It is standard textbook strategy to use proxies in winning wars. This is studied by those keen in military history, including yours truly.
Of course, the belligerent states utilizing such a clandestine method do so through cleverly disguised, sometimes orthodox ways such as providing logistics support and intelligence, infiltrating intelligence or fighting agents who blend into the proxy's military force; often times in unorthodox ways such as pleasant diplomats who represent its guilty country to bluff the enemy that it is an ally against another supposedly common foe and in this case, Al-Qaeda .
Obviously, having the mother of all bombs is even better and serves as a great bargaining tool... The dwarf would now be a towering giant and yes, sooner or later, it will be tempted to use it to do what it has been saying all along: annihilate a certain race in the Middle-east. Their misinterpretation of the militant version of the holy book says so.
Having the bomb or having caused the next holocaust, this giant would then be the new power to be reckoned with in the Middle-east. Behold, the new jihadist, Saladin! Behold, the new jihadist Reich! From Iran to the East, West and up North!
Well, the reality is that these mad folks have gone too far and it would be too late if they do not stop their saber-rattling (not keris-rattling, yet) ways at once ...
Here's an article in the London Times that will serve as a strong warning to Iran that the free world's patience is wearing thin... But then, maybe Debat's belief the Pentagon may not carry out this powerful option would be a comforting thought for the troublesome Iranians perhaps...
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.