Saturday, October 24, 2009

"Armageddon Time"

Hooking up Greek expert VdH and former CIA spy guy Robert Baer, Hoover Institue (Stanford) Peter Robinson manages to coalesce a scary pic of confronting Persia:

"We see Iran as the power in the region," Hanson said. "But when Iran looks at the region, it sees danger everywhere." In Iraq, a democratic government has achieved stability, which can only incite the dissident movement in Iran.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran's client, has failed in its attempt to capture control of the country, finding itself contained and marginalized instead. The Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and the emirates look upon Iran, a Shia state, with sectarian hostility.

"The Iranians, think, 'My gosh, we are in an unstable position,' " Hanson said. "'Maybe a bomb or two will allow us to do what Pakistan has done. Maybe it will allow us to achieve some autonomy.'"

Pointing out that it could be said, thus far, 44 appears too feckless, inexperienced or deluded to stop them.

"Already, the administration has committed two errors. Last summer, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest their country's corrupt presidential election, it failed to encourage the protesters, merely looking on. "Obama could have said to the Iranian people, 'We support your legitimate concerns over constitutional government,'" Hanson argued. "Instead he was saying, 'Let's wait and see who wins.' It did not look good."

"Russia is never going to help," Hanson said. "Tension in the Gulf would raise oil prices, helping Russia. Anything that causes the United States problems, Putin is for."


"Iran's deterrent doctrine is to strike back everywhere it can," Baer explained. "We should expect the worst." Iran would attack American supply lines in Iraq and command Hezbollah to start a civil war in Lebanon.

"It would fire surface-to-surface missiles at every oil facility within range, wreaking devastation in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states while removing millions of barrels of oil a day from the world markets. The economy of the entire globe would suffer a paroxysm. The Middle East could descend into chaos. The U.S. would experience the worst crisis in decades."

And of course - what about that wild wascally Little Satan?

"The Israelis have some bunker busters," Baer said. "They could take out some sites underground. They could set the Iranian nuclear program back years."

Would Little Satan be willing to accept the risks a military strike would entail?

"After the assassination 95 years ago of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the great powers of Europe engaged in meaningless diplomatic maneuvers. "Austria has sent a bullying and humiliating ultimatum to Serbia, who cannot possibly comply with it," British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith confided in a letter. "We are in measurable, or at least imaginable, distance of a real Armageddon."

Like now? Could Little Satan really tolerate a nuked up Mullahopolis?

"A big nation attempting to humiliate a small nation in a way the small nation simply cannot accept.

"Unseriousness among great powers. A gathering sense of impending catastrophe.

"Once again, it may be Armageddon time.

Pic "Time After Time"

3 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

Cool post, Courtney. VDH is the best. I'm hearing more chatter about some kind of military action on Iran. I've been focused on a lot of other stuff, in any case ...

Peter said...

I don't understand why we should care about Iran responding. They will not attack anywhere if they are dead. I am reasonably sure we know where the Mullahs and Imadiinnerjacket hang out. Cruise missiles and smart bombs and problem solved. There will be no missiles fired by Iran if all the people who would give the orders are suddenly and seriously dead.

Anonymous said...

In Lebanon ,Walid Jumblatt left the Cedar coalition because they didn't capitalize on their victory.The most obvious reason seems bc 44 was overturing to the
eyeslicer 4 a comprehensive ME peace nightmare.Now he's emptyhanded from both sides.Otherwise amazing site.
Eric,Amsterdam