Kerry volunteers to talk to Iran and Syria

Posted by: ST on December 15, 2006 at 10:59 am

I guess old habits die hard. Allah’s got the details.

Update: On a more serious note, author and historian Arthur Herman has a must-read piece up at Commentary Online which discusses how he believes the US should respond to Iran:

But, as I have tried to show, the most immediate menace Iran poses is not nuclear but conventional in nature. How might it be dealt with militarily, and is it conceivable that both perils could be dealt with at once? What follows is one possible scenario for military action.

The first step would be to make it clear that the United States will tolerate no action by any state that endangers the international flow of commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. Signaling our determination to back up this statement with force would be a deployment in the Gulf of Oman of minesweepers, a carrier strike group’s guided-missile destroyers, an Aegis-class cruiser, and anti-submarine assets, with the rest of the carrier group remaining in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy could also deploy UAV’s (unmanned air vehicles) and submarines to keep watch above and below against any Iranian missile threat to our flotilla.

Our next step would be to declare a halt to all shipments of Iranian oil while guaranteeing the safety of tankers carrying non-Iranian oil and the platforms of other Gulf states. We would then guarantee this guarantee by launching a comprehensive air campaign aimed at destroying Iran’s air-defense system, its air-force bases and communications systems, and finally its missile sites along the Gulf coast. At that point the attack could move to include Iran’s nuclear facilities—not only the “hard” sites but also infrastructure like bridges and tunnels in order to prevent the shifting of critical materials from one to site to another.

Above all, the air attack would concentrate on Iran’s gasoline refineries. It is still insufficiently appreciated that Iran, a huge oil exporter, imports nearly 40 percent of its gasoline from foreign sources, including the Gulf states. With its refineries gone and its storage facilities destroyed, Iran’s cars, trucks, buses, planes, tanks, and other military hardware would run dry in a matter of weeks or even days. This alone would render impossible any major countermoves by the Iranian army. (For its part, the Iranian navy is aging and decrepit, and its biggest asset, three Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, should and could be destroyed before leaving port.)

The scenario would not end here. With the systematic reduction of Iran’s capacity to respond, an amphibious force of Marines and special-operations forces could seize key Iranian oil assets in the Gulf, the most important of which is a series of 100 offshore wells and platforms built on Iran’s continental shelf. North and South Pars offshore fields, which represent the future of Iran’s oil and natural-gas industry, could also be seized, while Kargh Island at the far western edge of the Persian Gulf, whose terminus pumps the oil from Iran’s most mature and copiously producing fields (Ahwaz, Marun, and Gachsaran, among others), could be rendered virtually useless. By the time the campaign was over, the United States military would be in a position to control the flow of Iranian oil at the flick of a switch.

I know this will lead to the inevitable cries of “neocon warmongers!!!” from certain folks, but I’d really like to see an engaging flame-free discussion of this proposal in the comments section, because, whether some people want to admit it or not, Iran is a very serious threat and something is going to have to be done about them – not later, but sooner. What that “something” is, however, is the big question.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Wake up America> trackbacked with I am Tired of Iran
  • Blue Star Chronicles trackbacked with John Kerry: Anybody but Americans
  • 12 Responses to “Kerry volunteers to talk to Iran and Syria”


    1. Leslie says:

      One reason why we should adopt the UK system, where the opposition party forms a “shadow cabinet.” The Democrats should appoint a “shadow” secretary of state, who would be authorized to comment about foreign policy, etc.

      Far far better than allowing freelancing.


    2. arcman46 says:

      The scary thing about this whole mess is that this moron was within a couple million votes of become President of the United States. Scarier than that is that there are still people out there that would have rather had the Fake JFK (aka: tfJFK ) rather than President Bush as the current president.

    3. sanity says:

      Personally, I think now that Bolton has some free time coming up, that he should lead the talks with Iran / Syria if there are to be any. At least with Bolton have more faith he will put America’s interest first and not his own.

      As for any kind of strikes, it would have to be all at the same time so they could not muster anything. No leaking word to another state leader that will give them a call to warn them.

      We will also have to deal with the eventual backlash from this, since the world seems to be giving Iran a pass on all the rhetoric and talk of wiping another country off the map, obtaining Nukes, ect; I am quite certain that if we did such a thing that the world, as always, will use this as a way to praise and help Iran, and denounce the US as evil and the usual threats against the US because of these actions.

      Another thing to consider is China and Russia, they are both helping Iran. If I am not mistaken those anti-aircraft that have been placed around some of their sites are Russian. I will have to verify that though. So any thing we do with Iran and Syria will have to be done or have to consider what we need to do to get China and Russia to side with us or at least not intefere. North Korea is another one that is a problem in that Iran and North Korea have been sharing certain technologies, care to guess which?

      Do we have the military and naval capabilities to blackade Iran, and North Korea?

      It is all well and good to say this is what we should do, BUT what do you do if Iran pushes back with strikes against the blockades?

      Are you ready to commit to more bombing in Iran?

      What will you do when Iran says this is an act of war…and states they are now at war with the US?

      The above will definately have consequences, and before any of that happens we better make sure we have the key players involved and either nuetralized or on our side…key players being Russia and China.

