[R-G] Former CIA official expects war with Iran (Sid Shniad)

[CeJ]

RE: >    1. Former CIA official expects war with Iran (Sid Shniad)

I know that citing former intelligence and military people is popular
on left-wing lists; I guess because these guys have 'authenticity'
that most on the left do not have. But let's look at the limited
utility of this latest one, just a bit:

>>>    Until recently, I thought the odds that the United States would attack
>    Iran were less than fifty-fifty, but the chances of a military
>    confrontation are clearly growing (as my colleague Scott Horton has
>    been reporting on for some time). >>

Most like probabilistic statements are just another way of saying 'I
don't know'. I have been saying 50-50 for the last year, and as far I
know I have never worked for the CIA. The US military establishment
would love to be unleashed for an air attack. It would help justify
still yet another supplementary budget of tens of billions of dollars,
most of it going to the Navy and the Air Force. And it would then help
lock in still yet more military spending as a permanent part of the
federal budget (now at around one trillion dollars a year).

The problem with an air attack beyond the embargoes and 'soft'
revolution campaigns is that if Iran retaliates it could disrupt oil
shipping and production in the ME. It would also have spill over
effects for the US occupation of Iraq.

Next, another bit of the piece:


> We shouldnt hit Irans Navy or Air Force but target the
>    nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps
>    Ahmadinejad because hes saying the Americans wont attack, or cant
>    hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to
>    explain to the Iranian public>>

That is quite a bit of nonsense there--and that I what I usually think
of ex-CIA guys talking in the press. How could the US target the Rev.
Guard without targetting other military? It's the other military that
is going to respond, and , well, the US military has a hard time
distinguishing its own allies in the 'fog of war'. Also, the analysis
here doesn't make any sense. A measured response chokes the Iranian
economy and ties up the government's hand at carrying out 'reforms'
that would truly redistribute wealth and shore up the social systems.
And a military response isn't going to be seen as 'measured' in Iran
no matter what. Perhaps the author is in agreement with that, but
unless I re-read the rest of the pieces, I can't remember what it is
he means by 'measured'.

A 'disproportionate' response is going to be about as hard to explain
as Israel attacking all of Lebanon to get at Shiite Hezbollah and a
few of its radical Sunni Islamist allies in S. Lebanon. Who in their
right mind is going to blame Israel's over the top response on
Hezbollah when the bombs are dropping?

CJ
Japan