Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
The President’s position, and its corollary-that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians-have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The President has made it clear that the United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran. The State Department is working diligently along with the international community to address our broad range of concerns.” (The White House declined to comment.)
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)
“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002″-the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”
In a speech at the United Nations last week, Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was defiant. He referred to America as an “aggressor” state, and said, “How can the incompetents who cannot even manage and control themselves rule humanity and arrange its affairs? Unfortunately, they have put themselves in the position of God.” (The day before, at Columbia, he suggested that the facts of the Holocaust still needed to be determined.)
“A lot depends on how stupid the Iranians will be,” Brzezinski told me. “Will they cool off Ahmadinejad and tone down their language?” The Bush Administration, by charging that Iran was interfering in Iraq, was aiming “to paint it as ‘We’re responding to what is an intolerable situation,’ ” Brzezinski said. “This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand.”
General David Petraeus, the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his report to Congress in September, buttressed the Administration’s case against Iran. “None of us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern,” he said. Iran, Petraeus said, was fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”
Iran has had a presence in Iraq for decades; the extent and the purpose of its current activities there are in dispute, however. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, when the Sunni-dominated Baath Party brutally oppressed the majority Shiites, Iran supported them. Many in the present Iraqi Shiite leadership, including prominent members of the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, spent years in exile in Iran; last week, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Maliki said, according to the Washington Post, that Iraq’s relations with the Iranians had “improved to the point that they are not interfering in our internal affairs.” Iran is so entrenched in Iraqi Shiite circles that any “proxy war” could be as much through the Iraqi state as against it. The crux of the Bush Administration’s strategic dilemma is that its decision to back a Shiite-led government after the fall of Saddam has empowered Iran, and made it impossible to exclude Iran from the Iraqi political scene.
Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, who is an expert on Iran and Shiism, told me, “Between 2003 and 2006, the Iranians thought they were closest to the United States on the issue of Iraq.” The Iraqi Shia religious leadership encouraged Shiites to avoid confrontation with American soldiers and to participate in elections-believing that a one-man, one-vote election process could only result in a Shia-dominated government. Initially, the insurgency was mainly Sunni, especially Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Nasr told me that Iran’s policy since 2003 has been to provide funding, arms, and aid to several Shiite factions-including some in Maliki’s coalition. The problem, Nasr said, is that “once you put the arms on the ground you cannot control how they’re used later.”
In the Shiite view, the White House “only looks at Iran’s ties to Iraq in terms of security,” Nasr said. “Last year, over one million Iranians travelled to Iraq on pilgrimages, and there is more than a billion dollars a year in trading between the two countries. But the Americans act as if every Iranian inside Iraq were there to import weapons.”
Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.)
In early August, Army Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Times about an increase in attacks involving explosively formed penetrators, a type of lethal bomb that discharges a semi-molten copper slug that can rip through the armor of Humvees. The Times reported that U.S. intelligence and technical analyses indicated that Shiite militias had obtained the bombs from Iran. Odierno said that Iranians had been “surging support” over the past three or four months.
Questions remain, however, about the provenance of weapons in Iraq, especially given the rampant black market in arms. David Kay, a former C.I.A. adviser and the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations, told me that his inspection team was astonished, in the aftermath of both Iraq wars, by “the huge amounts of arms” it found circulating among civilians and military personnel throughout the country. He recalled seeing stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators, as well as charges that had been recovered from unexploded American cluster bombs. Arms had also been supplied years ago by the Iranians to their Shiite allies in southern Iraq who had been persecuted by the Baath Party.
“I thought Petraeus went way beyond what Iran is doing inside Iraq today,” Kay said. “When the White House started its anti-Iran campaign, six months ago, I thought it was all craziness. Now it does look like there is some selective smuggling by Iran, but much of it has been in response to American pressure and American threats-more a ‘shot across the bow’ sort of thing, to let Washington know that it was not going to get away with its threats so freely. Iran is not giving the Iraqis the good stuff-the anti-aircraft missiles that can shoot down American planes and its advanced anti-tank weapons.”
Another element of the Administration’s case against Iran is the presence of Iranian agents in Iraq. General Petraeus, testifying before Congress, said that a commando faction of the Revolutionary Guards was seeking to turn its allies inside Iraq into a “Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests.” In August, Army Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told reporters in Baghdad that his troops were tracking some fifty Iranian men sent by the Revolutionary Guards who were training Shiite insurgents south of Baghdad. “We know they’re here and we target them as well,” he said.
Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me that “there are a lot of Iranians at any time inside Iraq, including those doing intelligence work and those doing humanitarian missions. It would be prudent for the Administration to produce more evidence of direct military training-or produce fighters captured in Iraq who had been trained in Iran.” He added, “It will be important for the Iraqi government to be able to state that they were unaware of this activity”; otherwise, given the intense relationship between the Iraqi Shiite leadership and Tehran, the Iranians could say that “they had been asked by the Iraqi government to train these people.” (In late August, American troops raided a Baghdad hotel and arrested a group of Iranians. They were a delegation from Iran’s energy ministry, and had been invited to Iraq by the Maliki government; they were later released.)
“If you want to attack, you have to prepare the groundwork, and you have to be prepared to show the evidence,” Clawson said. Adding to the complexity, he said, is a question that seems almost counterintuitive: “What is the attitude of Iraq going to be if we hit Iran? Such an attack could put a strain on the Iraqi government.”
A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. “We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities,” he said, “and we believe they will react asymmetrically-hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America.” There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. “Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it,” the diplomat said.
In interviews with current and former officials, there were repeated complaints about the paucity of reliable information. A former high-level C.I.A. official said that the intelligence about who is doing what inside Iran “is so thin that nobody even wants his name on it. This is the problem.”
The difficulty of determining who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq can be seen in Basra, in the Shiite south, where British forces had earlier presided over a relatively secure area. Over the course of this year, however, the region became increasingly ungovernable, and by fall the British had retreated to fixed bases. A European official who has access to current intelligence told me that “there is a firm belief inside the American and U.K. intelligence community that Iran is supporting many of the groups in southern Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of British and American soldiers. Weapons and money are getting in from Iran. They have been able to penetrate many groups”-primarily the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias.
A June, 2007, report by the International Crisis Group found, however, that Basra’s renewed instability was mainly the result of “the systematic abuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias.” The report added that leading Iraqi politicians and officials “routinely invoke the threat of outside interference”-from bordering Iran-”to justify their behavior or evade responsibility for their failures.”
Earlier this year, before the surge in U.S. troops, the American command in Baghdad changed what had been a confrontational policy in western Iraq, the Sunni heartland (and the base of the Baathist regime), and began working with the Sunni tribes, including some tied to the insurgency. Tribal leaders are now getting combat support as well as money, intelligence, and arms, ostensibly to fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Empowering Sunni forces may undermine efforts toward national reconciliation, however. Already, tens of thousands of Shiites have fled Anbar Province, many to Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, while Sunnis have been forced from their homes in Shiite communities. Vali Nasr, of Tufts, called the internal displacement of communities in Iraq a form of “ethnic cleansing.”
“The American policy of supporting the Sunnis in western Iraq is making the Shia leadership very nervous,” Nasr said. “The White House makes it seem as if the Shia were afraid only of Al Qaeda-but they are afraid of the Sunni tribesmen we are arming. The Shia attitude is ‘So what if you’re getting rid of Al Qaeda?’ The problem of Sunni resistance is still there. The Americans believe they can distinguish between good and bad insurgents, but the Shia don’t share that distinction. For the Shia, they are all one adversary.”
Nasr went on, “The United States is trying to fight on all sides-Sunni and Shia-and be friends with all sides.” In the Shiite view, “It’s clear that the United States cannot bring security to Iraq, because it is not doing everything necessary to bring stability. If they did, they would talk to anybody to achieve it-even Iran and Syria,” Nasr said. (Such engagement was a major recommendation of the Iraq Study Group.) “America cannot bring stability in Iraq by fighting Iran in Iraq.”
