive suspension of disbelief. A happy, stable, democratic Iraq building itself back up the sort of place it was in its pre-Saddam glory days could make up for a lot of bad press about no WMDs and perhaps allow the Bush Administration and his sympathetic media flacks enough leverage to make anyone who persisted in asking "So...where's that 30,000 gallons of VX nerve gas at?" look like a nay-saying killjoy.

Or not. Even if the American public was satisfied, the simple fact would remain that we inserted ourselves in a big, *BIG* way smack in the middle of a part of the world that on a good day tolerates our involvement in their snits and squabbles (which they look at more as an in-house sort of thing) and on a bad day inspires violent outrage, and for reasons which are hardly defensible. We'll never know, I suppose.

[Shlep]

Of course it wouldn't to you. It does to me. It's pretty darn clear, actually. They knew it was bullshit but did it anyway. Whether they exaggrated the facts or just made them up, the intel they were running with was unfounded, new, & contrary to intel held firm by most other world powers.

Nonsense. And if it was so blatently obvious that Iraq's WMD programs was a farce willed into existence by the administration, I have to wonder why David Kay initially speculated (upon entering the country and getting actual, unfettered access to Iraq's suspected sites) that he'd found the tip of the iceberg only to come back later and admit that what he found *was* the iceberg.

But you won't believe it,

Nope.

& u'll ridicule & belittle me along the way to make your side seem more logical.

My "side"? And what side would that be, Due?

I guess you can look at me & say "Duemellon, you're no expert, so your determination of the validity of the facts presented doesn't have the proper credentials for me to believe you hold some knowledge well & above the average citizen."

I guess I could too. I mean, even though I've never claimed to be possessed of any special expertise on this topic, nor have I ever tried to call into question anyone else's opinions by questioning theirs.

Though I think I can legimately question the part where you claim to know exactly what the administration knew, didn't know, and whether or not they decided to just flat-out lie their sorry asses off about. These being things that only those people and those privy to their private discussions and musing could logically claim to *know* about.

To which I say:
"Yep, and I still saw it for what it was, just like millions of other people in the US and the majority ofthe rest of the world.

Not content to divine my private thoughts and personal motivations, or those of the countrys' executive political leadership, you now see fit to claim what most of the world knows.

That either means I'm some sort've genius (which would mean the majority of the world's population is on par)

What?! Are you kidding me?! No way in *HELL*!!

I mean, about that second part having to do with the majority of the worlds' population. That's just crazy talk.

or the people who told these lies were only deluding themselves & those who willed themselves to believe it.

Now we return to the position of claiming to know with certainty who was lying about what and when.

There's also a demographic you left out here: people who managed to somehow believe to some degree or other these scurrilous, excreble, and perfectly transparent and ludicrous claims made by the administration about Saddams' ambitions related to unconventional weapons and still oppose the deployment of military force as a solution (such as the governments of France, Germany, and if I recall correctly, Russia). Oh, and critics of the war holding elected office in Congress who had previously voted for the war and are now lambasting it (such as certain former, and current, potential hopefuls for Presidential office) even after they had previously lobbied ardently in favor of it and then gradually began imploring the administration to continue the effort, albeit with some shifts if policy (such as respected Democrat Fred Murtha).

1st difference:
You believe the intel was bad in an "innocent" fashion. I can see, by the logic that it was so obvious the intel was wrong to a layman like me, if it was an innocent mistake someone was an innocent moron. I'll give the CIA/FBI/Pres enough props to say they're smarter than that, but that means the intel was intentionally deemed accurate despite it's shortcomings in accuracy, timeliness, & corraboration with other sources. That's what we call "intentionally obscuring the truth", being dishonest, and some would say: lying.

Here again, you make accusations about things you can't know based on other things you can't know with a degree of certainty which is absurd and top it all off by validating it with the assertion that to arrive at a conclusion other than the one you have (one held widely, to an extent which you also claim to know but can't) makes one a moron.

