Disturbing Stirrings - Ratcheting Up For War on Iran - by Stephen Lendman
Led by Dick Cheney, Bush administration neocons want war on Iran. So does the Israeli Lobby, but it doesn't mean they'll get it. Powerful forces in Washington and the Pentagon are opposed and so far have prevailed. Nonetheless, worrisome recent events increase the possibility and must be closely watched.
Recall George Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the nation. He announced the 20,000 troop "surge" and more. "Succeeding in Iraq," he said, "also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt (those) attacks....we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
That was then; this is now. On May 3, Andrew Cockburn wrote on CounterPunch: "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret 'finding' authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, (is) 'unprecedented in its scope.' " The directive permits a range of actions across a broad area costing hundreds of millions with an initial $300 million for starters. Elements of the scheme include:
-- targeted assassinations;
-- funding Iranian opposition groups; among them - Mujahedin-e-Khalq that the State Department designates a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO); Jundullah, the "army of god militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan; Iranian Kurdish nationalists; and Ahwazi arabs in southwest Iran;
-- destabilizing Syria and Hezbollah; the current Lebanon turbulence raises the stakes;
-- putting a hawkish commander in charge; more on that below; and
-- kicking off things at the earliest possible time.
These type efforts and others were initiated before and likely never stopped. So it remains to be seen what differences emerge this time and how much more intense they become.
More concerns were cited in a Michael Smith May 4 Times Online report headlined "United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp." It refers to a "surgical strike" against an "insurgent training camp." In spite of hostile signals, however, "the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on the back burner" after Gates replaced Rumsfeld. The article makes several other key points:
-- "American defense chiefs (meaning top generals and admirals) are firmly opposed to (attacking) Iranian nuclear facilities;"
-- on the other hand, they very much support hitting one or more "training camps (to) deliver a powerful message to Tehran;"
-- in contrast, UK officials downplay Iranian involvement in Iraq even though Tehran's Revolutionary Guard has close ties to al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army; and
-- Bush and Cheney are determined not to hand over "the Iran problem" to a successor.
Earlier on April 7, Haaretz reported still more stirrings. It was about Israel's "largest-ever emergency drill start(ed) to test the authorities' preparedness for threats (of) a missile attack on central Israel." Prime Minister Olmert announced that the "drill (was) no front for Israeli bellicose intentions toward Syria" and by implication Iran. Both countries and Hezbollah see it otherwise and with good reason. Further, Israeli officials indicated that this exercise might be repeated annually because they say Iran may have a nuclear capability by early 2009, so Israel will prepare accordingly.
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
