Countdown to War: Operation Free Iran (A timeline)

CNN  (January 30, 2002)

In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush said his goal was “to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends with weapons of mass destruction.” He singled out Iraq, Iran and North Korea, claiming these states “and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

The United States must act against these regimes by denying them the “materials, technology and expertise” to make nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and provide them to terrorists, Bush said.

“All nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security,” he warned, although he did not give specifics as to what actions that pledge might entail.

Israeli officials are trying to persuade their friends in the US that Iran should be next on the hit list. Iran is a major source of backing for Lebanon’s Hizbullah — a common enemy to both Israel and the US. Iran, Israel claims, is giving military and financial backing to armed Palestinian groups in the occupied territories, something apparently confirmed by the Karin-A affair which has recently hit the headlines. US intelligence reports about Iran’s nuclear potential may also be used to further the case against Iran.

Israeli Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer is likely to use these kinds of arguments during his Washington visit later this month.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

(September 17, 2002 )

. . . The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction– and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.

From an article by Eric Fraser on the Iranian website

(November 20, 2002 )

Iranians who love their families and their country need to ACT NOW to protect their loved ones from the consequences of what could become a terrible war by overthrowing the current government of Iran. It should be replaced by one which serves the interest of the Iranian people without threatening the physical and economic safety of the world.

It is important to understand that a war with Iran could easily destroy the Iranian nation. Let there be not doubt that if the U.S. or one of its allies is hit by a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon that causes hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths, the U.S. will respond with nuclear weapons in an overwhelming and terrible manner against those that it thinks are behind an attack. It will feel that it has no other choice as it buries millions of Americans.

. . . Iranians need to stop waiting for the U.S. or some other entity to overthrow the mullahs and their thugs, and do it themselves while there is still time to do so.

I think that after the regime in Iraq is destroyed, Iran will be next.

. . . I hope that a desire to protect their families and country from a senseless and potentially catastrophic war will motivate people to take action to change the government from within. Doing so will result in far fewer deaths than a war with the US, and preserve Iranian sovereignty.

The Road to Victory Goes Through ehran

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

By: Robert Tracinski

An end to the threat of Islamic terrorism requires, not just the toppling of one state sponsor of terrorism in Iraq, but the toppling of the regime that is the Middle East’s most active promoter of terrorism–and the most virulent center of the ideology behind Islamic terrorism: the theocracy that rules Iran.

. . . President Bush called the military victory in Iraq “the turning of the tide” in the War on Terrorism. That may be true, but the tide won’t stay with us–or carry us to victory–until we are willing to take the war to Tehran and topple the most important material and ideological supporter of Islamic terrorism.

Iran Now Presents the Greater Danger

(June 25, 2004 )

By: David Holcberg

Iran is openly developing a nuclear weapons program, and has gone as far as threatening to use its soon-to-be-produced nuclear weapons against Israel, America’s only true friend in the region. If Iran’s mad mullahs are willing to strike Israel, the “Small Satan,” they would not hesitate to strike their arch-enemy, America, the “Great Satan.”

Within days, however, the sharp divide between the more moderate EU3 position and the much less conciliatory American stance became clear in a way that cast a dark shadow over the long-term prospects for a lasting deal.

At a press conference on 17 November, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that the Iranians `had been actively working on delivery systems’ of ballistic missiles to carry a nuclear warhead, a programme that would seem inconsistent with any renunciation of its nuclear ambitions.

Powell’s remarks were important because they manifested a strong American scepticism towards Iranian intentions. Announced just three days after the deal had been struck, and only a week before an important IAEA resolution on Iran, his comments could not fail to bring into disrepute a new deal that is based on mutual good faith.

But the nature of the `intelligence’ cited by Powell would also seem to vindicate fears that Washington is determined to find fault with almost any deal the EU might strike. His comments appear to have based on information from a single, unverified source whose claims chimed conveniently with the views of hawkish administration officials strongly antipathetic and mistrustful of the Iran regime, raising concerns that US intelligence on Iran could be `skewered’ for political ends in the same way as information on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Scepticism of Iranian motives and sincerity has always been much stronger in the United States, which cut off all diplomatic contact with Tehran in 1980, than in European capitals and Washington will almost certainly demand punitive action against any perceived Iranian violation of the deal.

CNN (January 16, 2005)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

. . . Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in “extensive planning” for a possible attack — “much more than we know.”

“The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids,” he wrote in “The New Yorker” magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

. . .  He said his information on Iran came from “inside” sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writer

(January 21, 2005)

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that Iran is a top threat to world peace and Middle East stability, accusing Tehran of sponsoring terrorism against Americans and building a “fairly robust new nuclear program.”

. . . “Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” Cheney said.

. . . “You look around the world at potential trouble spots; Iran is right at the top of the list,” he said. The administration has offered no concrete evidence to support its assertion regarding Iran.

