The Loeki's Strange Omniverse
My RSS Feeds
Why Iran Is Not Afraid And Has No Reason To Be
posted Sunday, 5 February 2006
As soon as the world will finally be rid of one the most dangerous people of the 20th turn of the century I'll get a party from a good friend of mine.
Why? Because he, like so many in this world, believes G.W. Bush, before he leaves, will bring "peace, democracy and freedom" to Iran as well.
I am not buying it, and I've bet a good party under it. In my humble opinion it's a crude mistake to underestimate the puppeteers behind this marionet. The "neo-cons" as they're coloqually known, are warmongers for a variety of reasons, but nobody should miscalculate themselves by thinking they're dumb.
Granted, Bush has the IQ of a canary, but the guy's only duties are to smile and to talk tough and to be on holiday on his Texas ranch. In other words: the perfect president.
In short: I think, although Rumsfeld even today spoke out loudly about the entire nuclear happening, they're not even close to considering going to Iran with some guns in their hands.
And why not?
According to the Department of Defense's Defense Manower Data Center there are currently some 169.000 troops deployed in Iraq, and some 19.500 in Afghanistan.
On a grand total of about 1,4 million that doesn't look like much. However, about 1,1 million of the active troops is deployed in the USA itself. A "secret" (though of course leaked) report by the Pentagon itself, published last January, went into detail to describe the strain and stress the army is already buckling under and detailed how it became almost impossible to meet troop demands.
That's not to say it's not possible to deploy more troops into "combat zones", but it does say they're already far from the political comfort zone, and risk very much going further.
From that point of view the last thing they need now is a new war.
Looking at the facts below a very rough estimate would need to long-term deploy (a lot) more than 500.000 men to prevent the country from slipping into civil war.
Iran, Iraq, what's the difference? That's a vision I'm hearing quite a lot in a shocking display of lack of knowledge about key demo- and geographics.
Ladies and gentlemen: A few véry important differences between Iran and Iraq (and Afghanistan):
OK... Summarizing:
Although they're also producing and owning a lot more oil than Iraq and even the United Arab Emirates, one shouldn't count on a warm welcome by the 68 million inhabitants. To the extent the USA and the west didn't do it themselves, the Iranian government's propaganda will have created a fresh and lively hate amongst the overwhelming majority of the population against everything American. It should be abundantly clear that Ahmadinejad has a much wider support base than Saddam Hussein could ever lay claim to. He was a dictator ruling from a small minority suppressing a huge majority. This president is, despite highly likely fraud, democratically elected after all.
The resistance situation therefore will be an order of magnitude worse than in Iraq, with the added difficulty of Afghanistan's terrain. You known, them mountains they've been trying to find one Bin Laden in for the past 3 years.
Iraq was already bombed flat and impoverished by trade embargo's and suppressed when the Americans came. Afghanistan was and remains extremely poor and was only just recovering (mainly thanks to the Taliban ironically enough) from decades of feudal tribe/warlords civil wars.
Judge for yourself, but Iran is, contrary to both Iraq and Afghanistan, not a country where you can just throw down some bomb carpets, after which you march your troops in and declare Victory from some aircraft carrier.
Besides, Iran is the gateway to the Persian Gulf.
Political situation & Finances
More than 20% of the world's oil needs passes through the Persian Gulf every day. Across, amongst others, the Street of Hormuz, a 34 miles narrow street flanked by the disputed Abu Musa and Tunb-islands, with 500 inhabitants and over 4.000 Iranian soldiers armed to the teeth. Iran's complete coast line is along this little gulf, one of the planet's strategically most important waterways. That gives Iran "somewhat" of a negotiation edge; either Khamenei or Ahmadinejad only has to give the order and not a single barrel of oil is leaving the Gulf anymore.
Aside from that, any nation exporting in excess of 2,5 million barrels of oil a day just has power. Full stop. The OPEC (of which they are the number 2 powerfull member) doesn't have even near enough reserve capacity to fill in that gap, especially not in the face of the exploding demand (OPEC reserve capacity estimates range from 0,5 to 1,5 million barrels a day).
Due to these tensions Iran need only to threaten with oil embargo's or even a bloccade and the already overstretched oil market explodes (again).
