The fact that 8 years of Department of Defense reports haven't been spontaneously set fire to [...] means absolutely nothing in defining US objectives.

First of all, I can very easily paint the US in one paintbrush because as far as foreign policy is concerned, US policy is defined by a very small subsection of the government.  Most every other power in US government requires approval of both Houses, creating the divergence of opinion.  In foreign policy, however, Senators aren't even constitutionally allowed to go and engage in foreign diplomacy without Presidential approval.  This establishes a unity of command in US foreign policy, ensuring that foreign policy speaks with one voice at any given time.  That voice may change with elections, but it's still one voice.  Even if John Boehner doesn't like Obama's Iran stance, Congress is powerless to order an attack of Iran without US support, trade barrier regimes in the US prevent them from being raised or lowered without presidential authorization, and since there's no authority to independently send diplomats to voice US policy, the best any Senator or House Representative can do is write in their diary about their fantasy fiction foreign policy.  smile

Second, I refer you to the quote I gave in the prior post.  The only reason I engaged in this discussion was in response to YOUR post, which was an affirmation of one voice in government (the voice that was defining US action by the petrodollar concern).

Third, the reason why I dismiss your argument is simple.  If the political stance of the US which you suggested (that we're only operating for concern over the petrodollar) was genuine, the diplomatic overture is an utter blunder.  Unlike a military conflict, a diplomatic overture places Israel in an isolated position politically, while at the same time risking being a North Korea 2 scenario.  Hell, even with successful diplomacy, the rise of another stable Middle Eastern oil power is a pretty sure way to risk the end of the petrodollar because the nation that's selling the oil, and thus the one with the bargaining power, can simply request purchases be made in euros or the rial, and now the justification becomes more economic than political, so it's more legitimate.

Xeno wrote:

ZarfyScarfaceArfy wrote:

The fact that 8 years of Department of Defense reports haven't been spontaneously set fire to [...] means absolutely nothing in defining US objectives.

It is in the self-interest of designers of various contingency plans to be proponents for those courses of action, is it not?

1: True, but the influence of those people is ridiculously overrated.

Remember, first of all, the actual final choice of attack/don't attack is solely in the hands of the President.  Congress can want to attack, but they can't force an attack.

Why does that matter?  Because nobody in civilian government is going to be drawing up those war plans.  No US president since Lincoln has been proactive in micromanaging troop deployment and strategy.  So IF Obama said he wanted to attack, he'd go tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up a plan.  And, depending on the importance of the issue, it's possible they would have overseen the respective issues.

For this purpose, I'd think it's fair to say at a bare minimum that those in charge of the respective branches of the military at least reviewed existing plans with regards to Iran (i.e., scenarios dealing with the Strait of Hormuz, intelligence, feasibility assessments, etc).  That being said, what do you think is more likely: that the general in charge of the US Army pulled out some pens and a giant map, got  into the intelligence himself, and said "Okay, I'm going to craft this master plan..." or that he set up a task force charged with assessing the feasibility of certain scenarios?  The less likely a scenario is, the more likely that contingency plan is to be delegated to some middle management task force.  Once a middle management task force is given the job of crafting the plans, the biased people suddenly become ridiculously separated from any possible influence.

Now, it's possible the Joint Chiefs could be the ones with the vested interest.  That being said... what do they gain?  They're literally on top of the ranks within their respective departments.  True, a particularly ambitious general could want to try and push their policy as an effort to pull an Eisenhower.  However, remember that the generals only have authority in the question of how to engage particular actions.  They're still subservient to the Secretary of State, who can easily shut them out of that portion of the debate, and has every right to do so.  There's a reason why the US government is structured with civilian control of the military in mind.

2: Seriously, you would WANT to have your contingency plan tested?!?

Think about it.  You're in the job of military planning.  You receive possible hypothetical scenarios and are told "Prepare a plan for how the US military could theoretically deal with X."  You pull some research from military intelligence, consult a few other people in your department, and craft some plan.

Now, if it even remotely comes to fruition, you're going to be the subject of all sorts of hell.  If it actually looked like the US was heading to a scenario where a hypothetical plan became likely, your plan immediately gets ripped out the shelves and subject to ridiculous amounts of scrutiny.  After all, where it was before just a basic theoretical blueprint, now lives are at stake!

Then there's the final test: the battlefield.  This forces us to bring into play the words of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder... "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  Every person in the military has been drilled with this in mind... that no matter what detailed plans are constructed, their actual implementation will be met with the enemy's counteraction, plus unexpected circumstances and corrected intelligence, forcing perpetual recalculation.

