War in Iran?

[Timbuk3]

We could be well down the slippery slope toward World War IV.

We may never know what the energy industry executives who met in Dick Cheney's secret "energy advisory" meetings asked him to use our government's resources to do for them, but we do know their plans included maps of middle east oil fields.

We also know that Bush's advisors and cabinet are members of a very public but little known group called "The Project For The New American Century" (Scroll down and take a gander at the signatures.) These men are zealots who view themselves as "revolutionary thinkers" seeking a "Pax Americana". Temporary setbacks and minor "mistakes" like underestimating the resistance in Iraq won't dissuade them from their belief that they are remaking the world into a better place by bombing the shit out of anyone who won't submit to the will of "the world's lone remaining superpower", all in the name of "peace."

But with our military already stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan and our home shores woefully unprotected by the overfunded and ineffective "Department of Homeland Security" (aka, "The Ministry of Fear") could they possibly believe that another war in Iran is winnable?

Well, according to Seymour Hersh, 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. US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, he says, and intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target". Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months. In a recent appearance on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show", Hersh pointed out that all of his facts are checked by fellow staffers who also know his anonymous contacts inside the halls of power. Given his record, Hersh and the New Yorker are credible. But the White House has described his article as "riddled with inaccuracies".

Read what else the White House has to say about all of this.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are, the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." - George W. Bush's Inaugural Address, 1/20/05

"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. We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." - Bunker Dick Cheney on Imus in the Morning, 1/20/05 (Ummm...Dick? We already HAVE a war in the middle east. Actually, TWO of them!)

Is Hersh lying, or is the White House lying? You'll have to decide for yourself, but remember, according to the 911 commission Iraq and al Qaida had no "collaborative relationship", the search for WMDs in Iraq has ended after finding nothing, and the war has cost "just a bit more than" the $1-2 billion that Paul Wolfowitz told congress it would cost. Yet all of these things were stated as indisputable facts by the White House and were used as justification for ignoring the will of the world and invading Iraq. Just for starters.

Israel refuses to rule out an attack on Iran, so let's go ahead with Cheney's idea that we'll have Israel take care of the air strikes for us, counting on the absurd PNAC inspired idea that the Iranian people will rise up against the Mullahs who control their government and install a democracy in Iran.

How many Americans know that we armed the Israeli's with the weapons they'd need to strike Iran? Not many, I'd guess, since the main stream media stopped covering the Bush regime's atrocities right about the time he "hit the trifecta" with the deaths of nearly 3000 people. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Israel bought 500 2000-lb "bunker-buster" bombs from the United States just a few months ago. A senior Israeli security source who confirmed the Haaretz story told Reuters: "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria." Haaretz quoted Israeli government sources as saying the sale, including 4,500 other guided munitions, was not expected to go through until after the U.S. elections in November. Earlier this month, Haaretz said Israel sought to obtain the U.S.-made, one-ton "bunker buster" bombs for a possible future strike against arch-foe Iran's atomic development program, which the Jewish state considers a strategic threat.

Would Iran fight back, perhaps striking Israel? They say they will.

How many countries would come to Iran's aid? We can only guess, but Iran has allies in the region, not to mention billions in oil and gas contracts. For example:

Malaysia says the United States will stand alone if it attacks Iran. If you're not up on things like this, Malaysia is right in the middle of the biggest muslim territory in the world, lending al Qaida even more credibility in their claim that Bush, the self-professed "christian", is waging a holy war against Islam.

A mere two months ago, the news of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth US$3.5 billion, raised some eyebrows in the world press, some hinting that China's economic foreign policy may be on the verge of a new leap forward. A clue to the fact that such anticipation may have totally understated the case was last week's signing of a mega-gas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100 billion. December 02, 2004

Indian public energy companies have followed China’s lead and tried to reach to other suppliers and in doing so they have lined contracts to ensure steady supplies. The most recent one was signed on January 7 of this year and involves liquefied gas purchases with Iran worth US$ 40 billion over 25 years.