The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.
“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out-for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need-even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.
A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”
A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.”
The surgical-strike plan has been shared with some of America’s allies, who have had mixed reactions to it. Israel’s military and political leaders were alarmed, believing, the consultant said, that it didn’t sufficiently target Iran’s nuclear facilities. The White House has been reassuring the Israeli government, the former senior official told me, that the more limited target list would still serve the goal of counter-proliferation by decapitating the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, who are believed to have direct control over the nuclear-research program. “Our theory is that if we do the attacks as planned it will accomplish two things,” the former senior official said.
An Israeli official said, “Our main focus has been the Iranian nuclear facilities, not because other things aren’t important. We’ve worked on missile technology and terrorism, but we see the Iranian nuclear issue as one that cuts across everything.” Iran, he added, does not need to develop an actual warhead to be a threat. “Our problems begin when they learn and master the nuclear fuel cycle and when they have the nuclear materials,” he said. There was, for example, the possibility of a “dirty bomb,” or of Iran’s passing materials to terrorist groups. “There is still time for diplomacy to have an impact, but not a lot,” the Israeli official said. “We believe the technological timetable is moving faster than the diplomatic timetable. And if diplomacy doesn’t work, as they say, all options are on the table.”
The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. A senior European official told me, “The British perception is that the Iranians are not making the progress they want to see in their nuclear-enrichment processing. All the intelligence community agree that Iran is providing critical assistance, training, and technology to a surprising number of terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, through Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, too.”
There were four possible responses to this Iranian activity, the European official said: to do nothing (”There would be no retaliation to the Iranians for their attacks; this would be sending the wrong signal”); to publicize the Iranian actions (”There is one great difficulty with this option-the widespread lack of faith in American intelligence assessments”); to attack the Iranians operating inside Iraq (”We’ve been taking action since last December, and it does have an effect”); or, finally, to attack inside Iran.
The European official continued, “A major air strike against Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not.” His view, he said, was that “once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things.” For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Larijani, two of Iran’s most influential political figures, “might go to the Supreme Leader and say, ‘The hard-line policies have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the sake of the regime.’ ”
A retired American four-star general with close ties to the British military told me that there was another reason for Britain’s interest-shame over the failure of the Royal Navy to protect the sailors and Royal Marines who were seized by Iran on March 23rd, in the Persian Gulf. “The professional guys are saying that British honor is at stake, and if there’s another event like that in the water off Iran the British will hit back,” he said.
The revised bombing plan “could work-if it’s in response to an Iranian attack,” the retired four-star general said. “The British may want to do it to get even, but the more reasonable people are saying, ‘Let’s do it if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq.’ It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.” There is, he added, “a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high.”
The French government shares the Administration’s sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program, and believes that Iran will be able to produce a warhead within two years. France’s newly elected President, Nicolas Sarkozy, created a stir in late August when he warned that Iran could be attacked if it did not halt is nuclear program. Nonetheless, France has indicated to the White House that it has doubts about a limited strike, the former senior intelligence official told me. Many in the French government have concluded that the Bush Administration has exaggerated the extent of Iranian meddling inside Iraq; they believe, according to a European diplomat, that “the American problems in Iraq are due to their own mistakes, and now the Americans are trying to show some teeth. An American bombing will show only that the Bush Administration has its own agenda toward Iran.”
A European intelligence official made a similar point. “If you attack Iran,” he told me, “and do not label it as being against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will strengthen the regime, and help to make the Islamic air in the Middle East thicker.”
Ahmadinejad, in his speech at the United Nations, said that Iran considered the dispute over its nuclear program “closed.” Iran would deal with it only through the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said, and had decided to “disregard unlawful and political impositions of the arrogant powers.” He added, in a press conference after the speech, “the decisions of the United States and France are not important.”
The director general of the I.A.E.A., Mohamed ElBaradei, has for years been in an often bitter public dispute with the Bush Administration; the agency’s most recent report found that Iran was far less proficient in enriching uranium than expected. A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. is based, said, “The Iranians are years away from making a bomb, as ElBaradei has said all along. Running three thousand centrifuges does not make a bomb.” The diplomat added, referring to hawks in the Bush Administration, “They don’t like ElBaradei, because they are in a state of denial. And now their negotiating policy has failed, and Iran is still enriching uranium and still making progress.”
The diplomat expressed the bitterness that has marked the I.A.E.A.’s dealings with the Bush Administration since the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “The White House’s claims were all a pack of lies, and Mohamed is dismissive of those lies,” the diplomat said.
Hans Blix, a former head of the I.A.E.A., questioned the Bush Administration’s commitment to diplomacy. “There are important cards that Washington could play; instead, they have three aircraft carriers sitting in the Persian Gulf,” he said. Speaking of Iran’s role in Iraq, Blix added, “My impression is that the United States has been trying to push up the accusations against Iran as a basis for a possible attack-as an excuse for jumping on them.”
The Iranian leadership is feeling the pressure. In the press conference after his U.N. speech, Ahmadinejad was asked about a possible attack. “They want to hurt us,” he said, “but, with the will of God, they won’t be able to do it.” According to a former State Department adviser on Iran, the Iranians complained, in diplomatic meetings in Baghdad with Ambassador Crocker, about a refusal by the Bush Administration to take advantage of their knowledge of the Iraqi political scene. The former adviser said, “They’ve been trying to convey to the United States that ‘We can help you in Iraq. Nobody knows Iraq better than us.’ ” Instead, the Iranians are preparing for an American attack.
The adviser said that he had heard from a source in Iran that the Revolutionary Guards have been telling religious leaders that they can stand up to an American attack. “The Guards are claiming that they can infiltrate American security,” the adviser said. “They are bragging that they have spray-painted an American warship-to signal the Americans that they can get close to them.” (I was told by the former senior intelligence official that there was an unexplained incident, this spring, in which an American warship was spray-painted with a bull’s-eye while docked in Qatar, which may have been the source of the boasts.)
“Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, ‘Uncle Sam is here! We’d better stand down’? ” the former senior intelligence official said. “The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer.”
Another recent incident, in Afghanistan, reflects the tension over intelligence. In July, the London Telegraph reported that what appeared to be an SA-7 shoulder-launched missile was fired at an American C-130 Hercules aircraft. The missile missed its mark. Months earlier, British commandos had intercepted a few truckloads of weapons, including one containing a working SA-7 missile, coming across the Iranian border. But there was no way of determining whether the missile fired at the C-130 had come from Iran-especially since SA-7s are available through black-market arms dealers.
Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident-in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.
The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”
-Seymour M. Hersh
© 2007 CondéNet
The US is at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.
Our ally is Iraq. Iraq has always been our ally.
We are at peace with the fact that we are at war. War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Experts confirm, everything is fine.
This link was written when Mr. Hersh first exposed Cheney/Bush’s plans to attack Iran. The dangers outlined still exist, perhaps even more acutely.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=OSB20060314&articleId=2093
If Cheney/Bush wants to depopulate the Middle and Far East, there couldn’t be a much more effective way to do it.
The stupidity of the Bush Admin’s foreign policy apparatus is simply beyond belief. They decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein and promote democracy in Iraq. Who did they think would take power in Iraq if not Shiites? And who did they think the natural allies of a Shiite government in Iraq would be? So, having promoted a vast Iraq-Iran Shiite power center in the Middle East, now Bush is scared of Iranian power. Why does he think we backed Saddam Hussein all those years if not to counterbalance Iran’s power in the region? This is simple stuff. Why is it these neo-con crazies can’t figure it out?
There are reports, unverified, that the elements of the US military and intelligence community are “pushing back” against hawks in the Bush-Cheney administration regarding attacking Iran.
Even more unusual reports involve US surveillance drones over Iran, reported as “UFOs,” and a past event involving the Iranian Air Force and a UFO. Sounds far-fetched, but interesting.