2nd difference:
When I have bad information at work, someone's computer data gets erased/lost, their computer dies, or they can't get their file resources for a few days. Since this intel was wrong more than 3000 US people have died & hundreds of thousands of non-US have died as a result of this war. Me? I'd be more forgiving to someone who lost a weeks worth of Excel sheets than someone who convinced my child to go to war on the premise of "an intel mistake".

An apt analogy that makes a lot of sense...assuming we're proceeding from the notion that the custodian of the Excel spreadsheets was held ultimately responsible for the safety, security, and soverignty of about 300 million people based on his data storage decisions.

3rd Difference:
Back to the idea of forgiveness/caution & the personal responsibility the person who was lied to/cheated on has, there's an old saying in Texas. I think they have it in Tennessee (that's where YOU live!), it goes: Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice,... fool me... if you fool... If you fool me I can't get fooled again!

That, of course, it not the saying; it's a dig on our tongue-bungled President displaying his awkwardness behind the podium for which he is justly famous. It's not an apt comparison. And I don't live in Tennessee. Besides that, you make a great point...about something....here.

[the_birds]

You can say a lot of things about the manipulation of intelligence to start a war in Iraq. Clearly men with no military experience, figured our men and materiel would cake walk Iraq, and massively misread interpersonal relations and the importance of Saddam Hussein to the stability of the country. I am a huge Anti-War liberal. But regardless of the points and how they're made, the case I state here is simple.

We lied and we're bastards about starting a war in Iraq. But at least Iraq knew it was coming. At least, they knew who the enemy was.

With Iran potential (and probable) subversion of events in Iraq and the resulting technology killing U.S. soldiers in battlefield events, Iran becomes an enemy. And even though extending this war for one more day is a bad idea to me, and even if every U.S. soldier could land on U.S. soil tomorrow, Iran still needs to be taught a lesson. You don't support rogue militias that kill our soldiers, without paying the price.

Its part of being a Superpower, you got to show punk bitches your Superpower.

[Artpunchehorse]

We need to fight a war we can actually win. We ain't doing so good of late, we're like the New York Yankees of war

[juggles]

Somehow the "they shouldn't be meddling in our unjust war" argument for attacking Iran just doesn't wash with me.

And even if it did, this administration has proven itself to be grossly incompetent in waging such a war, and it has already overextended our resources.

And attacking a third Islamic nation should erase any doubt in any Arab's mind about the imperialistic intentions of the US and invite meddling from every other Middle Eastern country.

[classicgrrl]

Somehow the "they shouldn't be meddling in our unjust war" argument for attacking Iran just doesn't wash with me.

And even if it did, this administration has proven itself to be grossly incompetent in waging such a war, and it has already overextended our resources.

And attacking a third Islamic nation should erase any doubt in any Arab's mind about the imperialistic intentions of the US and invite meddling from every other Middle Eastern country.

I agree. and I cannat justify how W is reducing medicaid and medicare $ while at the same time increasing by billions funding this stupid crap in Iraq. We can't take care of our own much less anybody else. I just wish we would get our problems at home dealt with before we go trumpsing around in someone else's backyard. Hello, healthcare and social security anyone? :mad:

[the_birds]

from BBC News...


US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

[jps]

when do we bomb saudi arabia for helping out the sunnis that are killing more of our troops than the shiites? more by a lot...

i think w. may still have his shiites and sunnis confused.

[silverfox]

The Ted Koppel Discovery Channel special on Iran was quite good. I agree that Iran would become a democracy on it's own eventually. It seems they were well on their way, but the war in Iraq has pushed them backwards again.

[the happy prole]

I don't really blame the US for having somewhat dastardly plans. I think that's just part of anticipating and responding to every contingency. If you have to use nukes, you better be ready. It's where those plans lie in terms of likelihood and priority that I think it's fair to question what the hell we're doing.

On the larger issue of Bush's incompetence or lack thereof, I don't know. I agree with juggles in that if we had won this war easily no one would have much cared about whether the WMD exist or not. And I'd also argue somewhat the opposite: that if we found out now that Iraq or Iran did have WMD no one would care, because we thought this would be easy and it wasn't and now no one has the stomach for this regardless of the situation.

