March 20, 2006


Hatched by Dafydd

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line frets that our talks with Iran about Iraq can only spell trouble:

My sense is that such talks are a bad idea. Iran is involved in Iraq because it perceives an interest in supporting our enemies there. To talk Iran into changing course, we would have to offer it an incentive larger than the one that's pushing it to cause trouble now. The only such incentive I can imagine is backing away from our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

I can think of another. I suspect our talks are more along the lines of Marshall Matt Dillon "talking" with the latest boozed up, sadistic outlaw who thinks he and his gang of five or six dissolute drifters can take over Dodge and do bad things to Miss Kitty... and the "incentive" Bush is offering is the mullahs' continuing residence in this world, rather than the next.

Why, after five years of a president whose fault has more often been talkin' too Texan than crawling on his belly, do worried conservatives still think that any moment now, George W. Bush is going to turn into Neville Ehud Clinton?

This is a very bad habit of the Right (note that I don't mean Paul here; my focus now shifts to the hysterics in the sliver of the Antique Media that leans conservative): they spent so many years in the wilderness, they've homesteaded defeat. The spasm of Right-wing media despair that precedes every election is wearying, and it can prove a self-fulfilling prophecy if allowed to go too far.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 20, 2006, at the time of 2:24 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Hello, hello, is this thing on?


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2006 6:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray

Yes, it is on. I like your blog. You are 100% spot on about the whiney-butt wing of the Republican Party. "Homesteaded defeat", is priceless. I sure hope you are right about Bush. I think you are. But, will America follow GWB to war against Iran? The threat has to be credible to be effective.

The above hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 22, 2006 12:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Mark McGilvray:

I don't think we'll go to war with Iran the same way we went to war against the Taliban and against Saddam Hussein. I think (and hope) we'll launch a massive air attack against the nuke sites... but we're not going to have boots on the ground in Iran in the forseeable future.

That's my prediction, at least.

One intresting point: by 2003, when we invaded Iraq, we had been hitting Saddam with attacks from the air for years. He was used to it. It meant virtually nothing to him; he joked about it to his cabinet.

But since the Iran-Iraq war, when Iran suffered air attacks from Iraq, they have not suffered any attacks from anyone. And even the bombings from Iraq were nothing like what we can unleash.

My point is that Iran is talking big now; but that may be because they have no idea what kind of hell we can unleash from the skies. They think they know what it's like, but they don't; they think they can just weather it, but they can't.

Hussein knew, and he knew from experience he would survive. So we had to do something completely different to gain his attention (and ultimately, his captivity). But a bombing of Iran may have the same salutory effect that Reagan's bombing of Libya had in the 1980s, because Iran is not used to it.

Also, Israel has a number of agents in Iran (unlike Iraq, where no Western nation had any significiant number of spies). I would hope that before any attack by the U.S., we would have Israel contact the anti-mullah resistance in Iran, which is extensive, and prepare them for what may happen: in particular, let them know that we don't want any of the people to get hurt, but we cannot allow the mullahs to get nuclear weapons.

I want them, the moment the bombs start to fall, to lead riots and protests putting the blame where it belongs: on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader), his "Assembly of Experts," parliament, and on the Council of Guardians (the mullahs)... not on the United States, which was only acting to defend itself, the resistance must argue.

I hope this might mitigate the natural nationalist tendency for people who come under attack to put aside their own differences with their government (which we don't want them to do) and patriotically rally to their country's side (which we really don't want them to do).


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 22, 2006 1:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray

I am fervently hoping we are training Iranian resistance leaders and arming them. This is something our Special Forces excells at and worked extremely well in Afghanistan. Iranian dissatisfaction with its crackpot government is widespread. If there is a country ready for "regime change", Iran is it. An invasion would be a mistake. However, we will need boots on the ground to the extent they can organize armed resistance to the mullahs and to penetrate some of the Iranian nuke sites, which by many accounts are widely distributed, and well bunkered in underground. The Israelis are a Godsend. You can bet the CIA and the rest of our alphabet soup agencies have squat. The mullahs are perfectly capable of putting school children on top of their nuke sites to deter us.

I would certainly look at decapitating the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guards, or whatever the Mullah's SS is calling itself these days. The Iranian Kurds are boiling according to Blog Iran
The main complaint from nmost Iranian dissidents is "they [the mullahs troops] have all the guns." Well, that is easily remedied. There are enough soviet weapons in Iraq to equip several revolutions. The problem of organized leadership worries me, in that to prevail, many regular Iranian army officers and troops must mutiny. I haven't much of a feel for that.

The above hissed in response by: Mark McGilvray [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 22, 2006 2:41 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved