As we all know, Iraq is bursting into a full-on civil war. Despite that, Iraq is not currently the Bush administration’s highest priority. Iran is.
As the dispute over its nuclear program arrives at the U.N. Security Council today, Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.
President Bush and his team have been huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning scholars for advice, investing in opposition activities, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran.
The internal administration debate that raged in the first term between those who advocated more engagement with Iran and those who preferred more confrontation appears in the second term to be largely settled in favor of the latter. Although administration officials do not use the term “regime change” in public, that in effect is the goal they outline as they aim to build resistance to the theocracy.
Welcome to 2006. Same as 2002. This time we are prepared. We know better than to believe anything the administration says. William Safire is retired, Judith Miller is gone, Jeff Gannon is a distant memory. But, the Bush regime intends to carry on.
“We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Senate testimony last week. “We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime.”
In private meetings, Bush and his advisers have been more explicit. Members of the Hoover Institution’s board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at the Iranian government.
“The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime,” said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board.
“The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy,” said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush’s first term was among those pushing for engagement.
Apparently the Bush junta is not dissuaded by terrible poll numbers, a total lack of allies, fiscal bankruptcy, zero credibility, or that little thing about ‘having a little bit too much on their plate at the moment’.
There is no reasoning with this government. They must be confronted. And they must be stopped. Whatever the merits of stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, we are no position to have the Washington Post telegraphing our intentions to effect regime change in Iran.
Nothing could unite ordinary Iranians behind their mullahs quicker than a suspicion that the hated CIA is thinking about a reprise of the 1953 coup. Oh wait? What’s to suspect? It’s on the front-page of the Washington Post!
Will the Dems ever take this insanity seriously? We are running out of time.
The administration and those around it have been pushing Iran for so long now, thankfully they have not been getting much traction. You could hear it in their voice when the talked about Iran it sounded exactly like they way they talked about Iraq before they admitted that they were looking to start a fight.
One things is for sure, we will only attack if we know they don’t have the Nuke yet. That will be the real lesson that other countries take home, the real crime is attempting to get the weapons, if you don’t we won’t go after you (c.f. India, Pakistan, N. Korea, probably Israel).
not dissuaded by “terrible poll numbers, a total lack of allies, fiscal bankruptcy, zero credibility … ‘having too much on their plate at the moment'” – truly bizarre. or maybe, bizarro world.
Our Russ’ censure is a start -maybe a foothold in building a counter to bizarro world
Can almost visualize him drooling in anticipation. Seriously, they’ve all gone around the bend!
I find this so depressing I almost don’t even think its worth talking or thinking about.
Because who is going to confront them? I see you didn’t take the end quotes any more seriously than I did:
Yeah right.
Nothing will get resolved under this administration. Just started up and someone else will have to pick up the pieces. Hell, someone’s been cleaning up after gwb his entire life!
I agree with you but I think the anonymous aide meant that nothing would even get started under this administration given their lack of credibility.
As if the Bush administration cares what Congress says. According to them, the war powers resolution has given them the power to do anything. And besides, they have inherent power from the constitution.
The republicans in congress are deluded if they think they can control this administration. Not that they really want to control them.
I don’t even think the administration cares about their lack of credibility anymore. gwb feels he can do whatever he wants–look at all of the crap that has been going on. And you’re right, the repubs don’t want to control this administration. Why? Only reason that I can think of is that there is possible a hell of a lot more going on that hasn’t even scratched the surface yet. Culture of corruption…?
These asshats are trying to operate the government just like they would a multinational corporation: launch a hostile takeover against any particularly threatening competitor, milk the assets for all they’re worth, then scuttle what’s left.
In the business world, working people lose their jobs, their pensions, and their medical insurance as a result of such wheeling and dealing. That’s bad enough. But when government plays the takeover game, people get killed and once-sovereign nations are left in shambles. In both cases, the good ol’ boys at the top siphon off the proceeds and look for the next target, oblivious to (or amused by) the misery they’re created.
Somewhere back in 2003, someone forwarded me a Republican strategy memo. I wish I had kept it. It said, even before we entered Iraq, that the real prize was Iran. Note how we took the eastern border first – Afghanistan, and that Iraq was the Western border. The memo said it wasn’t about oil but I smelled a rat. What they want are pipelines to carry Iran’s rich oil and natural gas supplies not just to the West, but East as well, to India, to China. Iran sits on the gold mine, and it’s inevitable business interests would want control. (Inevitable and disgusting, I might add.)
So we have an intransigent regime. We bully them and threaten them and back them into a corner where they feel they have no choice but to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Then we pounce and say aha, you’re developing nuclear weapons!
The same nations who backed us before will groan and drag their feet, but when money and influence call, they will answer, again. It’s so wrong.
Read the link to wikipedia in BooMan’s diary. (The last one.) Wondering….