The problem to me has always been that people think the US can do whatever it wants, and Bush did nothing to abuse them of that notion. Most of the time I think if people want to be stupid, let them. It's the job of government to mostly not second-guess their desires.

But war would be the exception because we are now talking about some serious shit. I remember when the war started people were saying "This could be another Vietnam." And conservatives on this board and the GOP in general were saying "Of course this won't be another Vietnam. We've got it all under control. We have clear objectives and we'll just take out these WMD's and everyone will be free, and terrorism will stop." The Bush administration vastly oversold the benefits and attractions of the war, and that wasn't bad intel. That was politics. So they reap what they sow. I have very little sympathy for them. But the people who bought this crap hook, line, and sinker and defended it for years now need to accept some responsibility of their own instead of using Bush as a scapegoat.

[the_birds]

BUMP!!!!

As Iran is now putting conditions on the release of the Female British Prisoner. Does Iran want the UK-US to bomb it? Maybe they're looking to expand the anti-West Middle Eastern coalition to the entire Muslim Middle East in an attempt to bond the countries? Or at least Iran + 1/2 of Iraq? Maybe they want to expand Iranian boarders to include all the Shia in Iraq?

What are the ulterior motives?

[markalot]

They're just nuts. No one likes them, and this isn't going to help matters any. How are we supposed to believe their intentions are peaceful when they pull stunts like this?

[purdueman_in]

They're just nuts. No one likes them, and this isn't going to help matters any. How are we supposed to believe their intentions are peaceful when they pull stunts like this?

There intentions are about as truthful and honorable as ours. Face it, both countries (Iran and the USA) have leaders who are putting themselves above the true interests of their nations.

[weezer6]

We need to fight a war we can actually win. We ain't doing so good of late, we're like the New York Yankees of war

the u.s. can't win a war because we will never be united in war. maybe if our soil was actually invaded, we'd unite, but other than that, i don't see it happening. at least not with a republican national leader, no matter how good their plan and execution.

i guess i should never say never, maybe if we have to bust up iran, they'll just lay down their arms and say "sorry, we'll straighten our shit up".

[the_birds]

Maybe we could win a war, if we kept dropping bombs... until they said, "okay, we'll do what you want, just stop dropping bombs!"

That would probably shatter the Geneva Conventions, but its not like they ever mattered to Republicans, anyway.

[weezer6]

I don't really blame the US for having somewhat dastardly plans. I think that's just part of anticipating and responding to every contingency. If you have to use nukes, you better be ready. It's where those plans lie in terms of likelihood and priority that I think it's fair to question what the hell we're doing.

On the larger issue of Bush's incompetence or lack thereof, I don't know. I agree with juggles in that if we had won this war easily no one would have much cared about whether the WMD exist or not. And I'd also argue somewhat the opposite: that if we found out now that Iraq or Iran did have WMD no one would care, because we thought this would be easy and it wasn't and now no one has the stomach for this regardless of the situation.

The problem to me has always been that people think the US can do whatever it wants, and Bush did nothing to abuse them of that notion. Most of the time I think if people want to be stupid, let them. It's the job of government to mostly not second-guess their desires.

But war would be the exception because we are now talking about some serious shit. I remember when the war started people were saying "This could be another Vietnam." And conservatives on this board and the GOP in general were saying "Of course this won't be another Vietnam. We've got it all under control. We have clear objectives and we'll just take out these WMD's and everyone will be free, and terrorism will stop." The Bush administration vastly oversold the benefits and attractions of the war, and that wasn't bad intel. That was politics. So they reap what they sow. I have very little sympathy for them. But the people who bought this crap hook, line, and sinker and defended it for years now need to accept some responsibility of their own instead of using Bush as a scapegoat.

i remember, when the war started, being told routinely, from governmental figures, that this would most likely take a long time. did anyone else hear that?

[purdueman_in]

i remember, when the war started, being told routinely, from governmental figures, that this would most likely take a long time. did anyone else hear that?

No, they said the war on terror was going to take a long time, not the war on Iraq. The Vice-President told us that Iraq would take "weeks rather than months" to have victory in Iraq. So far it has been, what, about 210 weeks.