More on it in the article …
“UFOs over Iran could be U.S. operations, extraterrestrial visitors or both”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20151
Hersh’s analysis, that a Bush launched second preemptive war against Iran is likely to occur and probably can not be stopped is unfortunately accurate.
Unfortunately, the senior military resistance/revolt that has been the only force holding back Bush was the only possible check on the Empire’s war plans.
I had long ago concluded that Democrat and US public resistance would be a non-issue against preemptive (and nuclear) expansion of the Empire’s oil-war from Iraq to Iran.
I had long ago concluded that the only “hope was in the Generals”
But now the global corporate fascist war Empire behind this facade of “Vichy America” has even thrown out the last defense of the “Generals” (including Peter Pace, who aborted the Feb 2007 war launch plan) — and brought in their own War Admiral, “Mad Dog” Mullen.
There is no question that military revolts have been the only thing standing in the way of the Empire’s planned nuclear war in Iran.
In fact, there have already been several military revolts, starting with Pace’s clear instructions to his senior officers that they are “not to carry out illegal and/or immoral orders” in February — which stopped the Empire’s first planned war launch, and predictably got him removed by the Empire as Jont Chief’s Chairmam — right up to the latest military revolt, just recently, to abort Cheney’s planned B-52, ACM/W-80 nuclear bomb ‘accidental strike’.
However, not with standing Cheney’s premature ejaculation of nuke cruise missiles on the aborted B-52 scam, the Empire will not have long to wait in launching their long planned ‘global strike’, preemptive, nuclear attack on Iran with the cover of entirely legal means —— thanks to the installation by the Empire of their preferred nuclear spear carriers, Admiral Mullen and his spacebot bomber side-kick, StratCom “Ripper” Cartwright. Aided and politically endorsed by the AIPAC greased US Senate passage of the “Attack Iran Now” sense of the Senate vote last week!!
Note, for those who do not remember (including the MSM from their own reporting) Admiral “quick trigger’ Mullen is the one, who as CNO during the Iran/British seaman capture dust-up, infamously growled that “if that had happened to my sailors there would have been shots fired — even if it started a war”.
Perhaps that was the cameo role and performance that earned Admiral “war starter’ Mullen his new ’stripes’.
Or for those who continue to hold out hope against the next phase of this war, perhaps that ‘hope in the Generals’ will be replaced by ‘hope in a baatle of the Admirals’ —- as we learn from James Carroll’s piece today that Admiral William Fallon seems to be willing to take on his subordinate General Petraeus, in reducing the war in the Middle East, “this “constant drumbeat of conflict” concerning Iran, said Admiral William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, is “not helpful and not useful.” Fallon wants to head off such talk. “There will be no war”.
So, will it be Admiral Mullen ordering the war, and Admiral Fallon holding back the nuclear holocaust?
The only problem here is that Mullen out-ranks Fallon — by a lot.
The abject failure of the war in Iraq must be due to Iran’s meddling. It couldn’t be the fault of those brilliant strategists and honest diplomats Bu$h/Cheney.
“Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The President has made it clear that the United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran.” SURE. Let’s just dive off another cliff and take as many lives as possible with us; while providing profit to the military-industrial complex whose paid political sychophants manipulate media and every OTHER resource to win their singular objective: more war, the quintessential CRIME against humanity.
AMA CD: Excellent posting. Thank you. I am hoping for the ultimate inside coup, too… what else have we, short of alien abduction or Divine intervention at this point?
How many cruise missiles would it take to conduct this attack. How many JDAMS? It’s been a while since this stock of weapons needed to be replentished. There’s a lot of money involved. It’s also a very effective way to test these weapons for a new round of research and design.
Besides that, an attack will stir up a lot of trouble that will take a lot more weapons to deal with. This will be very good for business. This is win, win, win for the entire US elite. It’s a no brainer.
The lies and deception are SO transparent and obvious and Bu$h’s hypocrisy [lecturing other countries about Human Rights: I mean for shits sake] at the UN so blatant. The obnoxious ‘little king’ has no pants. How the MSM can keep a straight face; while reporting a ‘Cock and Bull’ story about this ‘game of the hiding inconvenient truths under shifting shells’, is simply beyond any sane comprehension…
And finally, so much of America’s future is at stake here. It’s simply frightening that such a nitwit like Bu$h [with this ‘dark nemesis overlord’ Cheney hovering around him whispering ‘evil shit’ in his ear];
is the decider [a psycho with his grimy finger on the HOT BUTTON ready to destroy the Middle East as we know it and spread shards of DU all over the planet…
All we can do is hope Admiral Fallon, CentCom commander, becomes deaf when given the order to attack.
The accusation of Iranian weaponry in Iraq is bizarre in light of how much weaponry the US has lost track of there.
What we should focus on is the US media. While they wring their hands over their failure question the lies that lead us into the illegal aggression against Iraq, they repeat the same “mistakes” regarding Iran. We need to remind them and let them know we’re ont to them and will hold them criminally responsible while inundating them with facts via editorial letters and articles and online responses and phone calls.
I find it incomprehensible how so many Americans can contemplate the murder of millions of fellow humans. Do you see them as sub-human? Explain to me how well fed, healthy and educated people can line up aircraft carriers off the coast of a nation on the other side of the planet and discuss how their threat to attack will be packaged as counter terrorism. The fact, that they can even hope that you will approve of this, shows where the average American stands with regards to simple decency. No, not you, not every American…and there’s Patrick Leahy and a few others of course that seem to give a rodent’s posterior about all of us on this world but answer me this: What have they done to you to make you so fearful and arrogant at the same time?
At the end of the day, when you get bored of contemplating the murder of your neighbors, consider this: Most people on earth just want to live their lives in peace. They have hopes for their children. They just want to get on with life. Stop seeing enemies everywhere. Stop making enemies. People are pretty much the same wherever you go. Go in peace.
sorry. the issue was ordered more than a year ago. we have and had special forces infiltrating groups and raiding cities while planting infra-red and lazer transmitters for the bombings come Jan. nothing can stop it now.
If I were a USAer I would not make any plans to ever leave the USA again if the throwbacks get their way. Every USAer might as well pin a target bullseye on their back. Too bad, so sad.
Siouxrose October 1st, 2007 1:29 pm
AMA CD: Excellent posting.
I concur; very interesting material.
Seriously, the divine intervention angle needs to be looked into. Where is this all going really? This is just escalation on top of escalation, and hypocrisy heaped on top of all that.
It’s about controlling and materialism and esoteric and profound spirituality that goes way beyond the ken of religious dogma. It’s about the destruction of the earth. Organized religions are political organizations. There’s reversal of fortune and twists of fate all over the place far outstripping or equaling anything shakepeare wrote in it’s description of human nature and written on events happening in the actual world. And reams of poetry from the mouths of savants as well as from the most barbaric of the idiots.
I saw on Democracy Now the other day where Marcel Marceau had said that “life can be beautiful even if it is sometimes harsh.” Up to your dieing day. Now there’s poetry and religion for you.
There will be a war some day and it will be severe. William Lind wrote today,
“A basic rule of history is that the inevitable eventually happens. If you keep on smoking in the powder magazine, you will at some point blow it up. No one can predict the specific event or its timing, but everyone can see the trend and where it is leading.”
Uri Avnery wrote this this morning as well about the coming conflagration:
“Why? Because George Bush is nearing the end of his term of office. If it ends the way things look now, he will be remembered as a very bad - if not the worst - president in the annals of the republic. His term started with the Twin Towers catastrophe, which reflected no great credit on the intelligence agencies, and would come to a close with the grievous Iraq fiasco. There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books. In such situations, leaders tend to look for military adventures. Taking into account the man’s demonstrated character traits, the war option suddenly seems quite frightening.”