    4. Tom says:

      ST – I was thinking a lot about your idea to interfere with Iran’s ability to produce, and therefore, sell its oil. I do believe that could be a way to ‘get their attention’ and put Iran at a disadvantage. I am not sure what their reaction would be, but if the money stops flowing it seems they would have to stop being the troublemakers they have become. On the other hand, it could create a ‘flash point’ for the population to grab onto. With Iraq in the condition it is, Irans influence has grown quite a bit. Iran’s ‘moderates’ also have been shouted down by the extremists. So your strategy could create an opportunity for the moderates to regain their footing and possible bring some sense to Iran’s leadership. It also could blow up in our faces. Don’t know.

    5. The above will definately have consequences

      More consequences than doing nothing? Are you willing to bet your life on that? (because you are)

    6. sanity says:

      Purple Avenger I did not suggest doing nothing now did I?

      What was asked was to critique in a way, the strategy that was put out above.

      I’d really like to see an engaging flame-free discussion of this proposal in the comments section, because, whether some people want to admit it or not, Iran is a very serious threat and something is going to have to be done about them – not later, but sooner. What that “something” is, however, is the big question.

      I did outline some of the things that will be necessary that I don’t believe this plan takes into account – things like China and Russia.

      Whether we like it or not, we cannot go it alone against multiple nations. Iran? Syria? North Korea? Possibly Russia and China?

      We would never have the will of the people for such an assault, so that is another thing to consider, because anything like this will take a long time, hell it took 12 years of sanctions just on Saddam, and lot it did there.

      Do you really believe Americans have the Will anymore for anything extended?

      Much of this generation is the generation of NOW, they want things instantly, or very soon. You can see that in some of the responses to the war as it is now.

      Our enemies see the US as weak, and a strike like this would definately be a suprise to them becasue as it stands with everything they hear out of washington and the press, the american people don’t have the will to stay very long. If they can keep it up a little longer they can win. I can bet you that is what they think.

      The US shows to much weakness with all these idiot senators that want to talk with Iran and Syria. Who needs to be talked to is China and Russia. Rumor was on drudge China has been looking at special ops to go in and take out bad hair day crazy man.

      Report: China weighs covert ops to overthrow North Korea’s Kim

      That would get North Korea under control, I would hope.

      And Russia is helping arm Iran…

      Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.


      Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.

      ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran’s nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.

      Russia and China are major players in this because nothing will get done with them in the way…

      Russia and China, which have major commercial ties with Iran, have been pushing for dialogue instead of U.N. punishment of Iran for its nuclear activities.

      A draft U.N. Security Council resolution circulated Dec. 8 by France and Britain drops all mention of Bushehr in an apparent hope of winning Russia’s support. An earlier European draft that Russia opposed would have exempted the Bushehr nuclear plant, but not the nuclear fuel needed for the reactor.


      The Bushehr nuclear plant is being built by the Russians for Iran.

      Russia and China are main roadblocks in anything that will be needed to be done to Iran.

      Meanwhile Russia seems to be pushing for more control over natural resources:

      $20bn gas project seized by Russia

      Shell is being forced by the Russian government to hand over its controlling stake in the world’s biggest liquefied gas project, provoking fresh fears about the Kremlin’s willingness to use the country’s growing strength in natural resources as a political weapon.


      Russia and China are big needers and wanters of Oil, and guess what Iran has……Do you think China and Russia will honestly side with anything that may hamper them getting their hands on increasingly more oil?

      To make anything done with Iran successful we need consensus on major points:

      – The will of the American People to see things through.

      – The media to be less biased and more reporting of all sides, not just the enemies side.

      – A way to keep Russia and China from intefering.

      – A way to keep North Korea and Russia from sharing and selling weapons to Iran.

      – And leadership.

      I think if we get those above points under control, a blockade and sanctions how it was outlined in the above article could work, but unless we take care of these other things before hand, it will fail.

    7. Great White Rat says:

      More consequences than doing nothing?

      No, not more than that, but we’d best make sure we’re prepared before we take any such action. Sanity makes some very good points. We’d need to beef up the military, for one, unless you’re prepared to strip other theaters clean. I’d prefer to build up anyway, just on general principles.

      Once we do that, there’s no doubt we could accomplish the military objectives. It’s the political side that would be the problem. The usual weasels, especially the ones getting rich on Iranian oil contracts, would be hurling accusations of aggression at the top of their lungs. We’d likely have some strained confrontations with Russia and China. And our own dear moonbat left would be shrieking like you’ve never heard before. When they’re not prancing around in giant papier-mache heads, that is.

      I’m not disagreeing with Mr. Herman’s strategy. But a president who tries to implement it had better have political nerve and skill like no one since Reagan. Maybe even more than Reagan.

    8. Marshall Art says:

      Sanity and Great White Rat,

      I get the feeling you only read the portion posted by Sis. Your objections were addressed by Herman in his essay. Particularly so, the Russian/Chinese question. Their main concern is the oil. Herman presented the strategy with the continuation of oil flow as benefiting those who would most object to the action. Read the whole thing. It sounds good to me.

    9. Leslie says:

      Wanna see me start a war?

      Again? That trick never works!

      This time fer shure.


      In other words, more crap from the wonderful folks who brought us Iraq. The same crap we’ve been hearing from them since the “Who Lost China?” days–and they’ve been wrong every time. I am amazed anyone is still paying attention to them.

      How can anyone believe that the moderates would be on our side if we disrupt their oil facilities?

      The best solution (and a solution is needed) is to turn the CIA lose on the jackass in charge over there.