> If Attacked, Iran and Venezuela Threaten to Cut Off US Oil Supply
8 March 2005, 07:23
I know what you are saying; however, the scenario that I gave just previous, has been worked on over the last 21 or so years. Partially, it can be found in the State Department newsletters and studies on the Near East as well as various non-specific State Dept.’s proceedings on world oil. Of what is public is perhaps only 20% [if that] of the actual documentation — the rest being classified. Further, in another series of papers done on policy, Dr. Kissinger and his staff’s works dating back to the his days as NSC adviser to Nixon would prove exteremely useful in understanding current context and policy trusts.
It is understood by various levels in the branches that the war games have already played out, dating to at least the operation Bright Star workouts of the mid-1980s.
One thing to keep in mind is that Dr. Kissinger dates his association with Nixon [and work in government] back to the days when Nixon was Veep under Eisenhower. [And perhaps eariler to Nixon’s "Un-American" committee.]
Overall though, counter-circumstances will govern U.S. policy with Iran — That is, while the U.S. would/could simply attach Iran, it is not now straight for the U.S. The Iranians are a clever people and they have not stood still, unlike much of the Muslims. While the U.S. has never been able to slice and identify divisions within the greater Iranina dispora.
I was surprised that Iran actually replied to any of the U.S. statements towards them. However, I can see limited use of their replies to their domestic consumption. The best that the Iranians can do is simply irgnore U.S. statements, or at least, not reply to them directly. It’s still not too late for them to follow a "silence is golden" policy for the short term. But then again, they are also being governed by their own counter-circumstances.
So, will the U.S. act out the option I mention... Time will tell...
I know what you are saying; however, the scenario that I gave just previous, has been worked on over the last 21 or so years. Partially, it can be found in the State Department newsletters and studies on the Near East as well as various non-specific State Dept.’s proceedings on world oil. Of what is public is perhaps only 20% [if that] of the actual documentation — the rest being classified. Further, in another series of papers done on policy, Dr. Kissinger and his staff’s works dating back to the his days as NSC adviser to Nixon would prove exteremely useful in understanding current context and policy trusts.
It is understood by various levels in the branches that the war games have already played out, dating to at least the operation Bright Star workouts of the mid-1980s.
One thing to keep in mind is that Dr. Kissinger dates his association with Nixon [and work in government] back to the days when Nixon was Veep under Eisenhower. [And perhaps eariler to Nixon’s "Un-American" committee.]
Overall though, counter-circumstances will govern U.S. policy with Iran — That is, while the U.S. would/could simply attach Iran, it is not now straight for the U.S. The Iranians are a clever people and they have not stood still, unlike much of the Muslims. While the U.S. has never been able to slice and identify divisions within the greater Iranina dispora.
I was surprised that Iran actually replied to any of the U.S. statements towards them. However, I can see limited use of their replies to their domestic consumption. The best that the Iranians can do is simply irgnore U.S. statements, or at least, not reply to them directly. It’s still not too late for them to follow a "silence is golden" policy for the short term. But then again, they are also being governed by their own counter-circumstances.
So, will the U.S. act out the option I mention... Time will tell...