So we have an intransigent regime.
Their statements have been consistent, and they ( arguably) have the right to maintain their program. The U.S. is a ass, serving undercooked Rice.
There are two pipeline projects being pushed, one by the Iranians, and the TAP project, not mutually exclusive.
They certainly seem to be pushing Iran like a bunch of aluminum siding salesmen. But can you imagine the public’s reaction when they get a whiff that Bush wants to expand the war? It’s going to be the same as ours right now – Bush is trying to write a check that John Q Public wont let him cash. And that wont be all, they will have ZERO traction in the UN, ZERO traction with our “allies” and probably push back from Russia and China.
If they keep trying to push the Iran card running up to the 2006 midterms, the Dems should be all over it. These nutjobs want to drag us into another war! If questioned weather we should be concerned about a nuclear Iran, explain that the FIRST concern is to have an open honest debate in our government, to work with the UN and our allies rather than ignore them, and THEN to question the demonstrated LACK of competence in the executive branch to conduct a war. I think the motto I heard in 2004 was to not switch horses in midstream, but if the horse manages to drown in two feet of water, then I think I’ll get a better horse. If they push this hard enough before the 2006 midterms, there will be a lot of Repub rats scurrying off the sinking SS Bush!
The real danger is if they just squeak by in the midterms and retain even the slimmest of majorities, then we’ll hear the whole “mandate” victory dance again. That’s when they would feel empowered to push for action in Iran, and that’s when I would get very worried.
If you’re a poll enthusiast, a Zogby poll a couple of weeks ago showed 65% in favor, and the “leading” Democrats have already gone on record with statements about what a danger Iran is, and how US must not permit Iran to have weapons, essentially paraphrases of the White House and Pentagon releases.
Covert operations have been underway for some time now, and decovertization will begin in a few weeks.
It would not be pragmatic for any politician to make himself vulnerable to charges of not supporting the war on terror, not supporting the “troops in harm’s way.”
Again for poll enthusiasts, while most are aware that Bush has had some lowering of his overall performance numbers, the most significant decrease has been in those who believe that he is doing a good job on terror.
And terror has been his strongest suit.
Do you think Democrats will want to position themselves as being even weaker on terror than Bush?
My perceptions are biased – I think Bush is incompetent.
But that aside –
I’m not going to refute that it may be popular to “do something” about Iran going nuclear, but it is about time that the Dems strongly make the case that Bush’s track record indicates that he is incompetent to conduct more war based on current events. It doesn’t pay to dance around the obvious any longer, Bush has made a complete mess out of most everything since 9/11. Allowing Bush to take more “action” in the war on terror is like shooting yourself in your left foot right after shooting your right foot. We should not have gone into Iraq, we should not go into Iran. We need to re-think how to “win” the war on terror.
Military options may be “on the table” but actually doing more than rattling sabers is a fool’s errand. Dealing with Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran. Here’s one article by Lang and Johnson:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/lang_johnson_tni_83.pdf
I know you may not agree with their political positions, but they can do a good job of laying out the realistic military options – none.
More to the point, the US’s stated “policies” of preemptive war, with us/against us and democracy at the point of a gun (if one can call these policies) which Bush has pushed for conducting the war on terror have backfired badly. Iran’s latest moves are the direct results of Bush’s polices in action. Same with NK.
Dems need to just keep hammering with the truth. Bush is not “winning” his war.
“War” activity is up:
There are more terrorists now than before.
There are more terrorist attacks now than before.
Safety is down:
Our borders/ports are not protected yet.
Our emergency response capability (FEMA/CDC/whatever) is diminished.
Our capacity to “wage war” is down:
Our military is stuck in Iraq.
Our military is wearing out (people and equipment).
Our Federal budget is overspent.
Our economy is unsound (trade imbalance).
Remember that with Bush it is ALWAYS politics (and big business) before policy, in fact, it’s all politics ALL the time. Cheney running his mouth off about Iran is about as much military action as we can make in Iran, and Iran knows it. Most of this noise is for the midterm elections (which as you point out may be effective). It’s time for the Dems to borrow one of Rove’s tactics and go right after Bush’s greatest strength – the war on terror. Of course it helps when all you have to do is tell the truth.
But the position of the politicians has not really changed since 2004, even the candidates considered to be so “liberal” as to be “unelectable,” even Ralph Nader, all had essentially the same position on the crusade in Iraq: Vote for me, I can run it better, outsource the wetwork.
I think this time, for the 2006 elections, they will promise bills to that effect, outsource, expedite the transition from ground operations to aerial bombardment, redeploying troops to bases in the client state cluster, a congressional version of vote for me, I will introduce bills to run it better, outsource the wetwork, America is strong, Bush is not winning the war on terror, not crushing the insurgency.
