IRAN: A BROOKINGS INSTITUTE STUDYOctober 21, 2011
Well, if you're like me, you're probably more than a little skeptical about the latest "foiled terrorism plot" surrounding an Iranian-American who was also, apparently, a drunk, a pothead, and ...well....just plain disfunctional. This one even smells bad to Faux news commentator and analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano! But if you're smelling that rancid putrid odor of something fishy, perhaps this little document (well, it's not so little actually), from the Brookings Institute will help clarify matters somewhat:
Note that this document was prepared in 2009. Now, once you open that pdf file, go to the Table of Contents on p. xii. There we read about the following options, each of which forms a chapter in the study which is divided into four parts:
(1) Diplomatic options,
(2) Military options (which, be it noted, include full scale invasion),
(3) Regime change (meaning the full panoply of covert actions, including use of dissident movements, psychological operations, and assassination);
(4) Deterrence, or containment.
Skipping ahead to page 145, we can read the following:
"None of the policy options toward Iran have a high likelihood of succeeding, even as their proponents would define success. None is likely to protect all of America’s national interests at low cost and with minimal risks. As should be apparent by this point, all of them are less than ideal solutions to the problems Iran poses. Indeed, one
of the reasons that the Iran debate is so contentious and intractable is that there is no obviously right course of action. Instead, policymakers must choose the least bad from among a range of unpalatable alternatives. What should also be clear is that few, if any, of the options presented in this book constitute an unequivocal, stand-alone policy. At the very least, each will require contingency plans and fallback positions in the event that circumstances change or the approach fails. Even a policy comprised of pure engagement would have to acknowledge that Iran might take action (like mounting a major terrorist attack or testing a nuclear weapon) that could force the United States to abandon this course.
Similarly, even if the United States were to commit itself to mounting a full-scale invasion, the need to garner domestic political support (and the hope of securing some international support) would likely require making a diplomatic overture to Iran first."
Then, on page 146, we read the following:
"The Obama Administration has already recognized that reality. Although the president himself and many of his top aides, including Secretary of State Clinton and Dennis Ross, her Iran adviser, have all indicated that the core of their policy will be the kind of complex positive and negative incentives embodied by the Persuasion option, they have
also made clear that the full policy will incorporate other options in various ways.85 President Obama has stressed that he hopes for a fully cooperative relationship with Iran. In this he is clearly conveying that he would like to see the tactic l engagement envisioned in the Persuasion strategy open up into full strategic engagement as envisioned in the Engagement option, if the Iranians indicate that they are willing and able. In some ways, the administration’s offer of a hand of friendship to the Iranians suggests that Washington would be willing to start with the Engagement approach, and
will only convert that into the Persuasion approach if the Iranians refuse the offer. Nevertheless, President Obama has steadfastly refused to rule out the military option, which also means that he and his advisers recognize that under certain circumstances, the United States will at least have to consider Airstrikes or even the full-scale Invasion option if the Iranians prove unwilling to compromise.86 Thus the integrated policy of the Obama Administration has a core option but also includes a halfdozen others as contingency or follow-on plans."(Emphasis added)
Et voila! We have a conveniently manipulated used-car drunk pothead salesman at the heart of a vast conspiracy of Iranians, Mexican drug cartels (and please recall here my previous blogs on who also penetrated the international drug trade)... Well, for a world in financial crisis, Anglo-American bankster elites that have increasingly come under fire, nothing gets the economy going (and saves your butt), like a good old-fashioned war. But of course, the real problem here isn't Iran at all...it's Iran's major backers: Russia and China... they have pilotless drones too, you know...