Are we already on a countdown for war with Iran?

Theories proliferate regardless the meaning and significance of Condy Rice’s references to the New Middle East and difficult birthing throes. Were they intended as hints to some ongoing war preparations against certain regimes in the Middle East long deemed rogue by the current Administration? Or, did they come merely as a reflection of a momentary feeling of optimism following the onset of Israeli strikes against Hezbollah? Whatever the case may be, we at Tharwa are interested in hearing your analysis of the situation. As usual, brevity and courtesy are our motto.

Comments

[Ammar Abdulhamid]

I think Israel’s main intention is really to destroy much of Hezbollah's military potential. But this move by Israel is providing an opportunity for Syria and Iran to mobilize their populations to consolidate the grip of the radicals in both countries on power. It is quite possible that in the midst of all this, they might create a certain climate that can encourage mishaps and miscalculations, and lead us accidentally into a wider regional confrontation. This is the main risk that adventurers usually run. Murphy’s Law informs us to always expect the worst and that everything that could possible go wrong will go wrong.

So, war is indeed coming, and because it is not going to come by design, it is indeed bound to be even more disastrous than we may think. We are going to be entangled in it gradually, all while disbelieving and denying that this is indeed what is actually taking place. By the time we will realize that it the war is already being waged, somehow, losses in both human and material terms will be immense, and this is will only be the beginning.

[Kolya]

I think most people figure regime change in Syria would result in the new regime being worse - probably something like Hamas. So better to incentivize Assad into behaving better.

As to Iran there is a better chance that regime change there would produce a government less opposed to the west. Iran is also more aggressive and motivated.

The question is whether military action against Iran would produce regime change - I am not optimistic on that front. Besides the Europeans would never support such a project. I don't think President Bush has the political capital to initiate preemptive military action against Iran. So if there is a war it will only occur after Iran performs some kind of aggression.

[Alex]

I think during hostilities one can not easily "predict" anything. Everything is possible.

But still, when you think of the disasterous possibilities ... it is hard to imagine how any country, bigger than Lebanon or Gaza can be attacked with the intention of drawing it into this war.

[ES]

With Iran's 70 million population, and considering the politics of oil, I can't really imagine the U.S declaring an official war on Iran.

However, I can see Syria getting involved (and suffering greatly because of it.)

[jodetoad]

There are some whose survival in power forces them to walk a knife's edge between peace and war. Others overtly want war. I feel there is much misunderestimation of the west, in attitudes and capability, particularly the US.

At this point it seems to take all effort to avoid war, and eventually someone will make the miscalculation that forces it. Right now seems like the part of the tsunami in which the waters pull back. We try to talk away the wave. I think the dynamics have spun out of control, and the wave will come.

Whether this particular war will later be seen as the first action in the war, I don't know. But I don't think it will be very long in coming.

[Israeli Mom]

I am sure Bush would have liked nothing better than to take both Iran and Syria if he could. Fortunately, he can't and hopefully he knows it too :)

[Rancher]

Iran will get its nukes unless Israel decides to intervene, the US public will not get behind another war given that we don’t have the backbone to see the current war in Iraq to a successful conclusion. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gains real power as he seems to be doing then when he becomes Supreme Ruler we may see those nukes used. I don’t think American society can withstand the loss of several major cities including Washington D.C. and NYC. I will become a survivalist, country boy will survive, but I fear for the rest of the world. If the Twelfth Imam really comes maybe we will be alright, otherwise the rest of the world will have it far worse than the U.S. I’d like to see a blockade of Iran regardless of what that would mean to oil prices but that doesn’t seem likely.

[Kevin in Dallas]

I think that that there will be war with Iran, eventually. It will start out between their two proxies or preceived proxies and end up sweeping everyone into the vortex of violence. It appears that none of the powers in play are seriously looking for solid resolutions. America appears to be following Europe's lead in dealing with Iran. I don't want to appear arrogant, but Europe's track record on achieving peace without war is poor at best. The U.S. should be taking a long-term view and realize that 1) the Mullahs are not going anywhere until the Iranian people get rid of them; and 2) that my take another 25 to 50 years. We should be looking at our experience with the Soviet Union rather than European diplomacy prior to the World Wars. The US should be leveraging Arab concerns of rising Iranian power in the Middle East to its advantage. Instead it appears to be squandering it.

BTW: Ahmadinejad will never become Supreme Ruler in Iran. He would first have to be come a Mullah himself. The American public needs to understand that Ahmadinejad is like the Wizard of Oz and the Mullah's are behind the curtains pulling the levers. Anything Ahmedeinejad does or says first mush be approved by the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader.