Assessment of the likelihood of a war between the US and Iran, focused on near-term developments.

::::::::

Concord Bridge Coalition

by William H. White
April 7, 2008

Despite the failed Basra offensive, the Bush administration's actions and related events indicate they are continuing toward carrying out a long planned attack against Iran. In our March 28, 2008 report: War with Iran May Have Begun with Offensive in Iraq, we concluded the attacks against the Mahdi Army, in Baghdad and Basra, were part of a set of preliminary operations in preparation for the main offensive against Iran, and continue to agree with that assessment.

In addition, we now conclude the Basra offensive, having failed spectacularly, undermined the Iraqi government's already diminished political authority, along with the Shiite Dawa Party faction it represents, and any hope the Nouri al-Maliki government had of weakening the Sadr movement before the scheduled October elections. So rather than strengthening the US military's Shiite flank in Iraq, the failed offensive has weakened it, while concomitantly enhancing the standing of the rival Shiite Mahdi Army faction and its leader Moktada al Sadr, much as Israel's attacks on Lebanon failed to weaken the Hezbollah.

Given the Bush administration continues to be far more plan/ideology driven than event/data driven, we do not expect the failed Basra offensive to turn the Bush administration away from its planned attack against Iran; instead, the Bush administration is likely to throw more resources at the US military's now weakened Shiite flank and proceed as though it succeeded. So we expect the Bush administration:

• to continue to back its now diminished Shiite partners by increasing operations against and laying siege to the Mahdi Army controlled areas of Baghdad;

• to quickly rebuild/reinforce its offensive capabilities around Basra before resuming operations against the Mahdi Army there;

• to maintain an overall state of conflict and anti-Iranian environment in Iraq, especially increasing the frequency and volume of apparently baseless accusations that Iran is underwriting attacks against US coalition forces, much as the Weapons of Mass Destruction theme was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, meeting requests for evidence with new accusations, which the media dutifully report without qualification.

Nothing, including a collapse of the Iraqi government, is likely to change Bush's determination to "hit" Iran, although the depth and duration of the attacks might be attenuated by a set of early failures. In fact, attacking Iran could very well lead to the collapse in one or more governments in the region, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Israel.

Presumably, if there are policy level debates within the administration about the wisdom of attacking Iran, the central question before the National Security Council is likely to be whether the attacks on Iran will result in an ongoing war between the US and Iran as well as other likely global consequences, with the Cheney/Israel lobby neo-con faction pressing for an attack and suggesting few consequences, and the Gates/Rice/Paulson realist faction opposing attacks and predicting grave consequences. Because of the ongoing economic crisis, Secretary of Treasury Paulson is expected to play a more prominent role in the deliberations than he might otherwise, lending additional weight to serious consideration of at least some near-term consequences. We assume expected damage to the US and global economies, as well as a de facto world trade embargo against US goods, will likely become increasingly important compared to the concerns advanced by Cheney and the Israel Lobby, such as the dangers Iran presents to the US and Israel from its "support of terrorism" and "nuclear weapons 'programs and knowledge'".

Another factor is the conflict between Bush's father and his segregate, Cheney, whose competing, collective effects on Bush's behavior appear to be critical as well as contradictory and unpredictable, in other words, clearly present but admittedly incomprehensible. Proximate influence is particularly important in Bush's case because, despite significant efforts to create impressions to the contrary, Bush neither reads well nor willingly, so he is uninformed, isolated and unusually dependent on his immediate circle for information and feedback. Also possible, perhaps even likely, is the continued undermining of the Bush administration by elements of the intelligence community, both on and off the record, such as the NIE on Iraq not having a nuclear weapons program and leaks about war plans and preparations.

An alternative assessment starts and ends with George W. Bush, who will make a personal decision, based on what he thinks will be best for himself and the Bush family, with broader considerations largely irrelevant, and deliberations within the administration of no real influence.

As far as can be determined, the US Congress, which abandoned its oversight post long ago, will not be a factor of any consequence in Bush's decision to attack Iran. In fact, the current situation, even before a war with Iran, is one of the great crises in American history, due almost entirely to the actions of a reckless president, through his willful and disrespectful acts of lawlessness, whom the US Congress, weakened and corrupted by the rise of corporate power, failed to impeach, or even confront Bush.

Our own assessment: A major US attack against Iran will ignite a US-Iran war, which will almost certainly result in grave global economic and political consequences as well as the most serious political and economic destabilization of the United States since the Civil War.

Event Summary:

• The United States military offensive against Iran continues its initial conditioning phase despite the failed offensive against the Mahdi Army in Basra, which, retaining its arms, stopped fighting government forces after the release of the text of a negotiated cease-fire agreement between its leader, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi government. The Mahdi Army withdrew from the field in response to orders and presumably would reappear when so ordered. The only positive outcome for the US may have been a brief confirmation of Sadr's whereabouts, perhaps with an opportunity to plant a tracking device among his entourage. US operations against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad continue.

• The Saudi government, after meeting with vice-president Cheney, undertook actions the next day to prepare for a possible release of radiation, presumably having been told about this danger arising from attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. This has also caused speculation in some quarters about the possible use of nuclear weapons by the US, which appear to be unfounded, at least in the initial phase of the war.

• British delay their Iraq withdrawal. Prime Minister Browne said: "It is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding."

• Additional US Naval assets, approaching pre-2003 invasion levels, are reportedly positioning in-theater. [As a matter of policy we neither report, nor attempt to predict, specific unit locations or the movements of any armed force.]

• Israel readies largest exercise ever to prepare for Iran-Syria missile war, which might well by a deployment masquerading as an exercise.

• An unusual set of four cable cuts caused wide-spread Internet outages in the Middle East and India; however, reports that Iran had been cut off from the internet are incorrect.

A Problem with Puppet Governments: Phantom Armies

There is a well know and ancient problem with puppet governments: they often field Phantom Armies. When an imperial power pays to raise local armies, the requisite payroll and arms create an irresistible temptation for local commanders. The more troops reportedly equipped and fielded, the greater the local commander's payroll and arms store. And the greater the local commander's force, the greater the "success" of the imperial army's advisors in the eyes of the imperial government paying the bills. If a soldier does not exist, his pay goes into the pockets of the local command structure and his weapon onto the black market or into a militia armory; or, if the fighter exists, a portion may go to the faction that fielded the soldier, whose loyalty the faction retains. The imperial military's own rank and file's doubts about the puppet government's army are suppressed in the interests of reporting success. Soon the imperial headquarters' maps begin to show whole units whose actual size and capability are a fraction of their nominal strength and tactical value, if they exist at all. And, if those forces do exist, then their lack of loyalty or reliability make them potentially worst than useless.

In Iraq, General Petraeus, a particularly political general, has been arming, willy nilly, any faction prepared to pretend to be part of US led coalition or at least appear to serve its interests. So, for example, Sunni "terrorists" have been transformed into ad hoc militia forces, such as "Awakening" movement, and have been hailed by the Bush administration as evidence of Petraeus' genius. A reduction in attacks on US forces, as they hand out weapons and funds, is pointed to as proof of the coalition's success. However, this is the military version of cooked corporation books, wherein both long term strategic interests and near term tactical coherence are sacrificed for the illusion of success in the next quarterly report. The essential difficulty here is those factions eventually begin to act as the independent agents they are, especially when asked to disarm, or to deploy any distance from home, or to join the puppet government's army, or to attack parties with whom they are allied or with whom they have no quarrel. Further, under the press of circumstance and ever shifting alliances of Iraq's tribal society, these factions, once armed by the US military, can then turn on each other and their US benefactors. In short, all progress in paying for and arming factions actually results an illusionary calm. In the case of Iraq, the tribal militias are very real and completely unreliable US coalition partners, while the puppet government's army is largely a phantom, except for special units whose behavior is indistinguishable from other factions. Whatever Iraqi forces being fielded by General Petraeus are, they are not a national army answerable to our puppet government.

And therein lies the core weakness of US Iraq War plans. Those thousands of Iraqi police and troops, which we claim to have fielded in reports of success to the president and Congress, and via the media to the American people and our allies, are not only not a useful force, but represent a serious risk to US forces. In fact, the utility of the so-called Surge itself was in part to insulate local Iraqi forces from actual war fighting responsibility, supposedly giving them needed time to train and to prepare to "take up the burden," but in fact to delay the day of reckoning. And all is well, until such units confront an enemy who shoots back, as happened in Basra, whereupon Iraqi government forces "melted" away or turned on US and Iraqi government forces as the enemy.

