Reuters is reporting:
Despite the Bush administration’s insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue. […]
The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.
The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.
Even as Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman denies there are any plans to go to war with Iran, separately, this report out of Australia states that Dick Cheney said “All options are still on the table” re Iran, including war.
The Scotsman tells us:
Tehran refused to comply with an August 31 deadline to suspend enrichment, triggering a Security Council resolution ordering all countries to stop supplying it with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programmes, and to freeze assets of ten key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programmes.
Iran has offered unconditional talks, but accuses the West of having double standards.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week said Iran would halt its nuclear fuel work if those making such demands did the same. Iran also points to Israel, which is known to have nuclear weapons, yet refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran has done.
According to the Scotsman piece, Cheney is the chief hawk on Iran:
Leading the hawkish camp is Cheney, who is urging the Pentagon to press ahead with war planning.
But as well as Rice, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, says he is unequivocally opposed to military action on the grounds that it would inflame the Islamic world, and make success even harder in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Scotsman article states that “The key question is whether Bush himself will seek a dramatic denouement of the Iran question by ordering military action before he hands over to his successor.” But I think the key question is this: If Congress refuses to pay for an attack against Iran, but Bush orders one nonetheless, who will the military obey?
According to this piece from the Sunday Times of London:
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
Meanwhile, America obsesses about Anna Nicole Smith’s death, Britney Spear’s head-shaving antics, the upcoming Oscars, and of course, who to vote for on American Idol. It’s shame most don’t have a taste for the only reality show that matters: Using American men and woman to secure private profit for individuals under the guise of the military and in the fake name of “National Security.”
You know what would make us all more secure? Pulling our nose and oil drillbits out of other people’s countries.
let’s see if they have the stones.
Meanwhile, the covert war continues: US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
an expanded analysis in this article: Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains
“Tehran accuses the US of staging covert operations from Pakistan to provoke ethnic and religious violence, and even the breakup of Iran. Tehran is also angered by what it sees as a US-Pakistan nexus manipulating the Afghan situation. Iran could retaliate against NATO in Afghanistan, or try to make Pakistan accountable. Both are bad options.”
but Bush forgets
“Indeed, Tehran is used to the US stratagem. Sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of US regional policy over the past quarter-century. Tehran seems to have anticipated the current wave. Last May, in a nationwide television address, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad accused Iran’s “enemies” of stoking the fires of ethnic tensions within Iran. He vowed that the Iranian nation would “destroy the enemy plots”.
see also Robert Fisk: 27 July 1880. A date Mr Blair should look up
Reminds me of all the failed plots against Castro in Cuba. Bottom line – the Cubans preferred Castro to any ‘leadership’ America wanted to offer. I’m sure Iranians feel the same way, as do the Iraqis, as will all the people anywhere on the planet if their homeland is threatened.
will reveal that we have probably funded, supplied and trained more terrorist organizations than any other state in the world. Unfortunately we continue to do so today. It is hypocrisy like this that helps to make us so unpopular in the world.
Exactly. And I really fear our lives here in the states are directly endangered by our legacy. It seems inevitable that there will be more attacks here if we can’t pull a visibile and credible about-face.
AIPAC Demands “Action” on Iran
So what should we do? Write AIPAC and cc the major media asking them to stop this nonsense?
I’d like to see some action come out of this information….
Certainly not write AIPAC: they don’t even care about what most American Jews, who do not support US and Israeli belligerence, think.
On the other hand, Gary Leupp writes in that Counterpunch piece I quoted:
One could write to AIPAC and explain to them that an attack on Iran is not in Israel’s own interest and that it could cause a backlash against Jews in red America, but the organization is run by extremists, so I don’t think that would do any good.
Rather than writing AIPAC, I think writing and phoning your Congressperson and Senator is the main thing we can do, with the message that attacking Iran is neither in the US’s nor Israel’s interest, and that if the US does attack, it will be solely because our leaders gave in to AIPAC. Also trying to get letters to the editor and op-eds published, cc-ing the media as you put it, is worthwhile.
AIPAC got some more schmaltz for the propaganda wheels. JUST DO IT now, don’t wait.
BloombergNEWs is helping out and reported today:
Iran Fires First Rocket Into Space, State Television Reports
Betcha the next line is Now we’re proven right. Iran can attack Europe, the U.S.A and did we say Tel Aviv.
Could that be a press release from the DoS via Tehran. Our tax dollars, all $75 million at work on behalf of AIPAC?
Looks like April showers. Sound the sirens.
Go read
Sy Hersh’s most recent THE REDIRECTION
observes:
Yea, don’t count on it. The White House has yet to demonstrate even a lick of horse sense so there’s no likelihood of them being anything but foolish.
This is why they’re going to do it, and get away with it. Few can even conceive this is possible, so most are not working to prevent it.
both at home and abroad, and not just against military targets. Then again the question needs to be asked: “does the administration, their theorists and backers care about attacks against us?”
After all it enables them to remove our rights, redefine our constitution and carry out even more insane and totally unjustified military action against anyone who has a bit of oil. Keeping teh average American paranoid and afraid serves a role for those of an authoritarian bent and the concept of collective American paranoia is quite openly discussed outside our land of the no longer very free.
You may depend upon it.
However, while all the military mechanisms appear to be in place, most European military analysts are, in fact, predicting an attack much later in President Cheneybush’s administration.
The reasons for the lateness of the attack are largely political, rather than military.
The primary reason that the analysts reckon the attack will come late (say just before the 2008 elections, or immediately thereafter), is the desire of Cheneybush that his successor inherit a decades-long conflict in the Arabian Peninsula. Attacking Iran late in Cheneybush’s term guarantees that, because there will be no time for the public and Congress to absorb the full import of the attack and react to it by endorsing a plan to get the US out. Attacking Iran 3-4 months before Cheneybush’s administration gives the Iranians time to retaliate, and the lameduck Cheneybush could do as he pleases without fear of political repercussions, while the President-elect would be impotent to influence events.
This is why it is vital that the REAL President, one Richard B. Cheney, MUST be impeached, or at least investigated by Congress with an eye towards forcing his resignation or impeachment, IMMEDIATELY. Got to tie down the bastard’s attention and resources in keeping his cardiac-arrested bum out of prison, rather than furthering his scheme for starting World War Three.
Get Cheney out, not Bush. Cheney is the politically and legally vulnerable one. The American people still won’t go for impeaching Bush, but they’d be only too glad to get rid of Cheney (a wildly unpopular figure if ever there was one). Put in a sane Republican with no ambitions for 2008 (like Senator Arlen Specter) who can manage the executive branch as well as can be expected for the remainder of Bush’s term, and save the US from further ruin.