-- in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or
-- in the event of surprising military developments;" that can mean anything the administration wants it to or any threats it wishes to invent.
WMD echoes still resonate. Now it's a nuclearized Iran. Preemptive deterrence is the strategy, and Dick Cheney places the Islamic Republic "right at the top of the list" of world trouble spots. He calls Tehran a "darkening cloud" in the region; claims "obviously, they're heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment....to weapons grade levels;" cites fake evidence that Iran's state policy is "the destruction of Israel;" and official post-9/11 policy identifies Iran and Syria (after Iraq and Afghanistan) as the next phase of "the road map to war." Removing Hezbollah and Hamas are close behind plus whatever other "rogue elements" are identified;
Exhibit D: former Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith's new book, "War and Decision;" in it, he recounts the administration's aggressive Middle East agenda - to remake the region militarily; plans took shape a few weeks post-9/11 when Donald Rumsfeld made removing Saddam Hussein official policy; the same scheme targeted Afghanistan and proposed regime change in Iran and elsewhere - unnamed but likely Syria, Somalia, Sudan, at the time Libya, removing Syria from Lebanon, and Hezbollah as well.
On the Campaign Trail - Iran in the Crosshairs
John McCain is so hawkish he even scares some in the Pentagon. Here's what he said about Iran at a May 5 campaign event. He called the Tehran government the gravest danger to US Middle East interests and added: a "league of nations" must counter the "Iranian threat. Iran 'obviously' is on the path toward acquiring nuclear weapons. At the end of the day, we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are not only doing that, they are exporting very lethal devices and explosives into Iraq (and) training people (there as) Jihadists."
It's no surprise most Democrats have similar views, especially the leadership and leading presidential contenders. Obama calls Iran "a threat to us all." For him, a "radical (nuclearized) Muslim theocracy" is unthinkable, and as president he won't rule out using force. Nor will he against Pakistan or likely any other Muslim state. Obama also calls his support for Israel "unwavering." He fully endorsed the 2006 Lebanon war, and it's no secret where Israel stands on Iran and Syria.
Clinton is even more menacing. One writer calls her a "war goddess," and her rhetoric confirms it. On the one hand, "Israeli security" tops "any American approach to the Middle East....we must not - dare not - waver from this commitment." She then calls Iran "pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel." She says a "nuclear Iran (is) a danger to Israel (and we've) lost critical time in dealing" with the situation. "US policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."
Worst of all was her comment on ABC's Good Morning America in response to (a preposterous hypothetical) about Iran "launch(ing) a nuclear attack on Israel." Her answer: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. We would be able to 'totally obliterate' them (meaning, of course, every man, woman and child)." She then added: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. (Iran has) to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in."
At the same time, she, the other leading candidates, and nearly everyone in Washington ignore Iran's official policy. The late Ayatollah Khomeini banned nuclear weapons development. Today, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad affirm that position, but western media won't report it. They also play down IAEA reports confirming that no evidence shows Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that it's violating NPT.
Media Rhetoric Heating Up
It happens repeatedly, then cools down, so what to make of the latest Iran-bashing. Nothing maybe, but who can know. So it's tea leaves reading time again to pick up clues about potential impending action. Without question, the administration wants regime change, and right wing media keep selling it - Iranian leaders are bad; removing them is good, and what better way than by "shock and awe."
Take Fouad Ajami for example from his May 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed. It's headlined - "Iran Must Finally Pay A Price." He's a Lebanese-born US academic specializing in Middle East issues. He's also a well-paid flack for hard right policies, including their belligerency. He shows up often in the Wall Street Journal (and on TV, too) and always to spew hate and lies - his real specialty.
His latest piece is typical. Here's a sampling that's indicative of lots else coming out now:
-- "three decades of playing cat-and-mouse with American power have emboldened Iran's rulers;
-- why are the mullahs allowed to kill our soldiers with impunity;"
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
remember bertold brecht!! he knows what to sayat this point and time.
If there is a war and You don't go, that war will come to you.
crossroads come up 4 nov 08. Action respectively ommission of action,
needs to be decided now. We can go to the 3 or 4 prospective successors and challenge them now, if we can come up with a common denominator answer , fine , case closed, we do it now according to unopposed responses.
Lets examine the decision of E-day (EXIT one night all 170000 into safe grounds , so they cannot be blocked or abducted by falling below their critical mass) . This would be the day of truth for Mr Malaki.
If he complains we can say, he asked us to get out. He'd also be responsible for about 3 millon refugees.
What about Paul, Obama, Clinton , yes fine with them. McCain ,- yes , we
go to him and discuss it with him. Maybe he realizes , we cannot stay this course for multiple reasons ,main reasons we are out of BOTG , which is about as bad as if you lose a fleet or if you run out of amo. Another good reason not to tough iranian souverenity is the current inbalance in the arms race , the US Fleet has to stay out 400 NM iranian missile range.
On the other hand , if he's not ready (Mccain) for E-Day , we will wait
through very turbulent 6 month , to see if the Command goes to him or not.
Only a full powered war or none at all i would say. One of the two.Latter
would require war declaration by congress anyway .
Then 2 things : The training camp visible and known are the ones they don't care if they get hit , it is the prisoners and some Talibans
and Alqaida residuals insufficient loyal to Tehren anyway.
The Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges are in dublicates, multi location
undisclosed , if one gets hit they will continue on an other end anyway.
An ultimatum will give them the opportunity to post human shields .
It 's not 4 NOV yet and maybe RON PAUL may get more votes than McCain
and month after that unexpectedly he becomes convinced the war with iran is inevitable . This would be the case whe E-Day turns out to be a large disaster.
by
hlg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:40:24 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