And so the much heralded Basra offensive, of which Bush said, "[A]s we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra—many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran," went belly up. Just days after issuing a surrender ultimatum to the Mahdi Army, a reported Iraqi government police and military force of 30,000 melted away in the face of determined resistance from neighborhood militias with no heavy weapons. This despite Iraqi government tanks, US air support, British artillery support, and reportedly US special forces units acting as a bracing force. According to a report in the New York Times, "The [British] defense secretary, Desmond Browne, also used his statement in the House of Commons to acknowledge that British military involvement in last week’s fighting in Basra was more extensive than previously disclosed. At one point, he said, British tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and ground troops were deployed to help extract Iraqi government troops from a firefight with Shiite militiamen in the city. Mr. Browne said British involvement in that battle was in addition to other actions in support of Iraqi forces. He said those actions included aerial surveillance of the city; low-level missions by combat aircraft aimed at reinforcing Iraqi troops by establishing a menacing aerial presence over combat zones; the use of helicopters that carried food and ammunition to the Iraqis; and medical care for wounded Iraqi troops at British combat hospitals outside the city. Mr. Browne said the use of British ground troops in the fighting was ordered 'in extremis', suggesting that the deployment of forces from the British base at Basra was a last-ditch measure to save Iraqi troops." In other words, the Basra offensive was a complete failure, called a "setback" in the success-speak of the US command in Iraq and Republicans in Washington.

In a final theatrical absurdity, the Iraqi government announced many of these "troops," likely payroll phantoms, were to be charged with desertion, thereby hoping to assuage a reportedly stunned Bush White House, where Bush stumbled into an ambush of his own, when, in a rare appearance before an unvetted audience, Bush was roundly booed by many of the 41,000 fans as he threw out the first pitch for the opening season game at the new Nationals Park.

The US broke the six month cease-fire being observed by the Mahdi Army because the cease-fire did not serve US interests, so the respite after the failed Basra offensive is likely to be brief, used to continue to build up Iraqi forces in Basra, to renew soon efforts to place the Mahdi Army in Basra back under siege and otherwise prepare to deal with the expected response to attacks on Iran. The siege against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad is likely to intensify, using US troops, in the hopes of quickly creating a offsetting success.

All this illusionary success presents an insurmountable obstacle to even talking about withdrawal, because once the possible end to the arms and funds appears on the event horizon, various factions in and out of the US coalition will begin to maneuver, positioning themselves to deal with the pending new reality and abandoning the pretense that sustains the current situation. Just as they did when the British left Basra to the Iraqis, which the Basra offensive was designed to fix as well as to cover the US flank in the Iran attacks. Within this context, Bush must decide: Should he try to hang on until the next president takes command of this pending disaster, risking a "Tet" like offensive in the fall before US elections that would manifestly demonstrate Bush's failure; or, should Bush double-down on the Iraq gamble by attacking Iran, which would then be blamed for US "setbacks." It appears likely the US will leave Iraq the way it entered: accompanied by in a blizzard of lies.

Saudi Nuclear Concerns

Saudi Arabia's Shura council, a high level leadership advisory board, is considering the issue of nuclear radiation from the US bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. What is most concerning about this development is the timing: vice-president Cheney visited the Saudis one day, and the next day "it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based DPA news service relayed the paper's story, according to Chris Floyd's blog Empire Burlesque. The Bush administration, as well as the rest of the world, should also note that no major story, especially one this sensitive and in a leading paper, appears without the Saudi government's approval, indicating Bush has fewer friends in the Middle-East after the Bush-Cheney visits to the region than before. Bush might find it useful if Rice reviewed with Bush the State Department's own appraisal of Cheney's visit, in case Cheney's own account needed clarification or fleshing out.

Nuclear Weapon Use

Another source of concern, besides whatever Dick Cheney whispered in Saudi ears during his visit, Bush has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out nuclear weapons use with regard to Iran. So presumably, at some point in the likely escalating exchanges between the US and Iran, Bush would be open to using nuclear weapons against Iran, perhaps even in the opening attack on large underground facilities. Or in retaliation for a catastrophic naval losses, such as an aircraft carrier lost to Iranian missile attacks.

US Naval Deployments

In any conflict with Iran, the risk to the US Navy is substantial, because of Bush's reckless deployment of ships close to Iranian land based missiles, in another example of Bush's seeming failure to consider anything other than his own intentions when making decisions. Or are our ships and sailors bait to create a incident serious enough to justify going to war with Iran?

