You DO realize that the upcoming bombing of Iran was decided long ago...

[Mr_Spock]

http://www.energybulletin.net/4634.html

Onward to Iran
by Richard Heinberg

MuseLetter 155 (March 2005)

-snip-

"In an article in The New Yorker dated January 17 2005 veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that US commando teams have been operating in Iran for months, carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical, and missile sites in preparation for possible air strikes. Hersh also says that the administration's aims could include not just the thwarting of Iran's nuclear ambitions, but regime change as well.

Citing a former high-level intelligence official, Hersh claims that secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election "and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message":-
"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone", the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."
While Administration officials dispute Hersh's allegations, other reporters and news agencies are publishing corroborating information. An Al Jazeera article published February 6, titled "US-Israel plan to strike Iran's nuclear sites finalized", claimed that:-
Experts from the US Defense Department, the Pentagon and Israel have put final touches to a plan to launch a military strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, experts at the European Commission based in Brussels, revealed on Sunday. The experts added that the implementation of this plan rested on a number of factors including the US continuous efforts to hamper the EU-Iranian negotiations to persuade Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, with the aim of justifying a military strike against the Islamic republic if it refused to bow to US pressures. Yesterday, American news sources reported that US senators have set up a review panel of the CIA's intelligence on Iran in order to try and avoid the pitfalls that marked the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq."

...

"Meanwhile rumors mount. On February 18, Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater in Washington State, claimed on the basis of inside information that George W Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

While European diplomatic efforts seek to head off a military confrontation, "In private", as Guy Dinsmore notes in a Financial Times article of February 14 ("Would Condi and Dubbya really Start Another War?"), "European officials say the best they can do is to buy time, perhaps to the end of the year"."

...

"These events are most likely to commence before the end of 2005, as Iran cannot be permitted to open its oil bourse in March 2006.

Once the chain of events begins, it is anyone's guess how it might unwind over the ensuing weeks, months, and perhaps even years. It seems more than likely that China would take this as an opportunity to dump its dollar holdings on world markets, thus tipping the US economy into a depression. Russia's response can only be guessed at. Domestically, the US would likely institute draconian measures to monitor citizens' "patriotism" and severely restrict the freedoms of those who questioned the government's actions. And the US might well take the opportunity to widen the war to Venezuela and other sites of "tyranny" around the world.

While the Iraq invasion and its aftermath have been immensely destructive events, there are signs that what is in store will be far, far worse."




In my opinion, the EU & Russia has bought some "time" through negotiations with Tehran - but it is apparent to anyone who is paying attention that the plan is predetermined - it's just a matter of when. It will likely be timed to have maximum impact on elections.

Read the whole article - it's facinating seeing how things are unfolding very much according to plan.

The Republicans need a rallying issue to attempt a recovery from the current funk they are in. Mark my words - the bombing will happen - and soon...

[savemefromdumbya]

1. this had been planned years ago

[tatertop]

3. Probably part of Cheney's infamous 'secret energy meeting.'

[MadMaddie]

2. No surprise at all!!

[Trevelyan]

4. K&R Sadly think it is true. Have to keep trying - Here are 2 petitions:

For the past year, the growing tensions mounting between the US, Israel, and Iran are reaching a point where military action against Iran is w/in months of becoming reality.

The repercussions are terrifying as such military action could involve countries such as China and Russia as they share massive energy/economic interests w/ Iran. The most likely scenario we would face would be the collapse of the US economy as the combination of a massive rise in oil prices and a run on the US dollar would surely be the weapon many countries would use to fight back against a preemptive US or Israeli strike.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link:
http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.
http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /

Also, here is another petition you can sign from another group:
http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

[HamdenRice]

5. "Some want to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran"

Even before the Iraq war, Seymour Hersh was reporting that among neo-cons, this was a favorite inside joke. So the Iran war has been on the drawing board a long time.

The real question is whether there are any "reality based" members in this administration who have shelved that plan because of how things went in Iraq.

Another very interesting question for the conspiracy theory minded is whether the uniformed officer corp will allow Bush and the civilian pentagon leadership to destroy the armed forces of the United States by launching a suicidal war against Iran, or will there be some kind of forced transition of the bush cabal out of power.

[leveymg]

19. Re: Another interesting question. That's precisely what happened

Don't fight wars you can't win. That's the lesson of Vietnam learned by the U.S. military. It was codified as the so-called Powell Doctrine, which is back in vogue at the Pentagon after it was demonstrated twice in Iraq. That doctrine basically says, don't commit U.S. forces unless you have overwhelming force, political consensus, and a clear exit plan.

First time, in Desert Storm, it was proven valid and the second time, in 2003 its absence during the planning and implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom has resulted in the failure of the occupation and a demonstration to the world of the true vulnerabilities of American forces, as well as the farcical incompetence of its present political leadership. The professional military is furious at the Bush Administration for both, as it's their lives that have been lost in ever-greater numbers during the three years since the invasion. If the White House orders Iran attacked for no apparent reason better than partisan domestic politics, that would be taken as a grave abuse of command responsibility by the armed services and would prove a fatal error for Bush-Cheney.

The reason Gulf War I was won was because it had limited objectives: clear the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, and go home. You can't clear the Iraqis out of Iraq, however. Even less so, can we remove the population of Iran.

So, the lesson of Vietnam and Iraq as understood by the uniform military is this: don't go to war with Iran, unless you want to lose again.