” Our politicians are still trying to play the empire game long after the age of empires has ended. Blinded by arrogance, they cannot see that with every passing day, the world needs us less and less and hates us more and more. We are passing through that phase when the grandeur of the empire exists only in the minds of politicians who have insulated themselves from reality.
“A friend of mine, a classical scholar, sometimes tells his students, “No one woke up one morning in 476 A.D. and said, ‘Gee, I’m in the Dark Ages.’” The transition from the heyday of Roman power to a stage of barbarism was a gradual process. We are in a process of change. No one is going to announce on TV that the U.S. is no longer a superpower.”
Read the rest of this at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese399.html
As a USAn, I agree that we have gone beyond being able to separate the guilt of the US government from the guilt of the people of the US themselves. Increasingly, it is the USAn character itself that is becoming hated, and even I, a USAn myself, find, find many of the habits, customs, and wordlview of the majority of my fellow citizens to be vile. It is a terrible thing to hate one’s own nationality, but I do. I didn’t ask to be born here. The USAn people have invited a searing indictment from the entire world on themselves, and when they are collectively tried in the court of world opinion, ignorance will be no excuse.
For all its breathtaking religiosity the US citizenry is demonstrating itself to own a severe empathy disorder, as in massive deficit.
GEOFF says, “There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books.” Is it impressive to ELECT to escalate aggression, to willfully erect a war of choice, war as the supreme crime against humanity?
Zoya adds, “476 A.D. and said, ‘Gee, I’m in the Dark Ages.’” The transition from the heyday of Roman power to a stage of barbarism was a gradual process.” I’ve been calling our era the NEW Dark Age for some time. Your analogy is a good one.
JLocke offers, “At the end of the day, when you get bored of contemplating the murder of your neighbors, consider this: Most people on earth just want to live their lives in peace.” This is the fundamental argument. How DARE US citizens be coddled into another war! As if it’s just as innocuous as the images on some kind of movie screen or video game. This is what I mean by the profound empathy disorder. IF the press REALLY showed the levels of carnage in Iraq, the babies blown to bits, the full barbarity of it all… I think a lot more people would wake from their media induced and/or religious indoctrinated slumbers.
Actually, Siouxrose, it was Uri Avnery who wrote that this morning. Just my bad editing skills, though your point is well made!
There will be no limited war with Iran as the Iranians know that they must counterattack with all their might since faced with nuclear attack they have nothing to lose. I also think Russia, China, India, and Pakistan will not welcome nukes being detonated at their doorstep. In other words, ANY attack on Iran is likely to start WW3, which will last all of one or two days once the ICBMs start flying.
It is the above message that MUST be sent–the CRAZIES are called crazies for a well deserved reason as they envision a winnable nuclear war and have since the 1950s. Why do you think Hersh keeps hammering away and many people provide him with leaks/info. The madmen MUST be stopped and incapacitated before they inflict the ultimate TERROR.
So, what can we do to arouse our slumbering Republican neighbors to this gathering danger?
To connect with their conservative values, I make a point of calling Bush a “proven liar” rather than a “warmonger”. I accuse him of “reckless ambition” rather than “aggressiveness”. I refer to his “sinful pride” rather than his “obstinance”.
They lied to me
They lied to you
They lied to our troops
Don’t waste these words on your Congress Rep. Share them with your fellow voters in a letter to your hometown newspaper.
LADDY
what do you mean by ‘come jan.’? january?
SIOUXROSE
IF the press REALLY showed the levels of carnage etc. how right you are. but it would have to be shown with parental guidance. shame the poor iraqi children don’t have that option……………
Another POV,
ZNet | Iran
Will US Attack Iran? Hersh, Kolko Weigh In
Historian Gabriel Kolko writes in to say that “war with Iran is not likely.”
by Gabriel Kolko; AntiWar.com blogs; October 01, 2007
THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIES are now in a crisis, and it may be protracted. The dollar is falling in value, Gulf States and others may abandon it, etc. A war with Iran would produce economic chaos, because oil would be scarce. There are states, like Russia and Venezuela, who can sell it. In a word, the balance of world economic power is involved, and that is a great issue.
1. THE GULF STATES do not like Shia Iran, but they export oil, becoming rich thereby. They are dependent on peace, not war.
2. THE U.S. PUBLIC AND CONGRESS are variable factors. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks the Democrats will stop wars is fooling himself or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
3. CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS huff and puff ideologies and are very articulate ideologues. Will they volunteer to fight Iran, and what will they do on the battlefield? How many effective fighters do they have at the Weekly Standard or AEI?
4. THE AMERICAN MILITARY is at the present moment stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another?
5. BUNKER BUSTERS can knock out so many bunkers, not all. If they are nuclear they are very useful, but they are also radioactive. In addition to killing enemies, they may kill friends and nearby U.S. soldiers also. It depends where you must drop them.
6. WHAT WILL IRAN DO, and what sorts of technology do they possess? They fought against Iraq about a decade, and suffered about half a million casualties. Perhaps they will roll over, but it’s not likely. There are a number of tiny islands in the Gulf they have had years to fortify. Can 90 percent of their weapons be knocked out? The remainder will be sufficient to sink many boats and tankers. The oil exported through the Gulf will thereby be reduced, and perhaps cease altogether.
7. ISRAEL may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not. Hence a number of Israeli pilots will realize they are embarking on suicide missions. Will they? Some will, others will not.
8. IRAN IS LIKELY TO GET NUCLEAR BOMBS, sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?
There may be other factors. But these are sufficient.
The Bush-Cheney administration, as the Iraq war proved, is full of mad, irrational people, and there is no way to account for them. But not everyone in Washington thinks like them, especially in the military, and those on Wall Street who have the most to lose from a war have great political influence. We are obligated to count on them because that is they way the U.S. has operated for decades. According to an article in Salon, Sept. 28, “the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions” were it ordered to war against Iran. Without them, there is no danger. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. But the U.S. fights wars and loses most of them. The U.S. is very likely to lose a war with Iran if it fights. It probably will not.
It is up to the USAn people to prevent this monstrosity–through civil disobedience ideally, but downright uncivil disobedience if necessary. If they fail to do so, they will have deserved the Hell in which we are all likely to burn.
Its not surprising that the CinC and his Vice who have never been in actual/real military warfare entertain infantile not to mention imbecelic scenarios about what they plan to do to other human beings with their nukes.
The fact that a civilized individual entertains such thoughts is indicative of the basest of socalled human emotions. Which leaves the question as to what would be the most effective relatively speaking way to stop any individual from making such a decision.
That decision would be to make completely certain that that individual or individuals are not able to make the decision to nuke anyone and the only certain way is to kill the person or persons that would entertain any notion of nuking anyone.
If on the other intelligent and civilized beings such as those that call the USA land of the free and home of the brave and represent what is ostensibly its ultimate decision
makers such as the US Congress, Senate and the CinC and his Vice are only capable of intereacting with other human beings only on the level of either nuking or not nuking as ameans of interaction. Then such individuals do not only deserve to not live but have no God given rights to determine who else other than them has to suffer the same ultimate fate of nuking or being nuked.
Until we get off our collective duffs, stop whining and take to the streets in non-violent protest bringing the country to a standstill, will anything change.
Our elected officials who apparently have been bought and paid for by the armament industry are leading us into unmitigated disaster.
The lyrics “when will we ever learn” keep haunting me from a Viet Nam era song whose title I cannot remember.
I’m afraid the answer is never…
I can’t see any rational reasons why they still pursue the “madman” strategy despite the fact that it has never worked.
An adversary will only counter with strategy(the give and the take) if they believe the player itself is amenable to using/changing strategy.
If you were playing against someone who was impervious to compromise and willing to go to irrational extremes, what choice would you have but to dig in and prepare for the worse?
The Iranians very clearly view their energy program as a matter of national sovereignty, they cannot accept complete capitulation on this issue; only compromise, as in the “grand bargain” letter they circulated to the EU to give to the US. But complete capitulation is the only diplomatic option the Bush/Cheney/Condi is pursuing.