Looking at the nuclear issue it is known that it will take a long, long time for Iran to be capable of enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Weapons grade is a lot more concentrated 235U/238U than power plant grade. Even the most pessimistic and panicky reports admit that it will take at least another decade before Iran is thought to have reached that level of sophistication where they can build their own bomb.
On the other hand, if they pursue any of these matters, they're holding the world hostage, a pretty sure way to war.
Back to the United States: President Bush just introduced his new budget. De budget is comprised of more than $2.770 billion in expenditures, of which more than $439 billion is reserved for the Pentagon. To be able to afford that, and to curb the $423 billion record deficit, Bush needs to cut pretty deeply into domestic spending. The United States debt has been rising in a record pace towards a record level, and it doesn't look like there's hope for even a decline in the rise with the current policies.
A new war, to put it mildly, doesn't fit in the budget. And with an approval rating hovering around 30%-40% (a record low since Nixon) cuts in the domestic budget won't help, let alone a new war.
The allies in NATO, the UN and the EU have no inclination to even consider military action against Iran, and it will be a cold day in hell before such a proposal would be condoned by the UN Security Council.
And although it looks like almost the entire world is worried about Iran (Russia apparently excluded), we shouldn't forget that in the case of Iraq we were told nonsense, bullshit and complete lies as we were deceived by our governments.
One can't compare the two situations, but I think that even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they won't have the heart or the mind to use them, much like Pakistan and India (and Israel) don't.
There won't be a war or even US military action in Iran. I'll win the bet and the party's theme will be "Bye Bye Bush"!
Why? Because he, like so many in this world, believes G.W. Bush, before he leaves, will bring "peace, democracy and freedom" to Iran as well.
I am not buying it, and I've bet a good party under it. In my humble opinion it's a crude mistake to underestimate the puppeteers behind this marionet. The "neo-cons" as they're coloqually known, are warmongers for a variety of reasons, but nobody should miscalculate themselves by thinking they're dumb.
Granted, Bush has the IQ of a canary, but the guy's only duties are to smile and to talk tough and to be on holiday on his Texas ranch. In other words: the perfect president.
In short: I think, although Rumsfeld even today spoke out loudly about the entire nuclear happening, they're not even close to considering going to Iran with some guns in their hands.
And why not?
Military
According to the Department of Defense's Defense Manower Data Center there are currently some 169.000 troops deployed in Iraq, and some 19.500 in Afghanistan.
On a grand total of about 1,4 million that doesn't look like much. However, about 1,1 million of the active troops is deployed in the USA itself. A "secret" (though of course leaked) report by the Pentagon itself, published last January, went into detail to describe the strain and stress the army is already buckling under and detailed how it became almost impossible to meet troop demands.
That's not to say it's not possible to deploy more troops into "combat zones", but it does say they're already far from the political comfort zone, and risk very much going further.
From that point of view the last thing they need now is a new war.
Looking at the facts below a very rough estimate would need to long-term deploy (a lot) more than 500.000 men to prevent the country from slipping into civil war.
Geography and Population
Iran, Iraq, what's the difference? That's a vision I'm hearing quite a lot in a shocking display of lack of knowledge about key demo- and geographics.
Ladies and gentlemen: A few véry important differences between Iran and Iraq (and Afghanistan):
| Click here for geography | Afghanistan | Iraq | Iran |
| Area ( x 1000 km2) | 647,5 | 432,2 | 1.636 |
| Population (millions) | 29,3 | 26,1 | 68 |
| Population capable of work (millions) | 15 | 7,4 | 23,7 |
| Government income (millions of $) | 269 | 1.930 | 4.882 |
| Oil production (millions of barrels a day) | 0 | 2 | 3,98 |
| Oil export (millions of barrels a day) | 0 | 1,3 | 2,5 |
| World ranking oil production (excl. "groups", e.g. "world") | 213 | 14 | 4 (nr.2 OPEC) |
OK... Summarizing:
- Iran is almost 4x as big as Iraq
- There are more than 3x as much people living in Iran, and there are more than 3x as much people capable of resistance.
- The Iranian government is making more than twice the amount of money Iraq and Afghanistan are making combined.
- When you look at the geography Iran is much more like Afghanistan, with huge areas of mountains and rocky hills instead of large open deserts like Iraq.