Rumor of an Iran Internet Cutoff

An unusual number of undersea cable failures caused wide-spread service degradation throughout the Middle-East, except for Israel and Iraq. While some of these cuts may have been deliberate acts, until the cable break sites are inspected and repaired, the nature of the damage remains unknown. Given some confusion about dates among sources, these are the probable dates as well as known locations and cable systems involved:

1. 01/23/08: the Flag Europe-Asia, off Egyptian coast, (submarine cable cut);

2. 01/27/08: the SeaMeWe-4 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe-4), off Egyptian coast, (submarine cable cut);

3. 01/30/08: Flag Falcon, between UAE and Oman, (submarine cable cut);

4. 02/01/08: Qatar Telecom, between Qatar and the UAE, (fire in a related power system).

Reports that Iran's internet service had been completely cut off were incorrect, which may have arisen from misinterpreting a few failed link paths caused to the cable losses. Iran's service losses were about 20% of capacity.

The US Navy has capabilities specifically focused on undersea cable tapping and cutting operations: Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage, by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew (New York: Public Affairs, 1998).

Changing US Dollar's Role in Oil Trading

Some of the cable failure speculation centered around the new Iran Oil Bourse (IOB), whose planned start coincided with the cable failures. The IOB is an Internet based, peer-to-peer oil trading system being established by the Iranian government with the assistance of Chris Cook, a British subject, who was once director of the International Petroleum Exchange and the originator of the idea upon which IOB is based. A report on IOB states that "Cook believes that the proposed IOB structure will remove much of the current price volatility caused by a toxic combination of speculation by hedge funds and market manipulation by intermediary traders." Another feature of the system of some strategic import: It ends the US Dollar role as the settlement currency for oil trades.

Summary:

Our overall assessment remains largely unchanged from our March 10, 2008 report New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely:

"The more significant Iran's response or the more disruptive the economic and political consequences, the more likely the attack on Iran would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration by Bush of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections, resulting in a de facto coup d'état and the most serious destabilization of the United States since the civil war. While these risks would normally result in swift dismissal of such a plan of action, unfortunately such an attack on Iran would be consistent with Bush's history of striking out at those who impede or criticize him as well as his willingness to take radical actions because of an apparent failure to appreciate the institutional and systemic costs involved.

While there is some chance of stabilizing the situation early in the sequence of escalating events, this would require the concerted efforts of responsible US, Iranian, and international governing authorities, provided Bush can be persuaded to halt the attacks, the Iranians to limit their response to within their borders, and the rest of the world's governments and populace to respond with sufficient restraint. But history gives small comfort about such a turn of events involving nations with irresponsible leadership and substantial resources."

The failed Basra offensive will be addressed by reinforcing Iraqi government forces, who would be expected to undertake a more slowing evolving siege of the Mahdi Army in Basra, under closer supervision and support of US forces. Arrests of Iranian agents and weapons store seizures should occur along with operations along the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq as well as possible naval incidents.

Taking Action:

These reports are not intended to be an academic exercise, but rather as a warning and a call to create an alternative outcome. One possible alternative to Bush's war with Iran is for every concerned American to contact the US Congress to demand, REPEATEDLY, that Congress do its duty and stop Bush from starting a war with Iran: This government has nothing to fear, except your courage to join in spirit those who stood upon Concord Bridge and fired a shot heard around the world, this time within the law to protect the law itself.

Now is our time to act.

---> Call your representatives in Congress regularly until Congress acts to control Bush by:

1. Vote a binding resolution demanding Bush obtain authorization from Congress before any attack on Iran, no matter what the circumstances;

2. Restore Posse Comitatus Act by enacting US Senate Bill S.513 and US House bill H.R. 869;

3. Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and restore habeas corpus for all by enacting bill H.R.3835;

4. Hold impeachment hearings on Cheney; write to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to urge hearings be held on House Resolution 333 introduced by Rep. Kucinich in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on November 6, 2007; and, to House Speaker Pelosi to demand she end her "impeachment is off the table" dictum, a de facto suspension of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution;

5. Include in relevant appropriation bills wording such that no funds can be spent for a declared national emergency, except upon a vote of Congress to invoke, if congress is in session, and to continue such emergency only upon a continuing resolution by Congress every 30-days;

6. Congress should hold in contempt the head of any department or agency of the executive branch, including the White House, for failing to respond to subpoena; and withhold some or all funds and appointments from those departments, when such subpoena is found to be enforceable by the courts;