It is a policy that has only one endgame. A predictable endgame. If we assume Bush/Cheney are rational players, it means they seek this endgame.
I fear the “if we have it/we must use it” deterrence crowd has way to much sway in long range policy planning. Nuclear weapons and preemptive military force is only a deterrence if the other players believe if your “madmen” enough to use it given little provocation.
“The US is at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.
Our ally is Iraq. Iraq has always been our ally.
We are at peace with the fact that we are at war. War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Experts confirm, everything is fine.”
To which I submit Rumsfeld’s pricless Orwellianism:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And of course the freepers and christofascists’ favorite,
“FREEDOM ISN’T FREE”
Narf, zort!
“What we gonna do tonight, Dick?”
“Same thing we do EVERY night, Georgie — try to take OVER THE WORLD!!!”
The colonization of Iraq was carried out principally outside the normal intelligence and military institutions(not the joint chiefs but some academic undersecretaries were writing the invade and transition Iraq war plans, not the CIA, Defense Intelligence, etc., but a special office staffed with political hacks gave the smoking guns of intelligence.)
They have shown themselves capable of circumventing the institutions of government to pursue a particular fantasy-based policy. It appears the particular fantasy they have been laboring under since the Reagan years is the image of a high-tech military that can solve every problem with sea launched cruise missiles and radar “invisible” bombers.
You have to remember, the image Cheney sees is a operation that will take about 5 hours and will transform everything. He sees himself only 5 hours away from living out the climax of a Clancy novel. He probably thinks of himself as exercising a remarkable amount of self-control. This administration has the CSI-bug, and much of their missteps may be traced to their faith in this delusional military hardware fantasy.
Right you are bolwriter. However, remember Iraq under Bremer, despite the Bush regime rhetoric, was not in favor of democracy until head Shiite Sistani demanded elections. I believe that the Bush regime never intended nor does it now intend to allow “democracy” to flower in Iraq.
BD
It isn’t Iranian supplied munitions, or anything else coming from Iran that is causing American troops in Iraq to be killed.
It’s the Americans who are causing the Americans to be killed.
The American Congress, the American President and the American Vice President in Chief, and the American public.
Our decision to blackout the sun, rather than surrender our insatiable thrist for more profit, more oil, more plastic, more petrochemicals and more cancers.
More, and more of the same, ’til death do us part.
There is no need for another ‘government’ finding, or another article in the New Yorker, the handwritings on the wall.
Now why would the starters worry about the bench when they are losing anyway ? Hell if it looks like a loss coming right in your face call ” Time out ” aka marshall law …oh shit that could happen but don’t tell em ok ?
Divide et impera-was a roman maxim that the British co-opted and called Divide and Conquer. The automatic course of action usually done is turn the government in place upside down. So the first thing you do is put the Shias in charge and you have guaranteed that they will fight each other for decades. Hence the United States followed the script and helpfully blew up some mosques, killed staggerig numbers of Shias and Sunnis in order to catalyze the reaction toward internal division. Then you repeat the mantra of civil war and continue arming both sides and killing both sides until it actually becomes a reality. Iraq actually took a VERY long time for this to occur almost 3-4 years and unfortunately since the US are very RECENT occupiers - enough people in both camps (Shia/Sunni) are also targetting US forces. Therefore- the situation in Iraq at this time has potential to be a protracted occupation until a true civil war can actually take place and the focus of rebellion, resistance and anger dissipates from the US and towards each other.
The Brtish had decades to establish this pattern in India/Pakistan where they hate each other blindly, reflexively and have forgotten all about the english empire which continue to rob both countries blind thru their Anglo-Alliance partner the United States along with their improved colonial tools-corporations. The script would have been perfect in India and Pakistan as they are so imbued with hostility towards each other that if both sides were appropriately armed and war condoned by the the western powers - these countries would provide and ever increasing source of profits and revenue for western defence firms for atleast a generation - perhaps later as there are more pressing concerns at the moment.
Therefore the war on Iraq was more about dollar hegemony tied to oil (for those who forget-IRAQ/Saddam Hussein stopped accepting US dollars for oil in 2000 due to sanctions and crushing reparations). Since we KNOW that Saddam was and could be defeated easily at any time but the decision to hang him/ remove him this time was because he committed the cardinal sin of trying to disrupt Americas true source of power - dollar hegemoney tied to oil. Since we KNOW that not a single accusation against Saddam ever turned out to be true and we KNOW that despite his militarily invading a small oil rich country did not cause him to be put to death - the only reason remaining is his challenge of dolar hegemony - and hence he HAD to die.
The country of Iran became a ‘natural’ target when it refused to accept payment for oil in US dollars instead preferring yen and euros in 2005. So it makes sense that since 2005 there has been an increased sense of urgency to produce, dissemiate and propagate rhetoric that labels Iran has as an aggressor. And if fact - it is true - as they are attacking the US particularly dollar hegemoney by REFUSING to accept US dollars for oil. They have been quietly forging alliances with Russia and Venezuela (as they have also moved away from dollar hegemony oil trade to Euro/Yen trade as well in 2005).
Hmm- this can be a problem when 30 percent of the worlds oil refuses to take US dollars. Therefore the best route whether in the school yard or the world stage is beat the snot out of the instigator who actually has the effrontery to get a few people to stand up to the bullies. If done severely enough - the others will return meekly to handing over their lunch money and this pattern can go on indefinitely -well atleast till senior year of high school
The ‘willingness’ of european powers -who initally seemed to be against the war and have joined in supporting this hegemonistic adventure is not simply due to swallowing the tale of energy resources being central to continuing empire which european powers also have little ones f their own (particularly France). Mainly more than the ‘developing’ world they are tied at the hip to dollar hegemony- this is easily verified by recalling that during the recent credit crisis - it was the European Central Bank that panicked to the tune of 300 BILLION dollars dumped into their respective markets with in a single day!!! It can be further illustrated by the fact that England (NorthRock), France (BNP PAribas) and Germany (atleast 3 banks) suffered HEAVY losses in US mortgaged back securities and HAD to be bailed out- to prevent the ‘contagion’ from gaining hold in Europe.
Therefore - the ardor of France and its talk of war from high level officials as well as Germany chiming in to form a unified chorus of concern for ’so-called’ nuclear Iran is not what it seems. After all - what is 300,000 mortages or so compared to 30 percent of the world turnover in oil and god forbid - if other peole (Bolivia/ Turkemistan/Nigeria) get ideas and do the same with natural gas. The catastrophe that will hit the western world of finance will cause the richest (most indebted) countries in the world is unthinkable. After all - how can you mantain puppets in dozens of foeign countries if your currency has no value- oh my - the curtain may be pulled back and the mountains of glory that the west appears to sit on will be revealed to be mountains of debt.
There are no Iranian weapons being supplies, no iranians are training any Shia in Iraq, No iranians are supporting any Shia groups. However - I am not sure it would go well with the general public if the real reason was let out. Let’s just say - that no one cared Countrywide or NorthRock were members of the business community - people just reflexively stampeded oer to the bank to withdraw their money. so forget the wester population - imagine all the elite of the world in Nigeria, India, China, Qatar and Kuwait(who has also reduced the amout of dollars they are taking in). Imagine the stampede by Albanian, Russian, Italian mafiosi who would RUN to the Caymans and other destinations to quickly removetheir dollar deposits and convert them to Euros, Swiss Francs or gold.
No- this will not do - ad if Iran CAN be coerced to give up - which is to resume taking US dollars for oil - you will find the miracle of diplomacy suddenly being spouted. if not - war it must be - since with out dollar hegemony the western world as we know it will suddenly become radically improverished. The rest i facade and dressing for the masses.