(February 11)

The 30-page document, “U.S. Policy Options for Iran” by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Clare Lopez, appears to reflect the views of the administration’s most radical hawks among the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

. . . “Negotiations will not work,” said Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely, chairman of the military committee of the neo-conservative Center for Security Policy, who described the Iranian regime as a “house of cards.”

Instead, the IPC’s main emphasis is on more aggressive actions to bring about the desired goals, including military strikes and active efforts to destabilize the government, in major part through the support and deployment of what it calls “indisputably the largest and most organized Iranian opposition group,” the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) . . .

. . .But most Iran specialists, both inside and outside the government, who agree that the regime is deeply unpopular, also insist that Washington’s endorsement of the MEK will actually bolster the regime in Tehran.

“Everybody I’ve ever talked to in Iran or who have gone to Iran tell me without exception that these people are despised,” said Gary Sick, who handled Iranian policy for the National Security Council under former President Jimmy Carter.

SF Chronicle (February 21)

Tehran — Iran has begun publicly preparing for a possible U.S. attack, as tensions mount between the Bush administration and this country’s hard-line leaders over Tehran’s purported nuclear weapons program.

“Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country,” an Iranian official close to the conservative clerics who run the country’s security and military apparatus said on condition of anonymity.

Jerusalem Post (Mar. 13, 2005 )

. . . Speaking for Israel, Labor MK Ephraim Sneh said Sunday that military action would be a last resort and Jerusalem remains hopeful the international community will reach a diplomatic solution with Iran.

Sneh, a member of the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee and a retired general, told Army Radio that the United States would play an important role in how the situation is resolved.

“The Iranian threat is an existential threat to the state Israel. Military action is the very last resort,” he said. “We have to ensure that other steps, diplomatic steps are carried out first. Here the United States plays a leading role and I hope it will fill it.”

Sneh did not confirm whether Israel already has plans in place to strike Iran.

London Times (March 13, 2005)

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces used a mockup of [a Iranian nuclear facility] in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes on John Bolton’s appointment as ambassador to the United Nations Tuesday, they will do so having never asked him about his support for a group called the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian dissident group that was backed by Saddam Hussein for almost two decades and has a place on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

In comments to Congress a year ago, Bolton said he would not have “any inhibition” about working with the group in an effort to gather intelligence on Iran. Bolton is not alone in his sentiments. Congressmen and prominent neoconservatives are pushing for the U.S. government to rearm the group.

What opponents of the Iranian regime like about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is its terrorism. According to the State Department, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian Embassies and installations in 13 countries in April 1992, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. Then, in 1999 the group assassinated the deputy chief of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff. In April 2000, they attempted to assassinate the commander of the Iranian government organization responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. In 2000 and 2001, the State Department reports, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law-enforcement units and government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border.

. . . A prominent panel of neo-conservatives called the Iran Policy Committee recently released a report, “U.S. Policy Options for Iran,” which advocates arming the group and using it the same way the U.S. military used the Northern Alliance as proxy fighters for the war in Afghanistan.

Retired Marine Corp Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, a Fox News analyst and one of the authors of the report, told a Congressional committee the time to prepare for war is now:

“After the events of September 11th,” he said, “we had a target, the target was Afghanistan. We stood up bravely as a nation and said ‘We’re going to Afghanistan.’ What about the next 9/11? What if the next 9/11 is two weeks from now? What are we gonna say – that we’re going to Iraq? No! There’s going to be a clamor by Americans to strike at somebody to show that we’re powerful, and the logical candidate out there is Iran.”

Washington Times Op-Ed (May 5, 2005)

Dynamic of war

By Arnaud de Borchgrave

. . . The Bush administration sells to Israel for $30 million 100 bunker-busting bombs clearly designed as a signal to Iran it may be next on the hit list unless it ceases and desists its quest for nuclear power.

. . . The Pentagon, according to calculated leaks, is polishing a contingency plan for 240 air strikes over three days, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, to set Iran’s nuclear plans back 10 years.

. . . Scott Ritter, the controversial ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq, who correctly predicted there were no WMD in Saddam’s arsenal, says the plan to bomb Iran’s widely scattered nuclear installations has been approved by President Bush.

MsNBC News Services (May 9, 2005)

Iran on Monday said it will resume enriching uranium within days and stated for the first time that it already has converted 37 tons of the radioactive metal into gas — a key step in the process that could lead to the development of a weapons program.

The announcement of the planned resumption of the enrichment activities threatens to escalate the diplomatic crisis, as the United States and the European Union have warned they would take the matter to the U.N. Security Council if Tehran did so. . . .

. . . An EU diplomat said a resumption of work at the Isfahan plant “will lead to a problem with the negotiations. And if the talks fail, the EU3 will support a referral to the Security Council. The ball is in Iran’s court.”

“Negotiations are continuing and the threats are not new, but we have to wait to see if Iran acts,” he added.

The U.S. State Department said that if Iran broke its agreement with the EU, it would not go unpunished.

“Violation of that agreement with the EU3 and a violation of their pledge would have consequences,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington. “We’d have to look very carefully at what the next (step) would be.”