7. Establish an office of special prosecutor, to be appointed by and answerable to a federal district court, with independent funding directly from Congress, to investigate high crimes committed by any member of the executive branch while exercising their official duties, including issuing or obeying illegal orders resulting in torture, murder or kidnap or violating a treaty to which the US is a signatory, where such violation prescribes capital punishment or imprisonment of up to 10 or more years;

8. Amend the US Constitution to limit president's pardon authority, so no pardon may be issued by a president for: himself, vice-president, or any person working for the executive branch, except members of the armed forces, for crimes committed during the president's term in office; or, for any person under indictment, at trial, or appealing conviction for the offense to be pardoned; or, for any person under subpoena, impeachment or on trial by the Congress. Presidential pardons should be acts of merciful forgiveness and belated restoration, not obstructions of justice, license for ongoing criminality, nor payment for services or favors rendered.

In addition to contacting Congress, each of us can act lawfully, as individuals and together with others, to halt this drift toward tyranny:

1. Inform yourself, such as learning about the Ten Steps to Shutting Down a Democratic Society.

2. Writing to editors, calling radio and TV stations to demand serious coverage of this issue;

3. Talking to your family, friends and co-workers;

4. Joining in public protests in support of democracy in America;

5. Supporting members of Congress, such as Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, who have acted to control Bush/Cheney and restore the rule of law;

6. Making defense of democratic governance a campaign issue by demanding other candidates for public office speak up;

7. Lobby members of Congress indirectly through their contributors;

8. Joining non-partisan organizations dedicated to stopping our government's worst abuses of power, such as the American Freedom Campaign and the American Freedom Agenda;

9. Since the so-called two party system is a one party system pretending to be two, register as an independent and evaluate candidates without regard to party affiliation;

10. Write-in "None of the Above" when no listed candidate for an office is worthy of support; and,

11. Study the issue of corporate power, including its control over our economy and governmentcorporate media censorship. and

12. Support Shirley Golub who is running against Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic Primary on June 3, 2008

Contacting Us:

The author welcomes suggested updates, links, or other comments, which can be sent to comments. Please note that this is a nonpartisan effort, so we are open to link suggestions about sites of interest across the political spectrum wishing to preserve our democracy and secure the blessings of liberty. If you want to speak to the author, kindly send your request with contact information to contact author. If you wish to send anything by mail, please address it to:

Concord Bridge Coalition
PO Box 1497
East Dennis, MA 02641-1497

In the media:

The Expanding Police State (Excellent conference, with three talks)

The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

Kurt Vonnegut on current politics

American: The Next Rome?

Democracy Now!

Bush's Impeachable Crimes, and the Growing Risks of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff

Jerome Corsi on c-span.

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America

Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" & "No Logo" interview

Program about using clergy during martial law

Further reading:

New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely by William H. White

Martial Law, Concentration Camps, and Fascism: Are These Real Concerns To Americans?

"Rule by fear or rule by law?" San Francisco Chronicle February 4, 2008 by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg

The Kakistocracy Exposes Its Hand by Edwin Vieira

Police State America - A Look Back and Ahead by Stephen Lendman

Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline by PhilLeggiere

Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006 by James Bovard

Gangs of America - The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, by Ted Nace

Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann

Congressional Research Service Report - National Emergency Powers

"Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage

"The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein

Review by Christopher C. Joyner of "Extraordinary Justice: Military Tribunals in Historical and International Context"

President Bush thinks of another way to end democracy by "Hume's Ghost"

Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State by Mike Whitney

Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Bush Makes Power Grab - And Response by chattanoogan.com

The Bush Push to Militarize America by Jerome Corsi

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law by Frank Morales

Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters by Steve Watson

The "Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

McWane, Representative Davis? Who's McWane? [Effective Lobbying] by ralphlopez

------------------------------------------

Note to Reader: Given our conclusion that an attack on Iran is likely before the end of May, it seems appropriate to release near-term assessments of events as they develop, rather than waiting for additional data and time for a more mature appreciation of the situation.

This document is updated frequently, see the Most Up-To-Date Version available at its originating site.

Contact Us with comments at: Comments, especially if you have information that contradicts our data or assessments.

Copyright © 2008 William H. White All rights are reserved; except, permission is granted for anyone to copy and distribute this document on the WEB. ~ The author asks that links in the text be retained.

Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit

Authors Bio:
William H. White is Director of Voters for None of the Above