Memo to the American Army in Iraq:
The British have been defeated. They presently reside in a dust-hole, known as an airbase, to the North, South, West or East of Basra, somewhat. Interdiction of your supply lines, in the event of aggression against Iran, is certain. How long can you hold out? Will Baghdad be your Stalingrad? And if so, are you the Russians, or the Germans?
Report: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff Monday, October 1, 2007 Iranian and Israeli news outlets are reporting that Russia has evacuated its entire staff of nuclear engineers and experts who were working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor, increasing speculation that the United States is preparing an imminent military attack on Iran. According to the Khorramshar News Agency, which represents ethnic Arabs in opposition to Ahmadinejad’s regime who live near the reactor, the Russians packed their bags and left on Friday.
I find the majority of the discussion of this direct challenge to the continued existance of the human race, and all life on earth, pretty off target. Actually, as divorced from reality, in its own way, as the so-called “intelligence” of the Bush administration.
Seymour Hersh is laying before us the evidence that our nation’s right wing, corporate government is causally contemplating escalating a war that could wipe out life on our planet, and quite a number of the folks on this discussion are talking about depending on “generals” and “divine intervention,” as our role in this struggle.
We have a very real responsible to do more than moan about this situation and feel like thing are hopeless! People thouoghout history have faced horrible, life threatening obstacles and still risen up to fight for justice and WIN!
We have a responsiblity to unborn future generations (as well as millions living today) to stand up for peace and justice now. We are the majority! We who are for peace, justice and real democracy, actually represent the American people.
On OCTOBER 27, in CHICAGO, (as well as D.C. and a number of other cities) a huge coalition of LABOR, COMMUNITY, FAITH & PEACE GROUPS have called for demonstrations against the war!
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE is a sponsor. Lets unite in some action NOW!! Please join us in getting out & mobilizing our friends an neighbors to speak out!
The battle “for the hearts and minds” of the American people is being fought, and won! We all need to be talking about what we are actually doing in each area to try to reach out to others.
Here in Ohio, the arch conservative city of Cincinnati recently passed a city council resolution demanding that the war be ended, and the billions spent on the war be spent, instead, on health care and housing for folks here.
In Columbus, labor, retiree groups, ministers and peace groups are holding town hall meetings where people in the community are testifying about how the war is hurting them and their families. People in pro-Bush Republican Deb Pryce’s congressional district, in Columbus, hounded her, leafleting her neighborhood, picketing her, etc, until she announced she wouldn’t run again. The county commissioners in Cleveland passed a resolution similiar to Cincinnati’s, calling for an end to the war and spending for social needs at home.
We, the people, CAN WIN, but only if we fight! We can’t afford, at this crucial time, the luxury of cynicism!
What is most messed up about the speculation concerning the bombing of Iran is that NO ONE knows what is really going on. We sit and listen to pundits argue over whether or not it may happen, why it may or may not happen, what the consequences may be if, and on and on.
Congress has no say in the matter, they are a lost cause.
The military leaders are either jumping ship and whimpering, after the fact, about how bad things are, or are keeping their mouths shut for whatever reasons known only to them; maybe they’re itching for more innocent bloodshed, or hoping to hang on long enough to get their retirement benefits.
Pundits speculate, bloggers rant, Congress hides, and the remaining military leaders mindlessly get in line.
The pathetic thing is that the only ones who know if the bombing will occur is Bush and his Dick.
Our fragile democracy is in shambles!
on aug 30 the air force admitted losing custody for 3 hours of 5 nuclear warheads.
the story is that they were mistakenly loaded onto a b52 and flown from minn to louisiana.
the base is louisiana is the second largest base in the us and is the jumping off point for the arsenal heading to the gulf.
cheney wants to use tactical nukes for bunker busting in iran.
can we connect the dots here?
the us has, by its own volition had a strict policy of never flying nukes. self imposed for safety reasons in 1968.
in 1991 as part of the salt agreements the us signed into law its commitment to not fly not nukes.
now by coincidence a “mistake” happens to contravene the law (and we know bush would never break the law) at the moment when bush is building up his military to attack iran.
its about as believable as the keane/hamilton disgrace called the 9/11 commission.
i think the neocons are feeling their moment slip away - this makes them very dangerous.
what kind of assurances would cheney or bush have that they could continue to thumb their noses on congressional subpoenas once they are out of office.
their own incompetence, the collapse of the religious right as a political power, and, among other things, very importantly, the great people within the 9/11 truth movement has brought them, i think, to a point of no return.
realistically, they could easily face jail, either in the states or in the hague.
or, option b, they can rule the world through their bombs. martial law at home, finally a good use for the 800 or so fema prisons.
at times i think of them like the guy who used to spin all the plates on the ed sullivan show and at times i see them like slim pickens in dr strangelove as he rides the bomb from the plane like bucking a bull.
to quote frank zappa (we love you frank):
yippee tie yo tie yay!
iyamwutiam:
loved your last post
thanks
ken
i agree with you kengarjagalouski.
iyamwutiam’s post is well considered and informative.
WAR RESOLUTION
All Too Relevant Quote: How is the World Ruled, & how do wars start?—
Diplomats tell lies to journalists, & then believe what they read.
(Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)
Even with our limited information on this war, it is all to evident that our legislators erred when they granted this unlearned and arrogant administration the authority to embark on and perpetuate this ill conceived war.
The weapons inspectors were there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting “civil war” and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious–but their advice was ignored. One can only imagine the extent of disaster if Saddam had unleashed some biological, chemical, or primitive nuclear weapons on our troops during the invasion.
After over four years, the only rational option left now is for congress to seize the war powers from the president–and then pursue a logical course to conclude this misadventure. This would include not only recognition of the recent advisory commissions recommendations (which the administration ignored) but also curbing profiteering, promoting measures for energy conservation and global warming mitigation to reduce our dependance on their oil–and regain some worldwide trust.
The alternative is to permit continuation of this disastrous quagmire, while risking a war with Iran and destabilization of the entire area– and further damaging our international stature.
Dear Robert (and others):
Has it not struck you in the LEAST bit strange - that despite an ‘ACTUAL” voter mandate issued primarily on the basis to halt the war - that the democratic party is doing ALL it can to aid and abet the adminstration they swore to impede and impair — if not impeach? (this may help):
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/bop/index.html
Overnite- the dominance of the rebublicans was removed- and is one of the single largest turnouts in a single mid-term election(Fact-my dear boy -Fact)
Has it escaped your attention that the two most likely candidates (Obama/Clinton) are not in favor of ending the war. That suddenly these bastions of critical thiking have seemingly ‘accepted’ that the Iraq propsiton is “complex” and Iran is ’suddenly’ a threat that must suffer ‘consequences”. How does this adminstration continue towards this ’seemingly’ reckless path finding cooperation and defence at every turn and at every corner?!?!
Why and how does such a plurality of vote become stymied?!?! Why and how does this tide of freedom loving, compassionate americans become relegated to the farther reaches of websites -which are still being polluted by propaganda (see Zunes article-for a recent example - but there are many others). Why do people who are natural predators of public whim (politicians) fail to feast at the table of public opinion and make political hay?!?!
To quote Sherlock Holmes:
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
“After over four years, the only rational option left now is for congress to seize the war powers from the president”
Robert Settgast, I don’t think this scenario is likely because congress can’t even seize its collective ass with both of its collective hands!
CURMUDGEON99
it’s called ‘where have all the flowers gone?’ and i think it was peter paul and mary. and you are right……….never………………
coco, thanks for the reminder.
Toto, in “The Wizard of OZ”, seemed to be the only intelligent being. Everyone else had their fears and insecurities.
“Don’t worry about that pathetic man behind the curtain”, said the organ player.
The Wizard has controlled media, to the point that none of us can make true decisions, because of the fears placed before us.
We are told what to fear! Fear instills inaction.
Deers in the headlights.
America, not the financialy enpowered sword-makers, need to become “we, the people” again.
