Chess; If Iraq is a no-win, then Iran is their only way to win

[upi402]

It just occurs to me that all the "in the know" people who say we are going to bomb or make war with Iran have to have a reason to come out. So I wonder what the neocon motive is at this desperately late stage.

The obvious would be war profiteering, power consolidation, justification and cover for evil doing of all sorts, oil, and of course those pesky voices.

But the real powers that be must have a theory. A chess move, in terms of international global economic inter-relations, control and power. So what do DUers think of the Occam's razor solution;

That to win in Iran -which is impossible- you must shift war to Iran and win through the back door. This way they would reduce oil flow from two major oil exporting countries. Doing this would cause an extreme scarcity of oil. And oil prices would soar.

The BushCo/Carlyle group, their Saudis, and Cheney's oil companies would all get richer and more powerful in the final act of America's hegemonic play.

or maybe not???

[Trajan]

1. I think you meant ....

" ... That to win in Iraq -which is impossible- ..."

BTW: .. Iran is a whole different ballgame ... it is a much more difficult proposition, and will NOT yield to either an air war (which would be tragic), or a ground invasion (which would be equally tragic) .... The strategy needed to WIN Iran would destroy it .... furthermore: THIS bunch has alreayd proven they are incapable of forming a winning strategy in warfare .... what makes anyone think they can do 'better' in Iran ? ....

And IF they attempt to re-direct their forces to Iran; what happens in Iraq ? ..... CAN they fight two wars if they cant even fight one ? ....

If it werent for that fact that these people are dangerous fools, and merely ignorant fools support them, I would disbelieve if anyone told me they were considering such a notion ....

[upi402]

2. nope, I said it the way I was thinking would be a play that could work

to their advantage. Just bomb Iran. That would limit their oil and block up the region's oil supply. Causing scarcity and excuse to grab power in times of national emergency.

No forces to Iran, just bombing and disruption. No nation building, just oil flow limitation, war profiteering, and power grabbing. The usual.

Sounds crazy, but in light of reality... maybe it follows.

[Ghost Dog]

9. "excuse to grab power in times of national emergency"

Indeed. Apart from the considerations you outline, further pressure is also applied on the southern flank of the oil/gas-rich ex-soviet central Asian states, Caspian Sea area, and on Russis and China.

While simultaneously consolidating the power-grab in the USA itself: the biggest prize, surely.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I know Russia would like to see Ø oil coming out of the Mideast

China, Europe, and Japan would be hurting real bad though.

Don

[LouisianaLiberal]

4. Their opening gambit

would be based on a false and hubristic ideology. They misunderstand Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory.

And these guys never use Occam's razor; blundering forward, and ignoring analysis that might contradict them, is not using it. No matter what their motives or methods, they will lose. And so will we.

[upi402]

7. I'm thinking Iraq was intended & planned before day one, not a blunder

I'm thinking lately that it is indeed "Mission Accomplished" in terms of restricting the oil supply, and Cheney's crew scoops in the cash with two arms. I am turning from thinking them to be moronic blunderers, to thinking that they are at least LIHOP schemers with an end to that means - a sin of omission too big to take in. But too obvious to deny.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Some "back door"...

:eyes:

Leaving aside military strength, Iran is a much larger country than Iraq. Our armed forces are "stretched thin" holding on to the latter as it is -- where are we going to get enough troops to invade an even bigger nation? :shrug:

I would think on thing Iraq has proved is that the U.S., even if it is the "world's only remaining superpower," simply isn't big enough for foreign adventuring whenever and wherever they want.

[upi402]

6. again, with humilty, no boots in-country ----just bombs

I see too much greedy scheming to think that even these shortsighted, blinded by arrogance men of war can't see that we are over-reaching. Hard to predict the outcome given the irrational blind spots in recent years though.

[teryang]

8. They have lost the war in Iraq

except in the very terms that you express, war profiteering, blocking the flow the oil to raise prices, and creating a "war time" environment to expand the police state at home.

Expanding the conflict to Iran in the cost effective way that you suggest by merely bombing it would expand the crisis to conceal their military failure to date. This is a principal motive to generate a new impetus to greater war expenditures after a huge failure in strategic terms.

If one assumes that the strategic objective is to keep a corrupt and failed US ruling class in power and to enrich them beyond their wildest dreams at the expense of the rest of the world and the American people, the Iraq war was immensely successful and further warfare is needed to protect them from their former acts of irresponsible and illegal aggression.

[rucky]

10. Just change the definition of "winning" and the Neocons already won.

"mission accomplished" let's do it again - this time in Iran!

of course, we only know the real mission from the clues they leave us (like who's getting rich).

[Disturbed]

11. One great scenerio is missing.

What would Iran do if attacked?

[upi402]

12. I'm thinking they would not exactly cower and wilt

Their reaction could be a cause for the cancellation of elections and/or marshall law. I say these extremes because Americans would likely take to the streets finally, and end up in KBR's new pens/prisons they're building.

The neocons would face an internal revolt from the possessors of force -the military. Some high percentage of local police might cooperate, but not all. I think the law of unintended consequences would ruin their game, if China did not puncture the balloon first -or another group of nations.

I wonder, can the neocons resist their lust for short term opportunities and gamble that wildly? I think it's possible if they are facing prison, fines, and confiscation as a result of their Iraq crimes coming out after a likely Dem election win.



http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news.jsp?newsurl=/
default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_012406.html

<snip>
KBR AWARDED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTINGENCY SUPPORT PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES

ARLINGTON, Virginia – KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL).

With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term, consisting of a one-year based period and four one-year options, the competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005.

...
<end>