[Shlep]

I don't really blame the US for having somewhat dastardly plans. I think that's just part of anticipating and responding to every contingency. If you have to use nukes, you better be ready.

Bingo.

The US military and other government agencies tasked with defending the countryfrom, or dealing with problems resulting from, everything from a conventional large-scale military assault to nuke attack to major terrorist incidents to natural calamities whose jobs it is to sit around and dream up nightmare scenarios, then figure out how they might play out, then come up with contingencies to deal with them. The reasons for this are (or I would have though were, anyway) fairly obvious: preparedness. Waiting until the shit hits the fan is a bad time to start figuring out how to clean up all the splattered shit. And if, say, something arose which necessitated putting a major military beat-down on another country in a quick and effectively vigorous manner and there was no plan in place to do it, I don't think it's stretching credulity to assume people would be demanding to know why nobody had considered such a thing coming to pass and/or was ready to deal with it.

If we *are* planning on attacking Iran...well, I really hate to think we are, Not just because it would most likely be an astonishingly bad idea, of course. But also because apparently, due to the fact that the BBC and the defense ministry of Russia seem to know the whole game plan before our forward-deployed forces do, it seems the Pentagon and the DoD have been means-testing ways to cut costs on their communication infrastructure for transmitting things like classified war plans. Such as opening a window in the Pentagon and screaming outside so that a series of junior enlisted soldiers posted along the side of I-395 can relay them from Arlington, VA to Washington DC via bullhorn. Or maybe they started a PhPbb messageboard to post info back and forth, hoping nobody would notice.

so r u still wantin to bomb iran or what?

hell ya! i kant wait 2 bomb thos hindu fukkers until there aint a pyramid left rofl lol!!

They're predominantly Persian Shi'ite Muslims, sir. And the pyramids are in Egypt. Really, I thought we covered this.

lol scuze me!! lol lol sorry i always get mixed up loli dont know how u tell the diff rotflmao!!

maybe u could invite teh iran prez to go hunting with the vp lol! problem solved!!!1!!

watch t, smartass. u still work 4 me got it?

dick! what did i tell u bout using ur real name? what if we get haxxored by teh bbc? wtf?! lol!!

[Shlep]

Maybe we could win a war, if we kept dropping bombs... until they said, "okay, we'll do what you want, just stop dropping bombs!"

That would probably shatter the Geneva Conventions, but its not like they ever mattered to Republicans, anyway.

They don't matter to Democrats either. So say the European lefties who claim Clintons' decision to order punitive aerial bombing of the roads and public utility infrastructure in Serbia to convince them to halt genocide against the Kosovar Albanians was a war crime for which he should be brought to justice.

Anyway, I'm not sure if a protracted bombing campaign would violated the GC; seeing as how such a measure has been lauded as a good idea before, it must not be too bad of one.

But securing long-term peace can't be done from the air, so it's moot.

[bestlaidplans]

so r u still wantin to bomb iran or what?


hell ya! i kant wait 2 bomb thos hindu fukkers until there aint a pyramid left rofl lol!!




They're predominantly Persian Shi'ite Muslims, sir. And the pyramids are in Egypt. Really, I thought we covered this.




lol scuze me!! lol lol sorry i always get mixed up loli dont know how u tell the diff rotflmao!!




maybe u could invite teh iran prez to go hunting with the vp lol! problem solved!!!1!!




watch t, smartass. u still work 4 me got it?



dick! what did i tell u bout using ur real name? what if we get haxxored by teh bbc? wtf?! lol!!
Oh sweet jesus that is too good...

all your base are belong to us!
You are on the way to destruction!


You have no chance to survive make your time. LOLZ


President!!!


Take off every Raptorz !! For great justice!


*le sigh* Dorks...

[the_birds]

They don't matter to Democrats either. So say the European lefties who claim Clintons' decision to order punitive aerial bombing of the roads and public utility infrastructure in Serbia to convince them to halt genocide against the Kosovar Albanians was a war crime for which he should be brought to justice.