OIL is the new gold that used to back the now unbacked $.We seem to be giving up life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for skull and bones Wizards.
The Powers Yhat Be in this country still don’t get it. despiite all our modern weapons we will never defeat the othersides gurrella warfare tactics.
We couldn’t in Viet Nam and we won’t in Iraq .
And attack on Iran will bring us to our knees from lack of oil to run our machines.
Our 911 will seem like a picnic when suicide bombers start hitting public places here in the USA on a daily basis.
And once this war starts it will never stop.
Even if we nuke every Arab country to cinders. The survivers will keep screaming revenge and retoliate even after decades.
We should look at our own history . We defeated the British to win our independence ,because while the British soldiers march arm and arm onto the battle field. We American patriots hid behind trees shooting at them and then ran away to fight again.
Did our Revolution produce any suicide bombers? A good question!
Anyway, America is coming up for the third time ,but instead of us grabbing a life preserver .We grab a hold of a boats anchor and pull it down with us.
You know even a 4th or 5 th grader could tell the Powers That Be if Iran even today has a nuclear weapon. They will be unable to deliver it for decades. And the weapon they could deliver would only take out a city .
Our Own American daily pollution is much more lethal then that and the Powers that be ignore those realities.
According to the “bush doctrine,” Iran has every right to launch pre-emptive strikes to thwart the obvious, imminent threat to it’s sovereignty and it’s populace by The United States of America.
Or, put another way: what would we do if Ahmadinejad declared:
“The attacks on our bases and our troops by American-supplied munitions and US Special Forces soldiers have increased… The American regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders throughout the world to confront America’s murderous activities.”
Ahmadinejad added that he has asked the Parliament to label US Special Forces, Navy Seals, Marine Recon, and Airborne as “specially designated terrorist organizations.” Next week, at the U.N., he’s expected to provide solid evidence backed by solid sources that American “terrorist organizations” are planning to use nuclear weapons against his people.
FRANK1569
NICE ONE…………..
Look for Bush/Cheney to ‘cancel’ the 2008 national elections on the grounds that they need more time for their plans to work in the middle east. Also look for them to dismiss the congress as not needed to run the federal government. They have the full support of almost all the national media, as well as control of the armed forces and the spying and intelligence activities of the government.
It *can* happen here, just as it did in Germany 75 years ago.
re: bolwriter -
“The stupidity of the Bush Admin’s foreign policy apparatus is simply beyond belief. They decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein and promote democracy in Iraq. Who did they think would take power in Iraq if not Shiites? And who did they think the natural allies of a Shiite government in Iraq would be? So, having promoted a vast Iraq-Iran Shiite power center in the Middle East, now Bush is scared of Iranian power. Why does he think we backed Saddam Hussein all those years if not to counterbalance Iran’s power in the region? This is simple stuff. Why is it these neo-con crazies can’t figure it out?”
The US gov’t could not care less about the Iraqi or Iranian peoples, or what kind of gov’t they eventually have. The Neo Cons simply want to control the oil through corporations and maintain the dollar’s tie to oil, the latter being the lynchpin that the whole ball o’ wax is riding on. Everything else is simply a facade to propagate this expedient.
The Saudi’s in the 1970’s agreed to sell their oil only in dollars at the behest of the Nixon admin., in trade for Nixon accepting higher oil prices. Shortly after Saddam started selling oil for euros instead of dollars, Iraq was invaded. And now that Iran no longer accepts payment for oil in dollars, they are next in line to be attacked. In the GOP/Neo Con milieu, whatever consequeces arise from attacking/invading of these oil-producers is secondary and can be dealt with, so long as the message is sent that they will not be allowed to reject the dollar’s primacy.
The Democrats are also on board for the monopoly, since they too are well aware that if the dollar ceases to be the world’s major oil-trading currency, then it will be rendered virtually worthless. Any major oil-producing nation that deviates from dollar-based sales is automatically on the US hit list - including Russia.
One answer might have been to reverse Nixon’s removal of the gold standard and abolish the [unconstitutional] Federal Reserve, but it is too late for that now. The US debt is far too high - there is literally not enough gold in Ft. Knox to cover it. The US is actually bankrupt, so it must have the Fed to keep printing fiat money.
First, factor out all the hype about nuclear weapons because Iran has constantly said that it’s not interested in it. Additionally, experts agree that even if Iran were anxious to get the nukes, it would take at least a few years. So, all the hoopla is not really about Iran getting the A-bomb, but about the U.S.controlling the Middle East, and making Israel the dominant power in that neighborhood. And whoever controls the Middle East, of course, gets to control the oil.
The talk of a surgical strike is also bovine scatology. They are floating this nonsense to make the war more agreeable to people. So, it’s not really a war, it’s only a surgical strike. Bullshit. Once you start a war, you can’t stop it, and the first bombs don’t say, ‘Hey, take it easy you Iranian guys, we’re just surgical.”
It’s amazing what BushCo and AIPAC-Co go through to start the war.
I don’t fear Iran as much as I do the US under George W Bush! The man isn’t in touch with reality! He is a lunatic disguised as a simpleton. I will say it again for the umpteenth time. I think he needs to be removed from office before he destroys us. If we wait until 1/20/09 it’s going to be to late!
If we avoid WWIII after an attack on Iran, it will be because the Russians and Chinese and others will be content to continue watching the US self-destruct in unwinnable resource wars. Only the deluded clowns in the Bush administration believe an attack on Iran could possibly further their goals.
Because we have such a dysfunctional media, too few realize how completely incompetent and disorganized the Bush administration is. Bush’s philosophy all along has been “Everything for everybody!” (a line from the end of a “Christmas Carol” movie), while Cheney’s has been “Everything for me!” And by “everybody,” Bush would mean all his cronies and important supporters and associates.
Anyone who looks for a single cause for the Iraq war is chasing a ghost. There was “Everything for everybody!”, i.e. helping Rove win elections for Republicans in 2002 and 2004, helping Zionists protect Israel, arms manufacturers, oil and energy companies (including Halliburton), mercenary companies, foreign policy elites lusting for global power, those concerned about dollar hegemony, and various large corporations planning on remaking the Iraqi economy into a shining example of free enterprise. In short, there were too many goals and too many cooks in the kitchen preparing the dish. And this all followed from Bush’s undisciplined and uneducated laissez faire approach to governing, where he depended on “winners” (those with a lot of money) to know what they were doing and on some “invisible hand,” such as that he believes in with regard to the market, to make sure it all worked out (he may even believe this invisible hand is that God feller).
And Cheney’s Halliburton has done extraordinarily well, and Cheney’s friends in the oil industry are still salivating over Iraq’s expected $10 trillion in oil which they expect to profit significantly from, and so Cheney has helped guide the effort all along.
A crumbling empire run by depraved people from a decadent society is ugly, ain’t it?
Saila, kivals, et al -
I think what you’re missing is that the US gov’t doesn’t really care if the results are WW III, or Israel’s amount of Middle East influence, or whether the Yankees beat the Red Sox. Their primary concern (and from which everything else stems) is that the US dollar/oil relationship - and hence economic and political control - is maintained. All else are side issues with varying degrees of importance.
I thought this was the most interesting 2 sentences in the Hersh article: ‘Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”’
The polls now show only 8% (and dropping) of America favors military action in Iran.
(http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_diplomacy.htm)
Consequently, an air/missile strike on Iran might indeed spell the death of the Republican Party. Especially if oil hits $200 per barrel, which it probably would.
So maybe there’s a silver lining.
seditious,
I had latched on to the dollar hegemony argument at the beginning of the war, as it makes a lot of sense. But if Bush and Cheney thought it was the overriding concern, then other goals would be sacrificed to ensure its success. However, I have seen no such sacrifice whatsoever. The state industry workers were fired to allow for the free enterprise experiment (see Naomi Klein’s work) even though that created a significant risk of chaos, oil companies are still pushing for the PSAs (which are not necessary for dollar hegemony, but which cause great resistance for good reason), the Bush administration is selling arms (helping US arms manufacturers of course) to parties in the region creating more risk of chaos, the Bush administration is still contracting out military services to mercenaries (even though that is counterproductive) and to companies like Halliburton, and the Zionists still hold sway.
