A Debate on US Policy in the Persian Gulf

This is posted over at IBA; I tried to reproduce authentically the bold and italics, my apologies if I missed something:


Yankee Doodle Is Confused About His Macaroni

A commenter named Yankee Doodle left the following comment here at IBA this morning:

President Whateverhisnameis in Iran (called there "the monkey") is neither popular nor respected. But, if attacked, many Iranians, out of national pride, may side with him, since he's their "monkey".

Either a declared nuclear capability or an American attack might just solve domestic problems for "the monkey", as he either gains prestige or people rally around the flag.Personally, I wonder if Iran might not be vulnerable to a charm offensive. There are a great many people there tired of the stonings, the religious police, the foreign religion (Islam comes from Arabia), the rise in AIDS, drug addiction and prostitution -- all caused by failed policies of Iran's idiotic regimes.

It's kind of like if you had President Hillary Clinton in charge, and America gets attacked. People like Hillary are to blame for many of the problems here, but wouldn't we defend America?

Besides all that, not one of the 9/11 hijackers was an Iranian. 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Kashmir.... it all gets traced back to Medina and the universities of hatred there, hatred funded and spread around by the Saudi royal family, our knife-in-the-back friends. Riyadh is the criminal hideout here, not Tehran. They could clamp down on those preachers of hatred, they could stop funding new mosques around the world, they could stop training mullahs in radicalized Islam and sending them to those new mosques, exactly the same way they DO prevent Christianity from "staining" their sorry-ass desert kingdom -- but, they don't. They're the ones we need to get by the private parts and hold accountable.

Iran isn't ready to go umpteen rounds in the ring with America, and "the monkey" knows it. Besides which, one nuke does not a power make. You still have to deliver it. We can shoot down their planes and missiles. That leaves terrorists. Bin Laden already has small nukes since 1996, and he's been able to maintain them. Just another argument that we should be all over Bin Laden like "ugly" on "the monkey's" face.

I think we're barking up the wrong tree.



Here is my response to the Yankee Doodle dandy:

With all due respect, (because clearly you have studied these issues, you are not an ignoramus), I think you don't understand that there isn't just one tree up which to bark.There is a Sunni tree and there is a Shiite tree. In my opinion, the Iranians are just as dangerous as the Sauds. And, what's more, we know they will work together. Iran is funding you Hamas and Hizbollah, and you MUST know that, my friend, since you have studied the issue so much.

And, I am surprised at how many learned people, like you, who study these issues, don't seem to look at a map. There is clearly a broad strategy to our war. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq first, because we had legal justification to do so, no matter what the UN said. We now have bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have our naval forces stationed in the Persian Gulf.

WE HAVE IRAN SURROUNDED.

Since you have studied these issues so deeply, you ought to know that America did not buy oil from Iran since 1979, and we didn't buy oil from Iraq until we got rid of Hussein.Now, what does that tell you? It ought to tell you that we are dependent on Saudi Arabia.

Now, think a little further. If we now buy oil from Iraq and we have Iran surrounded, then what does that say to Saudi Arabia?It says, their days are numbered.

Now, I am not saying that we will follow through on this strategy, but I am quite sure this was the strategy we started out with. It seems that someone, Lord knows who, has cut Bush's balls off.

John Bolton insists that Bush is going to go through with this, and if there is anyone within the inner circle whom I trust, it is Bolton.

Strike up the band, Yankee Doodle, because in my opinion, the fireworks show is about to start, no matter how you feel about it.

Pastorius



1 Comments:
LOL. My apologies for not returning to IBA sooner. I'm quite surprised that my remarks made the front page -- in double, no less!

We also have bases in some of the Central Asian republics, not to mention in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. I am well aware of how surrounded Iran is; and I think this is not lost on "the monkey", either.

You point out an implied message to Saudi Arabia that their days are numbered. It kind of reminds me of the cartoon in the next post down with President Bush threatening Iran, but assuring them he won't act -- that's the kind of message, if any, that is being sent to "the Kingdom".

The Kingdom's royal family has been cynically playing a game of "both ends against the middle" for years.

On the one hand, American policy regarding the Kingdom has been the preservation of "stability" (political, etc.), underwritten with American military power; any questions about this, witness how fast we drew a line in the sand when the Kingdom's oil wells suddenly found themselves in the shadows of all eight Iraqi Republican Guards divisions in 1990.

On the other hand, they have never backed off from funding and promoting terrorism, including attacks not just against Israel, but against the United States, the country that protects them. Do I have to point out their role in attacks against other non-Wahhabist infidel countries? Not just India and European countries, but Egypt and Indonesia have suffered violence as well, thanks to Riyadh. I offer background in a post today entitled Deal with the Devil.

The implied message that I see being sent to the Kingdom, and it seems not "implied" but actually crystal clear, is that the Saudis can do whatever they want, so long as there is a small degree of plausible deniability and the stupidity of American policies regarding the Kingdom doesn't become too obvious -- and, of course, so long as the oil keeps flowing.

I would like to point out that they need the petrodollars at least as much as the world needs their oil; more so, perhaps, since there are other places to get oil from, but not one of those sheikhs has ever had a real job! Furthermore, their oil doesn't go anywhere if the United States Navy doesn't allow it.

While we're looking at how surrounded Iran is, let's not lose sight of the fact that it is because of the Kingdom that there is an al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda, not "the monkees" (intended as a slam on radical jerks in Iran, most emphatically NOT on all Iranians!), hit us on 9/11.

The tail has been wagging the dog for far too long; being Saudi's dhimmis is sending a message that is emboldening regimes like the one in Tehran. I say it's time we stop being Saudi petrohostages, and start holding their sorry little kingdom accountable. That, in and of itself, will get Tehran's attention plenty.

------------------

Keep up the good work over here at IBA. :)

Yankee Doodle



Yankee Doodle,
I agree with everything you said in this post, except for the idea that we do not need Saudi Arabia's oil more than they need us. If that were true, then we wouldn't prop them up.

Bush is not following through on his war strategy. He has lost his way. I do not know why.

If he did follow through on his strategy, then we would destroy the Iranian regime, and then it would be on to rectify the situation in Saudi Arabia.

That was my point.

As it is, it looks like perhaps we're going to have to get hit again, and hard, before we actually prosecute this war in the manner of which we are capable.

By Pastorius,