3: Even with all that in question, it assumes the person leading the pack is a complete idiot.  An inherent part of a leader's job is to recognize when people may or may not have biases in their opinions, and act accordingly.  Now, I'll grant obviously that due to the sheer power of some biased agents, such as lobbyists, a President can very well outright ignore that bias.  However, we're not talking about the bias of a multimillion dollar industry here.  We're talking about the bias of Colonel Bob, a desk officer preparing plans within a massive military bureaucracy.

4: Again, the isolation of Israel disproves your thesis.  If there was some guy at the Joint Chiefs who was REALLY hoping the US would get into a war with Iran so they could show off their planning, diplomacy with Iran serves to isolate Israel.  That's a game-ender for that plan ever manifesting.  After all, if the US is becoming buddies with Iran, but there are not immediate signs of Iranian enrichment suspension, Israel, now feeling politically isolated by every country on the planet in the face of an existential threat, would have little choice but to unilaterally strike Iran.  Remember, we're talking about Israel here... the country has historically had little problem preemptively striking enemies unilaterally and letting other nations pick up the pieces after the fact.  Once the US started playing nice with Iran, Israel wouldn't have a reason to let the US in on their plans anymore... which means that little guy in his office whom you hypothesize is engineering US foreign policy in order to show off his amazing strategizing skills, just made the quickest move possible toward ensuring their contingency plan gets set on fire and never becomes a reality.

And grouping about... 4 posts of ours together into one.

Xeno wrote:

TheUltimateFoamer wrote:

No, I didn't say it was the only alternative.  I said that if the US was actually intent on achieving the overall objectives you desired, there would be no reason to engage in this diplomatic effort.

My point is that there is that I think there is a significant portion of US power-brokers who sincerely believe there is no reason to engage in this diplomatic effort.

Again, you're missing the point.  If your so-called "power brokers" were calling the shots, the US would be intent on striking Iran.  Even if the US is insincere in its negotiations, there is no benefit to the US in attempting to negotiate if it was intent on striking Iran.  So either your "power-brokers" have such little significance in discussions of foreign policy that it's equivalent to me trying to guess foreign policy by making the assumption that Obama calls Flint daily for consultation (i.e. as far as Iran is concerned, they have no power to broker), or your analysis of the opinions of these "power brokers" is flawed.

First of all, there's Israel.  Whenever Iran backed away from the negotiating table, the question of strikes has always been a discussion in the form of Israel asking the US if they could attack Iran.  Not surprisingly... the threat is existential to Israel.  So once Israel's last staunch ally backs away and starts going diplomatic... the likelihood of Israel dismissing the US and attacking whenever they damn well please increases exponentially.

How does that hurt the petrodollar?  Unlike the US, Israel would have MUCH more difficulty unilaterally conducting an attack.  See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

Unlike an Israeli strike, a US strike would be much more successful if only because US aircraft could launch forces from Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, possibly Turkmenistan, or an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.  So the US could do MUCH more both in terms of initial damage and the prevention of Iranian retaliation.  Either way, a failed attack would easily be the best catalyst ever for the Iranians establishing more hardline nationalist positions, a redoubling of the proliferation efforts, and renewed efforts to unite the Islamic world against the West (again... best way ever to end the petrodollar is to get oil countries united against use of the dollar).

Then there's the risk of insincere negotiations.  Whether or not the US is sincere in their negotiation, there's the risk that Iran will also be insincere in their own negotiation.  That's Israel's fear.  The longer we sit around waiting at the negotiating table, the more time Iran has to complete its nuclear program.  Once a nuclear weapon is complete in Iran, there's little the US or Israel could do, and the petrodollar would have about 12 more seconds to live.  So for your hypothetical "power brokers," it's not enough that the US get an attack.  The attack needs to come as soon as possible.  Insincere negotiations on the part of the US only serve to help Iranian proliferation by buying them time.

And remember, the US didn't even need to give Iran the credibility to establish the groundwork for this.  Those "power brokers" you keep touting could have easily had Obama cross his arms and dismiss Rouhani as just another Ahmadinejad... a puppet to the Ayatollah, throwing out false statements of peace in order to gain sympathy and convince the US to break its sanctions.  That story has been ridiculously effective for the past 30 years, only changed within the course of one month.  Even now, that narrative's STILL being emphasized by Israel (the best ally ever for your so-called "power brokers").

The US (note: the government controlled or influenced by your "power brokers") made the call to break 30 years of silence with Iran.  The US (your "power brokers") made the call to begin reaching out to this new government.  We're the ones that empowered him with that diplomatic legitimacy within the course of just one month.  Considering the above scenarios... why the hell would your "power brokers" do this if they had even a smidgeon of political capital in this scenario?  It doesn't make the slightest amount of sense, to the point of being outright damning to your thesis.