Bush is such a weak mentally-challenged leader that he is afraid to stand up to any of his big supporters and to tell them he must give up on their goals. So he is still on the “Everything for everybody” approach when it is beyond hopeless.
IYAMWUTIAM: Extremely enlightening and helpful post.
KIVALS said, “In short, there were too many goals and too many cooks in the kitchen preparing the dish.” Good metaphor and interesting posting.
MILES OF MUSIC: Good points, too!
Here again is a thread that adds much to the content of the original article. Many thanks, fellow commondreamers.
The point that we are in many respects just speculating about what goes on behind the scenes is extremely interesting.
there was a good article connecting the dots about the louisiana tactical nukes at http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2518/81/
but the other event shrouded in mystery was of course the secret bombing raid in Syria.
No one is revealing the planning that goes on there, and these people are “always have a plan” people, even how they will go out the door in the morning, the tie they will wear. they can’t stand improvisation or spontaneity it drives them bonkers. My question is with all their plans, where do they really see themselves going with this? I read somewhere that Bush owns property on the moon. Already the scope of their dominion is widening exponentially.
But maybe it challenges the very essence of the idea itself of whether a “god” exists or not. Begging some kind of definitive proof by going to the extremities of human pride and arrogance and so forth.
It seems to me that Bush, etc, the corporations, have incredibly well documented scenarios about their own possible futures, and that in examining these futures, they have embarked on a course of action which horrible to comprehend for us lowly types, they feel is the only course which insures their survival or continued margin of profit. Their raison d’etre.
We have been totally cut off that’s whey we’re talking here.
I think the “Iran” issue will be more very loud talk than action in the next 13 months with the Republicans hoping to first conquer Congress, then hand our war on terror off to President Giuliani for continuation.
There is always even the possibility that Dick Cheney will resign for “family” or “medical” reasons, and Mr. Bush will attempt to make Giuliani an incumbent VP, even before the elections.
Iran as an issue isn’t going away, first, because they probably will keep enriching uranium. Second, because
Republicans know they have a better chance of winning on “security” issues than on anything else.
But having Iran help elect Giuliani is about as perverse an irony as Democrats, liberals, and progressives could ever imagine. Talk about giving away the constitution.
If you log on to CSPAN, you will hear them plead their case about Iran. It is amazing how they can waste our time and money to discuss such issues as arresting Labor Leader organizers in Iran (sound familiar in the U.S.?) or discuss what it is like not to get a fair trial in Iran (sound familiar in the U.S.?).
Too bad the media won’t do a comparison chart between Iran and the United States, you know, to distract the dimwitted citizens of this country…
Among the many colorful and distinguishing hallmarks of this administration is its inability to learn from experience. If BF Skinner had had pigeons like this, his behaviorstic theories of psychology could never have been developed. The pigeons would have kept pecking the same key, no matter how the reinforcement schedule was adjusted.
The advantage held by pigeons, I suppose, is that they have no ideologies surrounding bird seed.
you could argue that they haven’t learned anything and you would be partly right.
on the other hand, you could argue that they had learned a great deal. about how to control, manipulate, and distort. to name a few. and to an extreme.
also, they are “the big show.” They write the script and the timing is all. That we can guess the ending will be not what they think it will be is written plainly in the starts and in the tea leaves.
Ok, so they lack some necessary human ingredient, but they are where the are. that’s the reality.
It seems that all it takes for many Americans to believe someone is “out to get them” is for the White House to spin some fairy tale and Faux News to jump on the bandwagon.
We hear all of these terrible things about Iraq, then suddenly Iran is “sneaking weapons into Iraq”, and Hugo Chavez is “supporting terrorist nations” and Evo Morales is nationalizing his country’s resources and giving land to the poor… so he’s turned “communist”…
I have news for some of you people… it’s ALL B.S. intended to get us to back the corporate agenda of controlling Middle East and South American oil.
In both South and Central America, the wealth has been controlled by just a very few ultra-wealthy people for generations… while the vast majority of the population struggles to just feed their families.
They NEED a little “communism” or at least more socialistic governments to break the stranglehold the ultra-wealthy folks have held so long… the SAME KIND of stranglehold the ultra-wealthy are rapidly acquiring over the U.S.
In the U.S. about 80% of the population has actually LOST financial ground in the last three decades while the top 10% have TRIPLED their wealth.
Now you can be foolish and gullible and believe all the crap the wealthy and powerful tell you… or you can fight to insure your grandchildren can become more than just indentured servants to the rich.
Sy Hersch has been blasted over and over by several administrations now, but EVERY TIME he was eventually proven right… from My Lai until Abu Ghraib… so I think there is a good chance that he is absolutely right about Iran.
Remember when we were in high school with your history teacher discussing either Russia or the mideast would say “The last thing we ever want to have is a madman with his finger on the button”. DUUUUHHHHH!!!
What was once perhaps a government of, for, and by the people, we have devolved into a government of, for, and by the oil companies. Bush, Cheney, and Rice: all oil. So, follow the money, and the Iraq and Iran wars, past, present, and future come into focus. The slime is an oily one.
The neo-cons are making the same mistakes as they did with the invasion of Iraq. There perceptions of the results of attacking Iran are irrationally optimistic. Attacking Iran is against the interests of the United States:
1. More US and civilian deaths as Iran supplies deadly weapons. money, and manpower to the Iraqi and Afghan fighters. Civil unrest in Irag will increase.
2. Popular support for Iran’s president will grow as Iranians will rally around their leaders. The opposition will be marginalized and the chances of finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the outstanding issues will dramatically shrink. Talk of an attack effecting regime change is a fantasy unless you are talking about a more oppressive military dictatorship.
3. Western Economies will contract as the price of oil increases with a great depression on the horizon.
4. Isreal will face increased attacks.
5. Terrorist attacks on the US will increase as terrorists seek to avenge the deaths of their countrymen.
Iran is at least 5 years from the capability of developing nuclear weapons. Given the costs of an attack it makes more sense to talk.
I want to thank “iyamwhatiam” for his incredibly sophisticated, profound analysis. Like my friend Enterik
your humor wit and wisdom are legendary here at CD.
Please keep shedding light on the darken faces of my middle class.
You are the true Robin Hood of empire causal knowledge.
A toast to our learned friend,
pac
You can’t understand the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the coming war in Iran, unless you see them as opening salvos in the coming US war with China. The US in engaged in a long term strategic encirclement and counter-encirclement campaign against China, aiming at all costs to prevent an axis that would extend from China, via India and/or Pakistan to and through the Middle east into Africa. The US is strategically committed to what it calls “destructive reduction of excess production capacity” in order to maintain its global hegemony in the remainder of this century. That means bombing China into submission, something it can only do if it has sealed China off from potential alliances by taking out the allies first separately, beginning with Iran. It’s not a coincidence that Iraq and Afghanistan border (encircle) Iran. Nor is it coincidental that the US has established permanent bases and alliances with the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and has signed nuclear development agreements with India.
antiracistaction_la October 3rd, 2007 12:53 am,
This really is 1948 (Orwellian slip) and we are looping…..if what you say is approaching the truth, methinks we’d all better learn some mandarin or cantonese
——–
iyamwutiam,
What a powerful analysis. follow the money, cui buono, and hitting them where it really hurts (money belts)…Money makes ze world go ’round, ze world go ’round… Damn! Talk about getting to the root (of all evil) baby!
Thanks mucho.
geeze, i realize that i sound almost glib in my last comment. i don’t feel glib in the least, thot i should say that.
maddening times we live in