is the bombing of IRAN imminent ??

[welshTerrier2]

here we go again folks ... don't be surprised if this time there's not even an IWR (IRAN War Resolution) ... the Executive branch is too busy saving us all from those evil terrorists to worry about little things like the Constitution ...

if bombing attacks on IRAN are truly imminent in very early 2006, it would be nice to have Democrats speaking out on the issue BEFORE it occurs ... when Democrats had Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee a month or so ago, they made it clear to her that they did not believe the IWR authorized force against IRAN ... but they haven't exactly been hammering on that theme to the American people ...

today's issue of Germany's Der Spiegel claims to have the inside scoop on planned US bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities ... whether you agree with this policy or not, there is no excuse for bypassing the Congress ... anyone who claims Iran is posing an "imminent threat" is lying ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1231-01.htm

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006. <skip>

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. <skip>

What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I can't imagine worse news than hearing of the bombing of Iran

we are NOT ready for that level of intervention in the Middle East. We have no stomach for it. We have no money for it. We have no expendable youth for it. We have no reason for it.

[johnnypneumatic]

2. if they have already been preparing for it

all that is left is for a 9/11 type attack on the US blamed on Iran to justify it (which is probably also already planned). This will also be the excuse to impose martial law. It is the only thing left that can save this administration from impeachment. So their choice is to be impeached and imprisoned, or take absolute power. Which do you think they will choose?

[DRoseDARs]

3. Scream at the top of your lungs "WAG THE DOG" if/when it occurs... nt

[peacetalksforall]

4. Can somone post and/or quote the articles that said that Iran is 10 years

away from having nuclear bombs? Isn't our war mongering creatures saying that Iran can hit Israel and our bases with missiles - nuclear missiles? Are they ready or not? Who said they are going to do bomb Israel or our bases? Tragically, if we bomb their nuclear power plants or their nuclear development targets - why wouldn't they release the missiles, nuclear or not?

Can someone more knowledgeable please clalrify. Isn't the official story that they are 9/10 years away? To bomb them is one act. Which and what kind of consequences are we gong to realize?

Creatures who lie steal decieve demean destroy nearly have us in our control. We must not let them take us. We no longer have a vote - they privatized it. We no longer have a fair news - they bought it out in partnerships. Tourism is dying in many parts of the world. We are killing the earth.

Is there a brighter outlook for 2006 if they are going to start it out by bombing Iran? The little people of Iran are good people - they want what we want - peace, prosperity, good will, opportunity, ownership, safety, basics and more for their families and ancestors past and to come.

[DemGirl7]

5. Over these horrible last couple of years, this article doesn't surprise me

Nothing that is speculated that the administration might/will do surprises me anymore. And when this happens, you know the shit is really going to hit the fan, I mean look at the job we are doing in a Iraq,which never had WMDs to begin with.

[Donna Zen]

6. No

The Iranians are a huge problem in the region, and there is plenty of pressure being applied to halt their moves into Iraq because of the balance of power. The bush administration does know this, but as General Clark has said, bush doesn't know what to do about it. There are also troop movements in Afghanistan...or rumors of troop movements. Nevertheless, I say "no."

The paper cites third parties which is a way of pushing back without putting "force on the table." The Iraqi elections while grim are not automatically the end of the road. The US has been making overtures to the Sunnis. (There may be a complication there because of the rise in Sunni fundamentalism inspired by a radical Sunni-Syrian cleric that is now all the rage among the youth in the rural Sunni communities.--nuther story.) Anyway, the Shiites are split. Sadr is not in favor of an Iranian Iraq. He is a populist with both a huge following and "legitimacy" that uses slogans that pronounce all Iraqis as Iraqis rather than divide them into religious groups. When they march they carry Iraqi flags. Sistani is too enigmatic to tell, although his strong ties to Iran are a problem. The government still needs American protection, thus the political leverage provided by American troops. The Mahdi army and the Badr brigade are still out there in force now absorded into the army, and cannot be trusted. The Kurds are divided, but so far they are getting what they want.

IOW, the administration is walking a knife's edge among these competing groups.

This poke at Iran is just that--a poke. There have been plenty of leaks lately but they do not come from sources too close to the center. We don't know if carrots are being offered behind the scenes, because per usual this administration does nothing transparent. It should. The Iranians want a lifting of sanctions because their populous is restless. This new nut they just elected promised "jobs." It ain't happening. So he rants about Israel in a "look over there" moment. (A DJ can get 8 years in jail in Tehran and yet they are still spinning in underground clubs.)

So "no" the bombing is not imminent, but the situation is very complicated and very serious. Our economic future depends on a stable Gulf region for more reasons than oil. One slip on the part of the administration and the entire Iraq thing can actually get worse. Hard to believe. They are not in a position to bomb Iran...the '06 elections are coming and they want to draw down troops.