Although they're also producing and owning a lot more oil than Iraq and even the United Arab Emirates, one shouldn't count on a warm welcome by the 68 million inhabitants. To the extent the USA and the west didn't do it themselves, the Iranian government's propaganda will have created a fresh and lively hate amongst the overwhelming majority of the population against everything American. It should be abundantly clear that Ahmadinejad has a much wider support base than Saddam Hussein could ever lay claim to. He was a dictator ruling from a small minority suppressing a huge majority. This president is, despite highly likely fraud, democratically elected after all.
The resistance situation therefore will be an order of magnitude worse than in Iraq, with the added difficulty of Afghanistan's terrain. You known, them mountains they've been trying to find one Bin Laden in for the past 3 years.
Iraq was already bombed flat and impoverished by trade embargo's and suppressed when the Americans came. Afghanistan was and remains extremely poor and was only just recovering (mainly thanks to the Taliban ironically enough) from decades of feudal tribe/warlords civil wars.
Judge for yourself, but Iran is, contrary to both Iraq and Afghanistan, not a country where you can just throw down some bomb carpets, after which you march your troops in and declare Victory from some aircraft carrier.
Besides, Iran is the gateway to the Persian Gulf.
Political situation & Finances
More than 20% of the world's oil needs passes through the Persian Gulf every day. Across, amongst others, the Street of Hormuz, a 34 miles narrow street flanked by the disputed Abu Musa and Tunb-islands, with 500 inhabitants and over 4.000 Iranian soldiers armed to the teeth. Iran's complete coast line is along this little gulf, one of the planet's strategically most important waterways. That gives Iran "somewhat" of a negotiation edge; either Khamenei or Ahmadinejad only has to give the order and not a single barrel of oil is leaving the Gulf anymore.
Aside from that, any nation exporting in excess of 2,5 million barrels of oil a day just has power. Full stop. The OPEC (of which they are the number 2 powerfull member) doesn't have even near enough reserve capacity to fill in that gap, especially not in the face of the exploding demand (OPEC reserve capacity estimates range from 0,5 to 1,5 million barrels a day).
Due to these tensions Iran need only to threaten with oil embargo's or even a bloccade and the already overstretched oil market explodes (again).
Looking at the nuclear issue it is known that it will take a long, long time for Iran to be capable of enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Weapons grade is a lot more concentrated 235U/238U than power plant grade. Even the most pessimistic and panicky reports admit that it will take at least another decade before Iran is thought to have reached that level of sophistication where they can build their own bomb.
On the other hand, if they pursue any of these matters, they're holding the world hostage, a pretty sure way to war.
Back to the United States: President Bush just introduced his new budget. De budget is comprised of more than $2.770 billion in expenditures, of which more than $439 billion is reserved for the Pentagon. To be able to afford that, and to curb the $423 billion record deficit, Bush needs to cut pretty deeply into domestic spending. The United States debt has been rising in a record pace towards a record level, and it doesn't look like there's hope for even a decline in the rise with the current policies.
A new war, to put it mildly, doesn't fit in the budget. And with an approval rating hovering around 30%-40% (a record low since Nixon) cuts in the domestic budget won't help, let alone a new war.
The allies in NATO, the UN and the EU have no inclination to even consider military action against Iran, and it will be a cold day in hell before such a proposal would be condoned by the UN Security Council.
And although it looks like almost the entire world is worried about Iran (Russia apparently excluded), we shouldn't forget that in the case of Iraq we were told nonsense, bullshit and complete lies as we were deceived by our governments.
One can't compare the two situations, but I think that even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they won't have the heart or the mind to use them, much like Pakistan and India (and Israel) don't.
Both the United States and Iran show, through attitude and talk, they understand all these facts very well. For now the stalemate is to Iran's advantage. They're holding all the cards, and as long as they don't go too far (therefore preventing the formation of a united front against them in geopolitics), they can keep this up for quite some time to come, despite arguing and fussing and mutual strong tough talks.
So
There won't be a war or even US military action in Iran. I'll win the bet and the party's theme will be "Bye Bye Bush"!
Say something! (2)
1. van left...
Friday, 31 March 2006 8:04 pm
Excellent analysis, although, I think political considerations of the
mid-term elections may force Bush to initiate some kind of military action
this summer. It won't take much of a military action to swing the public
back behind him and Iran will only make a small response. Neither Iran or
US want a big war. Just a few minor clashes for show!