WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

[Magda Hassan]

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/r...rategy.pdf

WHICH PATH TO PERSIA?
Options for a New American
Strategy toward Iran
Kenneth M. Pollack
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Bruce Riedel

Table of Contents
Introduction
The Trouble with Tehran: U.S. Policy Options toward Iran . . . . . . . . . . . 1.
Part I
Dissuading Tehran: The Diplomatic Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 1: An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse: Persuasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chapter 2: Tempting Tehran: The Engagement Option . . . . . . 42
Part II
Disarming Tehran: The Military Options . . . . . . . . 61
Chapter 3: Going All the Way: Invasion . . . . . 63
Chapter 4: The Osiraq Option: Airstrikes . . 74
Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an
Israeli Military Strike . . . . 89
Part II
Toppling Tehran: Regime Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 6: The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising . . . . . . 103
Chapter 7: Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority
And Opposition Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Chapter 8: The Coup: Supporting a Military Move Against the Regime . . . . . . 122
Part IV
Deterring Tehran: Containment . . . . . . 129
Chapter 9: Accepting the Unacceptable: Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Conclusion
Crafting an Integrated Iran Policy: Connecting the Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

[Peter Presland]

I've only skimmed the document so far so this may be a little unfair (ie it does offer some 'dovish' options too) but the most striking thing about it is its language and sheer arrogance. Written as the options available to the Hegemon to make certain its hegemony is maintained. This from Part II:

.... As noted above, in the section on the time frame for an invasion, whether the United States decides to invade Iran with or without a provocation is a critical consideration. With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.

[Shades of the PNAC's pre-911 'In the absence of a new Pearl Harbour' eh?]

For purposes of this analytic exercise, we assume that a U.S. invasion of Iran is not triggered by an overt, incontrovertible, and unforgivable act of aggression—something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the planes bore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship. First, this seems exceptionally unlikely given Iran’s history of avoiding such acts, at least since the end of the Iran-Iraq War. Second, were that ever to happen, the circumstances of an invasion would become almost easy—the United States would suddenly have enormous domestic and (perhaps grudging) international support for undertaking an invasion. Indeed, the entire question of “options” would become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?

It really is scary, deja-vu stuff. Pretty much exactly as we have come to expect so no real surprises.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, Peter. Very recycled PNAC isn't it? Or AIPAC. Just like they've erased Iraq and put in Iran. Breathtaking in its arrogance. 'Why do they hate us?" they ask. You don't have to be in Mensa to answer that.

[David Guyatt]

Things for train spotters (and war spotters) to look out for:

Page 66

a ground invasion of iran designed to overthrow
the government would be onerous but rather
straightforward. indeed, it would likely have con-
siderable parallels with the overthrow of saddam’s
regime in iraq and the taliban regime in afghan-
istan. Because the United states probably could
not mount the invasion using bases in any of
iran’s neighboring countries (discussed in greater
detail below), a U.S. Marine force would first have
to seize control of a regional port, after which the
United states could establish a logistical base and
build up its ground and air forces before embark-
ing on a “march” of several hundred miles north
to tehran.

A marine amphibious force. Funny that because I recently read a report on this forum stating that two US Marine amphibious task forces are in the region as we speak.

Probably coincidence.

[Magda Hassan]

'US forces attempt to hijack Iranian oil field'
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:05:09 GMT

American forces have attempted to take over an Iranian oil field near the country's western border with Iraq, a security official says.

“US forces backed by tanks entered the Mousian area of the Dehloran County, laying around 100 meters of pipeline in Iranian territory," the source, talking on condition of anonymity, said Monday.

The source added that the pipes, marked with Iraqi flags, were blocked after Iranian forces pushed the “intruders” back across the border.

Iraqi officials have been notified of Iran's objection to American movements along the common border, according to the source.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=993...=351020101

[Jan Klimkowski]

American forces have attempted to take over an Iranian oil field near the country's western border with Iraq, a security official says.

“US forces backed by tanks entered the Mousian area of the Dehloran County, laying around 100 meters of pipeline in Iranian territory," the source, talking on condition of anonymity, said Monday.

The source added that the pipes, marked with Iraqi flags, were blocked after Iranian forces pushed the “intruders” back across the border.

The false flag MO is familiar. It's been used by everyone from Hitler to George Bush. (Both of them.)

However, the Yanquis would be seriously deluded to start a war against Iran, even with Netanyahu-led Israel sending in the bombers in Round One.

Richard Armitage allegedly threatened to blast Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" after 9/11. I'm sure Israel and the neocons would try to turn the threat into reality in the case of Iran.

They'd still lose, though.