[NoFederales]

8. What would the Bush Administration do if Iran were to exercise influence

in Iraq by overtly supporting the Shias control of government? Imagine the clamor at home if the "destruction of Iraqi democracy" by Iran became a clarion RW call. Oh NO, a Theocratic Iraq? Is there any doubt that the extremists would initiate more ME war? Shall we unteather the Israelis, now? Shit, the worst of Iran, Iraq, and the United States are just spoiling for additional turmoil. It's bidness, now.

We are blind to the workings of the extremists thanks to corporate media and our political aristocracy. How many times have thoughtful people said Oh, they wouldn't/couldn't do that.........? We are talking about true misanthropes, haters of several degrees of magnitude--common folk are just ghosts, immaterial threats.

Let's hope I'm wrong, the alternatives to stop this madness will bring bloodshed here at home.

NoFederales

[Donna Zen]

10. It will be a theocracy...or at least an Islamic state.

And Iran has been exercising overt influence. In S. Iraq many public buildings already fly the Iranian flag. The problem here is that the British made a decision early on that their job would be easier if they just kept watch and did nothing to stir the pot. Today in S. Iraq if you study music you can only study theory...no instrument playing allowed. Now turning that around will not be easy, but if it is not turned around then the balance of power will shift.

There are many factors that can mitigate this move on the part of Iran. One, they need money and wars aren't good for the purse. (Ask the US treasury) Two, Sistani does want to rock the boat, and pilgrims are important to the economy of S. Iraq and to Sistani's influence. Three, the Shiites of S. Iraq are Arabs not Persians, thus, too much of a push by Iran can make them much less friendly. We let 100.000 Iranians come into Iraq after the invasion, many of those people while Arab Shiites were born and raised in Iran. That's a problem.

Everyone in the region understands that a war is bad for everyone. That is their common interest in finding a way out of this fucking hole. Unfortunately no one in the bush administration understood the dynamics of the Iraq. There is nothing I can think of that they did right. Nothing. Let us hope for a miracle.

BTW, this new move on the part of the administration to pressure and have Chalabi installed as the Minister of Oil is very fucked up. Very. The exiles have no "legitamacy" and in Iraq, that is big. Chalabi is not accepted as having any claim to be part of the government. The insistance on the part of Cheney (that's whose doing this) is incomprehensible unless of course, they are more tone-deaf than can possibly be imagined.

[NoFederales]

11. I see the complexities, but do the rightwing extremists here at home?

My worst fears center around this * administration trying to save face at any cost. Fools they are; does anything deter them from destruction?

NoFederales

[Donna Zen]

12. No face to save:

Although you are correct. This entire war is for political reasons...the ginning up, the lies, the lack of reconstruction planning, everything. I too fear that they may indeed act for purely political reasons and futher screw the pooch. God help us if they do.

Take this: it would do wonders for the situation if they would have open and transparent talks with Iran and Syria. The reason they don't is purely for domestic consumption. They don't want to look weak, and talking with the enemy is in their minds weak. So they continue to try to resolve this with their blowhard bullshit. That's a problem. Behind the scenes however, they have begun to talk. It would be much better to include the moderate Arab neighbors, but nooooooo don't want to ruin bush's war president image. They are pigs ya know.

There's a way out because everyone needs it, but will 2006 get in the way. Will they make it partisan?

[tx_dem41]

9. Great post, Donna Zen.

Thanks for your response.

[bemildred]

13. "One slip on the part of the administration"

:rofl:
Like, what have they not fucked up so far?

But you are correct.
We seem to have a renewed bullshit offensive against Syria too.
But I can't see any reason to think that more bullshit is going to alter the course of events now, when it has failed so often in the past.

[Mz Pip]

7. Closer to the 2006 elections

Don't want to introduce a new product too far in advance of the holidays. :sarcasm:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[radfringe]

14. you bet

signs are all there:

1. bush* denied it -- http://english.people.com.cn/200502/23/eng20050223_174370.html
Talk of US attack on Iran "ridiculous", says Bush
February 23, 2005

US President George W. Bush said Tuesday in Brussels that the talk of US attack on Iran over its nuclear programs is "ridiculous".

He made the remarks at a press conference in the building of the Council of the European Union (EU) where he attended the EU-US summit meeting.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said at the press conference jointly held with EU leaders.

However, he quickly added that all options remained open, noting that European countries were trying to seek a diplomatic resolution to the issue.

"All options are on the table," he said.

2. Increase in Iran has Nuke stories.... ramping up the booga-booga fear factor

3. Iran is on his list of "axis of evil" countries

4. 2006 midterms coming up - will be used as a club to silence opposition as in "...being unpatriotic...." "...not supporting our troops...."