War and Conflict Journal

On November 09, 2009, a North Korean naval vessel entered South Korean waters, refused to return to the North, and then was brought under fire by the South Korean navy. The North Korean ship was partially destroyed, and managed to escape back across the Naval Limit Line, which is the sea-border between the Koreas. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Northern incursion came only days before U.S. President Barack Obama was due to visite East Asia. It is common for the Pyongyang regime to seek attention from the U.S. and from the world as a whole in order to put it’s own agenda on the table and to force other nations to deal with North Korea.
The naval battle took place near the South Korean-held island of Daecheong-do, 125 miles west of the South Korean capital of Seoul. The island is located ja mere 18 miles from the North Korean coast.

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_naval_battle_2009.htm

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

Signs point to a possible U.S./NATO/Israeli war against Iran/Syria/Hezbollah in the near future.

Tensions between Israel and Syria escalated in early April as Israel conducts nation-wide civil defense drills simulating a domestic response to a potential Hezbollah/Syrian/Iranian attack with biological and chemical weapons. This drill comes amid continued Hezbollah threats to avenge the recent assassination of one of its leaders. Supposedly in response to Israel’s drill, Syria has put its military on alert.

In addition, Israel recently conducted a joint naval exercise with NATO forces in the Mediterranean Sea. France, Britain, Germany and other NATO nations, including the U.S. have been warning of Iran’s nuclear ambitions this past year.

It is widely assumed in the U.S. and throughout the world, that the Bush/Cheney Administration, unsure of John McCain’s chances of beating the Democrats for the White House, and unwilling to leave a potentially nuclear Iran to be dealt with by an Obama or Clinton administration, will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As of April, 2008, only ten months remain for President Bush to act. Also, a preemptive war against Iran, if it goes well (a decidedly big IF), will likely boost Senator McCain’s chances against the presumed Clinton and/or Obama Democratic ticket in November.

The recent removal of Admiral Fallon, a critic of a potential Iran War, also clears the way within the military leadership for a fully-supported effort to exercise the will of the Commander-in-Chief.

Time will tell if this war scenario plays out, but the odds are heavily stacked in favor of a wider regional war pitting the Western allies (plus Israel) against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Links and Sources:

Syria Plans Emergency Drill amid Fears of War with Israel–Voice of America, April 9, 2008

Israeli intel projects a one-month war with Syria–World Tribune.com, April 9, 2008

US Military Strike set on Iran? by W. Joseph Stroupe of the International Analyst Network, April 7, 2008