Thanks for posting that Brookings article “Which Path to Persia”. Interesting though it is, it can hardly be offered as an example of what you called “some 2009 docs that call for an Iranian attack on the US in order to be able to start the needed war.”
Well I disagree insofar as some part of the article clearly states what kind of iranian provocation would be required SHOULD the US decide to go to war (for the reasons mentioned in the document (iranian nuclear program), or for other (and obviously hidden) motives). Such provocations have been used to declare war since the beginning of times. The nazis staged a polish attack as justification to invade Poland, there’s the Tonkin gulf “incident”, there are the famous rumors that the US let pearl harbor happen to justify the war to the public audience, there’s the Lusitania episode (how smart is it to carry war supply on a so called civilian neutral ship), and there’s that debate about 9/11.
It calls for nothing, but is simply an examination of what its compilers see as nine options which, in their own words “Most readers are likely to conclude… riddled with costs, complications, risks, and low likelihoods of success.”
It clearly states that a bloody provocation is necessary.
This is one of the things that defence academics do – study potential military options and their inherent problems and chances of success. Personally, I’ve modelled a few ‘hairy’ scenarios in my younger days, but would hate anyone to think that I was seriously advocating them.
Well I’m sure you weren’t advocating anything. But those documents are made for a reason, and those who use them don’t always do it with the best intentions.
Nic
Sign In
