Ray McGovern: Attack on Iran Off the Table?

[babylonsister]

Attack on Iran Off the Table?

By Ray McGovern
October 18, 2008


On Sept. 23, the neo-conservative chiefs of the Washington Post’s editorial page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close friend, that “a military strike by the United States or Israel {on Iran is not} likely in the coming months.”

One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as they complained that efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program have “slipped down Washington’s list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb.”

We are spared, at least this go-round, from images of “mushroom clouds.” But racing to a bomb?

Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the nuclear weapons-related part of Iran’s nuclear program was halted in mid-2003.

And never mind that Thomas Fingar, deputy for national estimates to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, reiterated that judgment as recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post’s own Walter Pincus reported on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons work.

Hey, the editorial fellows know best.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/101808a.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. McGovern discusses signs that it's "off the table," and asks the important question: why?

He says the Post attributes it to “the financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He says, "These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most important ones," and that "the Post and other charter members of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer not to address."

Then he writes:

"More important than the bear market is the Russian Bear that, after a 17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with Russia’s growing strength and assertiveness.

"The catalyst was the fiasco in Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neo-cons in Washington and their Doppelganger of the extreme right in Israel.

"You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when Georgian President Mikhail Sakashvili ordered his American- and Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.

"It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Shakashvili against baiting the Russian Bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention to such things, that State is regularly undercut/overruled by White House functionaries like arch-neo-con Elliott Abrams, whose middle name could be 'F' for 'fiasco.'

(snip)

"...it is almost certainly true that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia.

"For centuries the Russians have been concerned — call it paranoid — over threats coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history....

(snip)

"Even neo-con Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain and former lobbyist for Georgia’s Sakashvili, would have known that.

"And this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia’s reaction was totally predictable. McCain could then 'stand up to Russia' with very strong rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing danger of a resurgent Russia."

(emphasis added) (MORE)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/101808a.html

----

Then McGovern suggests that the Georgia war (Russia's strong reaction) was a proxy war between Russia and the U.S./Israel over Iran. And Russia won. It was thereafter clear, not just that the U.S. military opposes any U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, but that it would surely lead to a wider and possbily out of control war.

While I agree that Russia is a big factor in an attack on Iran being taken "off the table" (also China), I think that what occurred at this fabled "table" occurred further back in time, to Rumsfeld's resignation in Dec 06, with no change of policy in Iraq. The new 'Democratic' Congress proceeded to lard Bush and Cheney with billions more of our tax dollars, and tens of thousands more troops, to keep killing and controlling the Iraqis until they sign the oil contracts, and agreements for permanent U.S. military protection of those contracts. So if it wasn't the war, that prompted Rumsfeld's resignation, what was it? Why did he resign? Was he bowing to the will of the people, 70% of whom wanted out of Iraq? Har-har. Rumsfeld doesn't give a fuck what the American people want, and, in any case, their will wasn't done. Not even close. Congress did the opposite!

So, why DID Rumsfeld resign? I think that U.S. military brass pushed him out, at that point, over Iran, and with the backing of significant powers in our political establishment, including Nancy Pelosi, who was sitting at the "table" that impeachment was taken off of. That was the trade, addressed to Bush and Cheney: 'No attack on Iran, go peacefully when the time comes, get rid of Rumsfeld--and we won't impeach you.'

This scenario makes sense of that series of events--which don't make a whole lot of sense unless the "table" was a real one. It has that. It explains a lot of things. And it has at least as much credibility as McGovern's made up dialogue between Putin and his generals. I think Iran has been "off the table" since that time (Dec 06).

Around that time, I noticed a newsbit--that I didn't grab, unfortunately, and that disappeared into the Corpo 'news' river of forgetfulness--that Russia, China and I believe India, were holding a meeting on how to curtail the U.S. bully. It was at least a year ago, and possibly two years. In any case, I think that our political/Corpo establishment assessed an attack on Iran long before now, and decided against it--for military reasons (--after you attack Iran, then what? --neither the U.S. nor Israel has the resources to occupy Iran), for reasons of the horrors and dangers of using nukes, or "bombing Iran back to the stone age," and also--and equally or more important (in the jaded eyes of our Corpo/political powers), because China (a nuke power which holds much of our debt paper) and Russia (a nuke power contending for influence in Europe and the Middle East) and India (an important western bulwark against a rogue Pakistan) STRONGLY opposed it, and made their views known to our capitalists and global corporate predators.

It is, indeed, conceivable that the current financial meltdown has been engineered to prevent a McBush presidency and to further encourage Bush and Cheney to leave the White House peacefully when the time comes. With immunity from impeachment, they are a dangerous rogue force, still in power, and with their boy McDrone in place, would continue to pull the strings. The meltdown does have an unreal feel to it--so sudden, a month before th election. It could be--and probably is--just the Final Looting of the American people--a monstrous theft engineered by total assholes like Poulson, and a final "fuck you!" from the Bushwhacks to the cannon fodder (all of us). It feels like that, too. But it's interesting as a candidate for what a "fly on the wall" might have heard at that Russia-China-India meeting about the U.S. bully. And its EFFECT is to curtail what the U.S. has the resources to do in other regions of world.