Those Serbs didn't have any choice but to surrender. It wasn't like they had 70 virgins waiting for them in Heaven like the Militant Muslims do... :p

[justa bill]

I'm looking forward to the anti-war rioting.

i can't wait for the anit-riot warring. you know, the proactive type... like, take the war to the riots. :rolleyes:

but really, don't you think Blair will beat Bush to it and drop the bomb first?

[markalot]

15 Britons In a Sea Of Intrigue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901985.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

By David Ignatius
Friday, March 30, 2007; A17

BERLIN -- We are in a season of skulduggery in the Middle East, with a strange series of events that all involve the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The murky saga is a reminder that the real power in Iran may lie with this secretive organization, which spawned Iran's firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Revolutionary Guard orchestrated the seizure of 15 British sailors and marines last week near the mouth of the Shatt al Arab waterway between Iraq and Iran. The British say they have technical data to prove that their people were outside Iran's territorial waters when they were captured, and they have protested vigorously to Iranian diplomats. But the Iranian Foreign Ministry doesn't seem to know anything about the case. Indeed, it may have been one of the indirect targets.

The Revolutionary Guard seized the hostages, if that's the right word, at a time when it is under intense and growing pressure. U.S. troops captured five of its intelligence operatives in January in the Iraqi city of Irbil. Perhaps the Guard's commanders wanted some bargaining chips to get their people back.

There are larger forces at play, too. The Revolutionary Guard was targeted in the U.N. sanctions enacted last weekend against Iran's nuclear program -- which, as it happens, is run by the Revolutionary Guard. The elite military group may have wanted to retaliate by imposing its own brute sanctions against Britain, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

European officials note that the provocative move comes as speculation grows about new discussions between the United States and Iran -- a dialogue the Revolutionary Guard may oppose. Representatives of the two nations met in Baghdad this month as part of a regional conference on Iraqi security, and it was expected that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would meet her Iranian counterpart at a follow-up meeting in Istanbul in April. That meeting may be in jeopardy if the British sailors and marines aren't returned soon.

The Revolutionary Guard may also have hoped to sabotage diplomatic negotiations over the nuclear issue. U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said several weeks ago that the United States was getting "pinged all over the world" by Iranian intermediaries who wanted a resumption of talks. Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, hinted at such a message in his recent contacts with the European Union's top diplomat, Javier Solana. But the prospect of nuclear talks may have been blown out of the water, as it were, until the British issue is resolved.

Maybe that was the goal of seizing the sailors and marines. The Revolutionary Guard, after all, can't be happy about curbing the nuclear program that would allow it to project power even more aggressively.

But what's making the Revolutionary Guard so jittery? Why is it behaving as if someone had made off with its family jewels? Maybe that's where the last of the mysterious events comes in.

On Feb. 7, a top Revolutionary Guard officer named Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asgari vanished in Istanbul. This is no small fish. He is a former deputy defense minister who, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, had been Iran's key operative in Lebanon, helping organize its proxy army, Hezbollah. According to Bob Baer, who was a CIA case officer in Beirut at that time, Asgari was the primary contact for Hezbollah's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, and its most feared terrorist operative, Imad Mughniyah. "Asgari was in the IRGC's chain of command when it was kidnapping and assassinating Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s," Baer wrote in Time.

So what happened to Asgari, a man who knows some of the Revolutionary Guard's most precious secrets? Officials in Washington, Paris and Berlin shrug and say, sorry, they just can't be helpful on this one. But a leading Israeli daily, Yedioth Aharonoth, reported soon after Asgari's disappearance that Mossad had organized his defection. An Israeli defense source was quoted in the Sunday Times of London on March 11 as saying that Asgari "probably was working for Mossad but believed he was working for a European intelligence agency."

The betting among spy buffs is that Asgari was recruited in what's known as a "false flag" operation. His handlers may be Israelis posing as officers of another intelligence service, perhaps even during the debriefing. Such speculation was piqued two weeks ago when the German defense minister, Franz Josef Jung, was asked during a visit to Turkey whether Asgari was in Germany. "I cannot say anything on this issue," he replied.

In the perverse spy story that is the Middle East, we have started a strange new chapter. This one has killers and kidnappers galore, and a plot to die for.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.