“They Want a War with Iran”

Posted by Steven D | Feb 11, 2007 | 21 |

This isn’t me and my personal opinion talking, it’s a former Bush administration official who worked at the National Security Council (via NEWSWEEK Magazine):

At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

When Bush’s own people start ratting he and Cheney out, it’s time for Congress to stand up and take action before it is too late. This wasn’t some low level functionary, but the NSC director for Iran and the Persian Gulf for chrissakes! And the news only gets worse:

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

Three US carriers. Mounting tensions in Iraq. Criss-crossing accusations of alleged kidnapping of Iranian officials in Iraq (alleged by Iran) and the killing of US troops by “terrorists” supplied with Iranian armaments (alleged by the US). This is spiraling out of control, while the Senate can’t even muster a vote on a non-binding resolution against Bush’s Iraq escalation. And then there’s this chilling sentence near the end of the Newsweek article:

Sunni insurgents in Iraq need only kill some Americans and plant Iranian IDs nearby to start a full-scale war.

What’s left unsaid is that if Sunni insurgents could do that, what’s to stop elements of the CIA or US Special Forces from doing the same thing, under the direct orders of our government (i.e., the Office of the Vice President)? Absolutely nothing.

Iraq

Iran

About The Author

Steven D

Father of 2 children. Faithful Husband. Loves my country, but not the GOP.

21 Comments

Steven D on February 11, 2007 at 3:57 pm

he USS Ronald Reagan is the third carrier in question:

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan passes two fishermen in their small boat as it leaves for its second deployment in a year from North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, California January 27, 2007. The Reagan is headed to the Persian Gulf to support war efforts in Iraq.
- Salunga on February 11, 2007 at 5:03 pm
  
  They may want to rename it the USS Sitting Duck. I’m not sure these carriers are well shielded from Iranian missiles. Our poor service people are going to be in a world of sh*t if this goes down. Not to mention the ones in Iraq.
- idredit on February 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm
  
  Steven D, table is set. Evidence roll out is crap.
  
  Prof. Juan Cole warns NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges…Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal.
  
  And the “*evidence grows That White House Planned to Relase Cooked Intel on Iran,” notes Thinkprogress
  
  btw, you a typo in first graph…cited as TIME but link is Newsweek via MSNBC.
  - Steven D on February 11, 2007 at 6:05 pm
    
    Thanks — I’m such an idiot sometimes.
    - idredit on February 11, 2007 at 7:18 pm
      
      happens even with Princes.
      
      But seriously your post is spot on.
      
      Monday Edition of The Independent, UKreads:
      
      Target: Tehran
      
      US dossier on bomb attacks builds case for war with Iran
      Khamenei accused of supplying arms to Iraq rebels
      Defiant Iran to press ahead with nuclear programme
      
      Article not yet posted online.
      - idredit on February 11, 2007 at 7:31 pm
        
        From the article. US is scoffed at.
        
        Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation
        
        “The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the “highest levels” of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.
        
        The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.
        
        Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq..[.]
        
        The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran
        
        The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein’s elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.
        
        The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.[.]
        
        The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.
        
        (emphasis added)
        
        Unlikely to stop Cheney.
      - on February 11, 2007 at 8:20 pm
        
        This should not be surprising. Patrick Cockburn is a leftie, the brother of Alexander Cockburn, the co-editor of Counterpunch. Patrick is one of the best journalists covering the Iraq war.
        
        The Independent has an explicitly advocatory editorial policy, that is, they do not require their reporters to maintain “balance”.
      - idredit on February 12, 2007 at 8:37 am
        
        Degrading labels. Counterpunch fills the void in allowing a forum to air, in depth, the other side of issues. Glad you read the journal.
        
        The Cockburns manage to expose the lies, get things right. That’s not just balance that’s truth telling. Perhaps righties should become lefties.
        
        Point me to a newspaper that does not have an advocatory editorial policy
  - boilerman10 on February 11, 2007 at 9:37 pm
    
    Umm, Iran IS being set up.
    
    You might want Read this!
    
    It looks like another “Bubba will believe anything” sales job going on here.
    - chocolate ink on February 11, 2007 at 10:12 pm
      
      That’s almost funny-the supposed Iranian explosives using the English language instead of Persian.
      - hass on February 12, 2007 at 12:13 am
        
        Well, as a minor correction is necessary.
        Iranians use their own solar calendar, not the “Islamic” lunar calendar. It is known as the Jalali Calendar, and the year is 1385.
        
        You can convert the dates using the page at
        “http://www.iranchamber.com/calendar/iranian_calendar_converter.php”>Iran Chamber
      - hass on February 12, 2007 at 12:16 am
        
        Link correction
- ignorant bystander on February 11, 2007 at 5:57 pm
  
  Over at ET, a geezer in paris caught this little gem.
  