Only this time, it will also include Iran. By the time of the elections, Operation Iranian Freedom will be underway. To oppose it will not only invite charges of being against the war on terror, but of not supporting Israel.
The American mainstream does not want to hear that the US is weak militarily. They want to hear that any problems that have been caused by Bush’s incompetence will be fixed. A bill to fund more equipment, make sure all US troops have what they need, make sure that US generals have the troops they need, hold the administration responsible for doing what it takes to get the job done right, win the war on terror. Bush let Osama get away. Americans want to hear the Democrats promise to catch Osama. And protect Israel.
The want to hear that America is strong, can win the war on terror abroad and protect its borders. They want to hear of promises of more border patrol, that their favorite co-sponsored this or that bill to build walls, like the one Israel is building.
They want to hear about plans for better airport security, and rooting out terror at home.
Democrats are also about politics and big business, politics itself is big business. And big business is making money from the crusade, and politics, the politics of what mainstream Americans want to hear, does not have anything to do with the truth.
Thank you for the link to that The National Interest piece. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/lang_johnson_tni_83.pdf
Also, I believe you’re the one on the right track as far as divining, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
No matter how great you think your military is, and $1 billion a week is great, you can’t position 130,000 troops in one country “at war” and then establish a different theater at the top of your strategy agenda.
You can “pick your battles,” but once you’ve picked them, you have to fight the ones you’ve picked.
As Prospero says in the film, Gladiator, “You’re good, Spaniard, but you’re not that good!”
Yes, the real prize is Iran, but we lost it when we failed to stabilize Iraq in the first 3 months after the invasion.
If we try to move against Iran, then Russia, China (and Venezuela?) and half of Iraq will be attacking our rear. We won’t be able to consolidate any gains we make if we bomb them–including ensuring that they desist from nuclear weapons development.
So everybody who thought it was a great idea to go after Sadaam, can you now see that fighting that war of choice incapacitated us from fighting any war of necessity?
If we move preemptively against Iran now, our forces in Iraq will get buried.
We are overextended.
I hold no doubts that an attack on Iran is set to go. No one, or any event to hold it back. Nothing.
Unlike Iraq, Iran holds a strong hand and are digging in.
Why? They saw that Saddam’s offer was rebuffed and no amount of diplomacy will deter. The die is cast.
As stated by Grand Ayatollah Khameini even if the West came and inspected, found them clean, Americans will still find a pretext to attack.
For any students of Iranian-USA relations and international intelligence operations – There is available – an assembled an array of documents (over 600 pages) culled from public websites on the Internet that seriously study the Anglo-American intelligence apparatus.
There are over 600 pages of documents released by Iranians obtained during the takeover of the US Embassy – most of which is classified. Other documents included those published on the CIA history of the 1953 coup in Iran (codenamed TPAJAX) that was released on the New York Times’ internet site in PDF. All documents are in HTML.
The first 212 pages are the NYT’s Docs
There are also more recovered documents from the Iranians themselves.
“Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den”
Many people will recall that when Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979, they acquired a large cache of classified U.S. government documents, some of which had been shredded and painstakingly reassembled, which they proceeded to publish. What no one seems to have noticed, however, is that they never stopped publishing!
By 1995, an amazing 77 volumes of “Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den” (Asnad-i lanih-‘i Jasusi) had been collected and published by the “Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam” (Center for the Publication of the U.S. Espionage Den’s Documents, P.O. Box 15815-3489, Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran, tel. 824005). Each volume contains original documents along with Farsi translations and, for no extra charge, an inflammatory introductory essay.
Link for all (starting on Page 212) – the first letter is to – guess who – Jerry Bremer in 1979.
They haven’t finished the first two wars they started and they want Iran, too?
So what happens with Afghanistan and Iraq then?
The abject political cowardice of members of congress, the ease with which the ignorance of the public psyche is manipulated and weaponized, the complicity of the major media in the war propaganda, and the irrational insanity of the neocons and their dysfunctional ideology all combine into a formidable obstacle against truth and reason and provides the support system whereby the maniacs in the Bush regime can conduct their murderous, lunatic agenda.
Our own denial will lead to our own downfall as a society and as a nation.
I don’t think any of this can be stopped at this point because no one, not even the Republican Congress, has the power to stop it. The corruption has rotted out the core of Congressional power, and the skill with which the executive branch has been gathering up all the control marbles has been more effective that can be imagined. Worse, they’ve been blended in one big bag with all the marble of global corporate control.
I’m sitting here with a book recently recommended to me by NLinStPaul, called “Into the Forest”, by Jean Hegland, 1996. It’s fiction, a story of two teenaged girls left on their own, after society simply crumbled and fell apart, from all of the very things we are watching happen right now. I am actually dreading opening it, yet I cannot NOT open it.Publishers Weekly writes on the back cover, “A truly admirable addition to a genre defined by the very high standards of George Orwells 1884.”