I really think the Generals and intelligence chiefs have understood that quite well since the Spring of 2004. U.S. national security is better served by regime change in Washington than in Tehran -- the former objective is also far more realizable.

Thus, at that time, as the Abu Ghraib photos were released by military intelligence, the Joint Chiefs and CIA told their IG's to seek prosecution for Plamegate and the Franklin OSP-AIPAC spy cases. Call it a constitutional coup, if you will, but after that, the brass clearly is not going to start another preemptive war with Iran.

[HamdenRice]

28. Very interesting -- do you really think the military-intelligence ...

establishment is preparing to take the administration down?

[MrPrax]

6. Iran has been under the gun

since the Revolution.

Saddam was largely armed, fed chem and bio weapons to attack Iran, by proxy.

Suggesting that the Iran Option is new and necessary as an 'rally' issue for Republicans is a bit much.

Is one suggesting that if Bush's numbers were through the roof that they wouldn't attack Iran?

[Zen]

8. So politics never plays a role in decision making?

And you do not think that the Repukes need a lift at this time?

just wondering...

[MrPrax]

13. No...

Politics is for the plebes...the ruling class tends to be 'on message'--that is why the Other Party isn't kicking up much fuss, they actually support imperialism and war crime as an eternal right to security, freedom and consumption.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. No. The PNAC makes no provisions for *'s numbers one way or

another.

Iran is to be neutralized. Period.

My only question is, will the Iranian terrorist attack be against US interests overseas, or here at home?

[MrPrax]

12. That's yer ONLY question?

Really--even though it rather appears like a 'coup' has taken place, where the executive no longer EVEN has to provide a rationale for 'war', yer biggest fear is that the 'victims' might attack you?

Brave stand, patriot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Just saying, with *'s number how they are the only way he will

get away with attacking Iran will be due to some precipitating event - a new Pearl Harbor, as it were. With the timetable as it stands, it will have to be in the next two weeks.

It might not be a 'terrorist' bombing. Perhaps this Operation Swarmer is going to provide incontrovertible proof that the Iranians are behind the terror attacks in Iran.

And in any case, any incident involving Iran will have about as much to do with Iran as the Polish border incident on 9/1/39 had to do with Poland.

MIHOP

[DemInDistress]

23. New Pearl Harbor...you must mean

a New New Pearl Harbor. I just love James Baker III statement in April 2001, "the advance of PNAC will likely be a slow one absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a New Pearl Harbor" and in March/April 2001 Cheney's secret energy task force meeting with big oil,war hawks,telecoms..
Iran needs a lynch pin, a nuke? Maybe financial? something to give King George the Imbecile 1st that "bullhorn moment" again.

[MrPrax]

27. Presumeably,

the timetable has to be settled with Israel--afterall, it's been their 'wet dream' for awhile as well and their political system appears to be in some shambles with a distinct vacuum at the top --nothing like having a go at the 'rabs to motivate a coalition or two...

[Syncronaut Seven]

16. Neutralized, you mean like the Juden threat?

:scared: Godwins law does not apply, fucking Nazi's.

[Mr_Spock]

26. In fact, the numbers are SO low that they may indeed not attack

...until after this election cycle. Kind of hard to promote a policy if you are no longer in power. Your theory that both parties are equal promoters of imperialistic PNAC philosophy is not provable IMO...

[Proud_Lefty]

7. It's spelled out in PNAC

[Harald Ragnarsson]

10. Another motivation possibly?

Hussein was a crony of Bush Sr at one time. I think Iraq and Saddam had to be gotten rid of to get rid of evidence of Bush wrongdoing in the 1980's. Poppy Bush invaded Panama and got Noriega for the same reason, covering Bush ass in cocaine smuggling. What ties Iran and the Bush people? Why Iran/Contra of course.

Imagine some Iranian having smoking gun evidence about Bush involvement in Iran/Contra, or even worse, the October Surprise that helped Reagan/Bush take the White House.

Any time you see the words National Security spoken by a Bush, it actually translates to "I need to cover up my crimes".

That's why Jr Hemorrhoid has sealed all Presidential Records for Reagan and Bush I too. Things are being cleansed, both inside and outside the country.

[Rocknrule]

11. "Today Iran, tomorrow the world!"

:scared:

[anarch]

14. "Heute die Welt, Morgens das Sonnensystem!"

Remember ?

[BlueEyedSon]

15. How many will they kill.... just to win another election?

[mzmolly]

17. One acronym

PNAC

Note my avatar. I'll wear it proudly in the coming months.

[C_U_L8R]

18. wow ...they really are nuts

i mean.. we always knew they were nuts..
but this is just batshit crazy nuts !!!

[Singular73]

20. So they are starting the draft....when?

We don't have the military power for a full scale invasion of Iran.

We could blow the hell out of it, but we couldn't occupy it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. We don't need to occupy it

yet.

Find an excuse to bomb it. Impose sanctions. Over the next couple years tensions will ramp up culminating in a major incident before the elections. The new annointed Repub candidate will vow to deal with the evil Iranians, and the draft won't begin until a month AFTER the elections.

[Terra Terra]

24. Well why not?

Our current military foray in the Middle East is going so well, why shouldn't we bomb Iran? I'm sure they have plenty of flowers to greet us with, just like the Iraqis.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi Terra Terra!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[debbierlus]

25. Kick - A great reminder!

[robbedvoter]

29. Clearly telegraphed in the "Axis of Evil" speechy - and in place before

One has to know that any country that Halliburton does business with will eventually get "an offer it can't refuse