  Francis, also serving in the Navy, and his wife, Jenifer, are based in the San Diego, Calif., area. Francis is stationed aboard the USS Nimitz and will be deploying to the Middle East in April.
  
  A bit to help you sleep (not)
  
  So would that make four carrier groups in the area?
  - idredit on February 11, 2007 at 6:41 pm
    
    Set for Spring. April is being named the month as we connect more of the dots.
    
    there will be an accident, a thump in the night.
    
    around here, we’ve serviced our bikes.
    - ignorant bystander on February 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
      
      This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. – The Hunt for Red October
- chocolate ink on February 11, 2007 at 7:27 pm
  
  I thought I had read somewhere in the last week that bushco got Blair on board and he also is sending several british naval carriers to the area……..maybe I was dreaming because so far my googling hasn’t pulled up anything like that.
Salunga on February 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I can’t believe we are watching this happen…again. A step by step propaganda and military buildup to war. I think they are going to let Israel go to town on the reactor sites and dare Iran to strike back. It will not be a subtle provocation. This is going to be a nightmare. Bush and Cheney are so incredibly stupid.
adios on February 11, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Chris Mathews got nearly apoplectic with Congressman Eric Cantor(R-VA) on Hardball Thursday – and no wonder:

MATTHEWS: Would you support the president if he declared war in Iran tomorrow morning? As things are right now.

CANTOR: I will support what is in the best interest of securing this homeland and providing our troops with what they need and if there is a threat on the ground in Iraq and in the region that our troops need us, I will support them and that`s exactly the point on this Iraqi resolution because the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too. This is a nonbinding resolution. It`s a sense of Congress. It doesn`t mean anything. In fact it pollutes the message and sends the wrong message to our troops.

MATTHEWS: Congressman [Steve] Israel [D-NY], what`s the role of Congress in war and peace?

ISRAEL: Congress under the Constitution of the United States authorizes war. The War Powers Act requires Congress to vote on whether we should insert troops into hostile situations. The law is clear.

CANTOR: Absolutely not.

ISRAEL: Come on, Eric.

CANTOR: As a commander in chief the constitution gives .

MATTHEWS: Congressman Cantor, why did the president ask for approval of Congress before he went to Iraq?

CANTOR: I certainly think his counsel gave him guidance why he need to do that but the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.

Video here. So much for Article I.

This entire topic is mind-boggling. Yet it seems as if something is about to happen: the same sense of inevitability as in early 2003 is emerging.
- adios on February 11, 2007 at 6:10 pm
  
  Nice wrap-up in the current Newsweek.
  
  In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the “Axis of Evil.” Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush’s controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn’t ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan’s ringing denunciations of the “evil empire.”
  
  Once again, Iran’s reformists were knocked back on their heels. “Those who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized,” says Adeli. “The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America’s intentions.” The Khameini aide concurs: “The Axis of Evil speech did not surprise the Supreme Leader. He never trusted the Americans.”
  
  Oh for Chrissake. The designation of two countries as mortal enemies of the U.S. was done simply to camouflage the intended target of an upcoming invasion – and so that our narcissistic pinhead of a ‘Decider’ could feel heroic and impress his Daddy. Makes you nostalgic for the old Nixon/Kissinger realpolitik, or the hardheaded cronyism of Consigliere Jimmy Baker.
  
  The most interesting thing about the article is how it’s the Iranians who come across as reasonable and pragmatic and American decision makers whose sophistication in these matters seems barely above the level of drunken fraternity brothers (apologies to any d.f.b. out there).
latanawi on February 11, 2007 at 6:52 pm

A long time ago (a year, at least) you were the first to break the news here that the Administration was preparing for war in Iran. I can’t find it in the archives. Would like to see again how prescient you were.
Jersey Joe on February 11, 2007 at 9:14 pm

The guys who are running this government continue to amaze with their stupidity.

If you remember retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner he has recently chimed in on the plans for Iran.

To get a glimpse of where he comes from, be sure to read the PDF file on the above page entitled “Truth From These Podia” by Gardiner on the misinformation campaign prior to and during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

To see what he has to say about Iran check out this page.

He recently appeared on Ian Masters’ Sunday radio program (see the January 20,2007 program notes) in which he discussed this situation. An mp3 file is available at the site.

This is a quote from the show. I transcribed this myself, and may have gotten a few words wrong, but it is close to exact, and certainly the sense is right.

Speaking about Iran, Col. Gardiner said, in response to the question by Masters “When would the trigger be pulled?

I have one indicator. The Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group is in the region. The Stennis Carrier Battle Group is on the way….

If we read that the Nimitz, that it’s being deployed, then I am 100% certain that we have decided to execute the plan. You don’t send three carrier battle groups to the Middle East as a threat, as that uses up your whole capability.

Unbelievable. Watching the same train wreck getting ready to happen again. Listen to the whole interview if you are interested.

How sad for OUR nation. Sorry for shouting.

“They Want a War with Iran”

About The Author

Steven D

21 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments