"The comming war on Iran" and the future of the antiwar movement

You wrote: "The war strategy is familiar, and has been used during the invasions of Iraq in 1991, 2003 and Afghanistan, 2001: first, special forces will go-in behind enemy lines to "soften-up" targets. This process is already underway along the long and vulnerable Iranian-Afghan border, in the form of CIA-funded Sunni "mujahedin" groups, and perhaps (but not likely, as this would eliminate the "deniability" factor) CIA/MI5 agents."

NRW: Was it not Seymour Hearsh who reported last year about this time that US intelligence was already working undercover in Iran ? So maybe what we are witnessing now is "the product". Definitely, the Neocons have been pushing for an attack on Iran since before 09-11 (as far back as 1996, apparently, according to a recent interview on Democracy Now!)

[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154246]

You wrote: "The second stage is the bombing campaign (in this case it would be on a large-scale, targeting everything including the cities, with predictably large Iranian civilian casualties), and finally the entry of ground forces."

NRW: But I am afraid this will not be the "usual" type of conventional bombing. I read recently, that of the 1500 or so sites "tagged" by the U.S. for bombing, 18 to 20 are tagged for the special treatment. They will be destroyed with tactical nuclear weaponry... possibly launched from Turkey-based Israeli F-16s and/or from U.S. Navy Submarines in the Mediterranean. We do not know how Iran will react (or China and Russia - China very recently test fired anti-satellite missiles). I do not think U.S. ground forces will have such an easy time. This could end up becoming a replay of the 1950-53 Korean War, when the US advanced north almost to the Korean-Chinese border and then the Chinese PLA rolled them back to the middle of the Korean penninsula. Except that this time the American retreat will be made over radiocative wasteland... Iran (or Al Qaeda) might also react by launching a biological weapon. A retrovirus of some sort. In any case, this is going to be a war of anihilation. The anti-war movement is going to need to become psychologically acclimatised to the idea of "actually existing" mooshroom clouds, poison gas and killer retroviruses. Beyond deontological pacifism, at that point the antiwar movement will need to become an anti-nuclear and anti-imperialist movement. Tactics will have to become radicalised along the lines of sustained protest-for-survival.

You wrote: "However, don't hold your breath: many hundreds of thousands of troops will be needed against such a huge country as Iran, if occupation is the goal. In any event, first there will need to be an upsurge of bombings in Iraq, to serve as an excuse to send the necessary number of troops."

NRW: I do not think the aim is to occupy. The American aim to cripple Iran permanently. If they already control Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they really will not need the oil and gas under Iran. They get to deny those resources to "estrategic competitors" in Asia. Assuming a victory of the United States (which in any circumsntance would be phyrric) Israel will probably get to occupy Syria for a while and turn Lebanon into its doormat. I do not see much future for the Palestinians under any scenario... "Transfer" if they are lucky...

You wrote: "Then again, a more plausible possibility is the occupation of the Iranian oil fields, that are close to the Iraqi border, and would not require such a huge invasion force. In this scenario, local Arab separatists could assist the Western forces, and perhaps set-up a colaborator administration (based in the previously-mentioned southern province). This would bring Iran to its knees very quickly, but we can be assured that the entire Iranian army will have to be destroyed first."

NRW: Definitely the US will want to seize the fields next to the border zone. I am sure a few thousand troops are earmarked for that...but I do not see a penetrative occupation beyond. Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the human wave tactics of the Iranian "army" (mostly conscript teenage boys)in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. But for Iran to assemble such forces it needs a relatively stable rear guard-home front. If the US applies the shake and bake treatment to Iranian cities and nukes its energy infrastructire, I do not think there will be much space for an Iranian Army to assemble itself. At that point the society of iran will be in a state of disintegration as the political-economy collapses. The Iranian reply to a US assault will probably take the form of desperate terrorist strikes in Iraq and the Western homelands or biological weapon deployments (Iran has them)... or maybe China and Russia will get involved. Neither has an interest in the United States conquering South Central Asia.

You wrote: "So in any event, many more US/Western soldiers are necessary than are presently deployed in the region (in my estimation, minimum 200,000 if the occupation of the oilfields has arealistic chance of success) Even the use of nuclear weapons would not significantly change the situation, though the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely, as this would surely trigger a Russian /Chinese response."

NRW: Not long ago Alternet reported that the Bush Administration had authorised the recruitment of convicts. [http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46922/] The US has plenty of those in its teeming jails and prisons.. plus thousands of illegal immigrants that could be recruited through a military version of the "bracero" program. There is always the "stop loss" system. Bush does not need a draft (yet)... I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons is very likely against Iranian estrategic energy infrastructure. (I hope you are right and that I am wrong).


[ Originally posted at >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/ ]