Is Iran the next target in Bush’s plan to achieve American hegemony over the oil producing countries of the Middle East?

It’s a question worth considering carefully. Certainly recent statements by President Bush himself in his latest speech to the American public suggest as much. Indeed, fears of what Bush may have in store for Iran has led both Democratic Senator Biden and Republican Senator Hagel, among others, to issue warnings to White House officials not to attack on Iran. Furthermore, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich recently stated that any attack on Iran would likely result in impeachment proceedings against the President.

Needless to say, Bush doesn’t seem bothered by criticism about his plans regarding Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East. In an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday he essentially declared that there is nothing Congress can do to alter his war plans.

PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.

Although he was responding to a specific question regarding his authority to introduce more American troops into Iraq, it’s clear to me and many other observers that this would be his likely response to any attempt by Congress to curtail any attack he orders against on Iran by new US forces in the region, if and when he feels it is warranted. In light of his administration’s recent and past assertions that Presidential power is essentially unlimited with respect to his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the military, it seems appropriate to me to consider what all this means with respect to what appears to many to be a looming military conflict with Iran.

(cont.)

What We Know

Bush ‘s Plans to Attack Iran. We’ve known for a very long time now that this administration has been itching to find an excuse to attack Iran.

In November 2003, Rumsfeld approved a plan known as CONPLAN 8022-02, which for the first time established a pre-emptive-strike capability against Iran. That was followed in 2004 by a top-secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order” that put the military on a state of readiness to launch an airborne and missile attack against Iran, should Bush issue the command. “We’re now at the point where we are essentially on alert,” said Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force. “We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes in half a day or less.”

As Seymour Hersh reported, by early last Spring the administration had the Pentagon draw up detailed plans to take out Iran’s nuclear program, plans which reportedly involve the use of low yield nuclear weapons. Indeed, Cheney reportedly demanded that Pentagon planners prepare a nuclear strike plan against Iran to be executed in the event of another major terrorist attack on US soil, even if there was no evidence that the Iranians had any connection to that action.

Preparations for war. We also know that the Pentagon has employed a known anti-Iranian terrorist organization based in Iraq to conduct intelligence and other covert operations inside Iran. We know that Bush recently ordered the deployment of another carrier strike force and Patriot missile batteries to the Persian Gulf region, forces and weapons systems that have little utility, if any, with respect to the ongoing fighting in Iraq, but which instead are clearly intended to threaten Iran.

We also know that the current issue of Newsweek and other reports suggest that President Bush may have ordered the initiation of military operations against Iranian targets. Just this week, US Special forces raided an Iranian consulate in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq and “detained” several Iranian officials without the prior knowledge or approval of local Kurdish officials. We know that Secretary of State Rice confirmed that Bush authorized US commanders to conduct “a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in [Iraq].”

Just Say No to Diplomacy. We know what Bush has decided he will not do: engage Iran in any talks regarding Iraq or its nuclear program. This policy option was rejected out of hand, despite the recommendation by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group (headed by James Baker, former Secretary of State under Reagan and President Bush’s father) that he should initiate diplomatic overtures to include Iran (and other Iraqi neighbors) into a regional conference to help find a political solution for the crisis in Iraq.

Regime Change. Most significantly, we know that it has long been the dream of neoconservatives and Vice President Cheney to effect regime change in Iran, whether through direct military action by the United States, or through other means (as this recent Salon interview with Michael Ledeen makes clear). And we know the Bush administration is worried about what Congress might do to forestall the “military option” vis-à-vis Iran.

Fixing the Facts. We know that special departments have been established at (1) State (the “Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group,” or ISOG, headed by Elizabeth Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter) to work toward the destabilization and ultimate overthrow of the current Iranian government, and at (2) the Pentagon (the “Iranian Directorate”) to gather selective intelligence which supports an aggressive American policy toward Iran, including the possible use of US forces to attack Iranian military and other targets.

The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign experts and former US intelligence officials have said.

One former senior intelligence official is particularly concerned by private briefings that Vice President Dick Cheney is getting from former Office of Special Plans (OSP) Director, Abram Shulsky.

“Vice President Cheney is relying on personal briefings from Shulsky for current intelligence on Iran,” said this intelligence official.

Shulsky, a leading Neoconservative and member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), headed the shadowy and secretive Department of Defense’s OSP in the lead-up to the Iraq war — helping to locate intelligence that would support the Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq.

Eliminating Internal Dissent. We know that alleged critics within the administration of a strike against Iran have either been removed from their military commands, or marginalized, as may be the case with John Negroponte, who suddenly resigned his position as Director of National Intelligence to take a lesser position as an Under Secretary of State.

On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria. […]

…Negroponte has said U.S. intelligence does not believe Iran could produce a nuclear weapon until next decade.

Negroponte’s assessment in April 2006 infuriated neoconservative hardliners who wanted a worst-case scenario on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, much as they pressed for an alarmist view on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003. […]

“Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”

What Does All This Mean?

In the past, opposition to an Iran strike from the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, and the State Department (where Condoleezza Rice worked to convince Bush that a diplomatic track in the UN must be tried first), and the administration’s need to focus on the worsening situation in Iraq and its effect on the 2006 mid-term elections, tempered Bush and Cheney’s enthusiasm for launching an attack on Iran last year. However, as Seymour Hersh noted, Bush is convinced that only he can stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If that his still his belief (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) than he will do whatever he can to confront Iran militarily before the end of his term in office. Because of the Presidential election in 2008, that makes 2007 the most likely year for undertaking such a risky and dangerous gambit.

In addition, Bush has support for his confrontational approach toward Iran from the current Israeli leadership who see the Iranian regime as a threat to their national existence. Bush may even have the tacit support of Saudi Arabia and other predominately Sunni Arab nations in the region who fear the growing ties between Iraq’s current government and Iran.

“We, as Iraqis, have our own interest,” Zebari said Monday. “We are bound by geographic destiny to live with” Iran, he said, adding that the Iraqi government wants “to engage them constructively.”

Zebari’s comments reinforced the growing differences between the Baghdad government’s approach and that of the Bush administration, which has rejected calls by the non-partisan Iraq Study Group to open talks with Iran and Syria. […]

Zebari’s comments came two days after Iraq and Iran announced a security agreement between the two countries. “Terrorism threatens not only Iraq but all the regional countries,” said Sherwan al-Waili, Iraqi state minister for national security, according to Iranian radio.

Indeed, the Arab Times (as reported in the English language online edition of the Daily Times, a Pakistani media outlet), is claiming that an attack on Iran by US forces will come by April of this year:

The report, carrying the by-line of Ahmed Al-Jarallah, editor-in-chief of Arab Times, is attributed to “sources” which are not identified. A “reliable source” is quoted as saying that President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the White House where they discussed “in minute detail” the plan to attack Iran.

The source said that Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran not only to Saudi Arabia, but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Those attending the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the “ambitions” of the Iranian regime before April without exposing other countries in the region to any danger. The source said, “They have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him.”

Claiming that the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, the source said, “The US will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran, ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects. Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month. US forces in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”

The source further said that although Gates and Rice suggested postponing the attack, Bush and Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations, “based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently”. The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away.

Whether this claim is true, or not, what we can say with some degree of certainty is that Bush’s statements and actions all suggest an attempt to provoke Iran into a misstep which could be used to justify a larger war. The extensive “naval exercises” in the Persian Gulf last Fall. The additional American carrier strike force in the region. The deployment of Patriot missile batteries, presumably to protect American allies such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., from possible retaliatory missile strikes in the event of an attack on Iran. The recent raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq. The demand by Bush that Maliki’s government disarm the Shi’a militias that form the basis of his political support. The real possibility that the additional US troops deployed to Baghdad will be asked to “clear and hold” Sadr City, the bastion of the Shi’a militias and of Muqtada al-Sadr, the man who Bush in effect claimed is an “enemy of the United States” in his 60 Minutes interview broadcast on Sunday. Bush’s unsubstantiated allegation that Iran is currently supplying equipment to Iraqi insurgents that is “killing Americans.” And so many more …

These are all signs that Mr. Bush is very serious about engaging Iran — militarily. His recent bellicose statements, our recent military deployments to the region, Bush’s order to his commanders in Iraq to go after Iranians there, the recent leaks of a possible Israeli strike against Iran; these are all part of a pattern that suggests preparation for a military strike, whether by Israel (with US support) or by the US alone, is well underway.

None of this is subtle. It resembles nothing so much as the run-up to the Iraq war in late 2002 and early 2003, with the exception that Congress and many in the media seem a little less willing to defer to Bush’s judgment that a unilateral pre-emptive strike by the United States is justified this time. Which begs the following questions: Can Congress forestall what is looking more and more each day as an inevitable military confrontation with Iran? Can overwhelming public opinion against such a move force Bush and Cheney to back down?

I frankly don’t think so. Congress can impeach Bush after the fact, but I don’t see how they can stop this attack if it indeed the forces required to accomplish this “mission” are already in place and ready. Nor will public opinion, or massive street protests, influence Bush. They didn’t stop Nixon from bombing North Vietnam, and they won’t stop Bush either. He has no more elections to win. the only thing he has left is his legacy.

And, as we all know, Bush is a very stubborn, inflexible man once he has made a decision. He sticks to it regardless of the consequences, regardless of the opposition he incurs. If he has already decided that war with Iran is necessary (for whatever reasons he may have or for no reason at all) than no amount of street theater will change his mind, or compel him to reverse his course. The November election was a terrible blow to his party, which lost control of Congress because of Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war. His response? Put in more troops.

No, Bush is beyond the traditional political, moral and personal pressures that normally could be brought to bear to reign in the behavior of a rogue President. It is no surprise that we see him compared to historical figures such as Churchill and Lincoln by his supporters, ridiculous as those comparisons may be, for that is how he sees himself. A person above mere mortals, a great historical figure, who one day will be lauded for the actions he took which have led to so much suffering, misery and death, and to the eradication of American prestige around the globe.

I fear that the only those military leaders who are given the order to attack Iran can head off this potentially devastating strategic mistake by refusing to carry out those orders when they are issued. Perhaps some of them will be willing to do so, but are there enough of them with the necessary belief, courage and resolve to put their careers on the line in order to prevent a larger war, a war that will fundamentally alter the world and our country for generations to come?