Iran's leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei met Azeri President Ilham Aliyev in Teheran. During the meeting, which was also attended by President Mohammad Khatami, Khamenei praised the expansion of ties between Iran and Azerbaijan, referred to the ethnic ties between the Iranian and Azeri people. Khamenei called for the expansion of Tehran-Baku ties in the political, security, economic, commercial, and cultural spheres, adding that the United States cannot be trusted and that that Iran and Azerbaijan should never allow their warm ties to be influenced by the policies of foreigners.

If war breaks out between Iran and Israel, can we come to Israel's aid? In a well-researched op-ed piece, Gordon Adams says that "The Pentagon's new budget proposal reveals that there is not enough money to pay for the multitude of missions facing defense forces." The violence in Iraq escalates by the day, and Afghanistan is far from stable.

And don't forget, Israel has nukes. If they're facing certain annihilation, or even substantial casualties, who thinks that they'd refuse to use them?

Are you starting to see how this could get out of hand quickly?

Bush's "shoot first and try diplomacy later" policies have never worked. Not for him, not for anyone who has gone before him. It's time to demand transparency from the White House in what their plans in Iran are, and what they are doing to avoid armed conflict.

"Transparency and accountability" from THIS White House? Who am I kidding? It may be true that "59 million Americans can be this stupid", but it's beginning to look like we have also gone insane.

1-26-05

Original with supporting links is here: http://www.timbuk3.com/archive.htm#012605

[TheFarseer]

1. If you ask me, China's got it completely right

and we've got it all wrong. Nothing last forever, including our hegemony. Spain was king in the 1500s and now they're a pile of crap. They had a "bull in a china shop" foreign policy and let their economy fall to shambles by shortsighted economic policies. We're going to be the same way. China is laying back militarily. They are making favorable treaties and screwing over people economicly because they are big enough to. We are doing the exact opposite. mark my words, China will have friends because they are economicly tied to the Chinese and we won't have any because everyone in the world is mad at us. I don't want this to be the "Chinese century" but God Dangit, it's going to be if it keeps up like this.

[Strelnikov_]

3. China Is Basically Doing Things The Way We Used To

And modern Spain looks like an OK country to me. Maybe we will recover after 450 years too.

. . .

"America is the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth," Nately informed him with lofty fervor and dignity. "And the American fighting man is second to none."

"Exactly," agreed the man pleasantly, with a hint of taunting amusement. "Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least prosperous nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all. And that’s exactly why my country is doing so well in this war while your nation is doing so poorly."

"The Germans are being driven out, and we are still here. In a few years you will be gone, too, and we will still be here. You see, Italy is really a very poor and weak country, and that’s what makes us so strong. Italian soldiers are not dying any more. But American and German solders are. I call that doing extremely well. Yes, I am quite certain that Italy will survive this war and still be in existence long after your own country has been destroyed."

"America is not going to be destroyed!" Nately shouted.

Never?" prodded the old man softly.

"Well. . " Nately faltered.

The old man laughed indulgently, "Rome was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you think your own country will last? Forever?"

From: "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller

[Oversea Visitor]

2. I am from Malaysia

We are a Muslim country. But I am a Chinese Christian. Malaysia is a showcase country as Muslim nation. We hold the post of chairman of OIC. Meaning Organization of Islamic Countries.

We are also a member of the Commonwealth. We have very strong standing with the EU and the African Nation. But we are a very small country.

Does our words has meaning? Be fun to see if Bush try attack Iran.

As for the Asian countries we are part of it.

[TheFarseer]

4. Bush doesn't even care what 49% of Americans say

I'm sure Bush pays as much attention to Malaysia as most people pay to the bus boy at Hooters. Which is to say, not much.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. He does

He is scare of our big badass ex Prime Minister Dr Mahatir. Cause when he speak he goes right in and like a 100 countries will just clap in support cause he say what they always want to say but dare not.

Dr Mahatir was such a badass with US that he resign so he wont harm the country too much.

[Timbuk3]

6. War in Iran? (Part 2.)

Yesterday I wrote about some of the more ominous signs that the Bush administration is aiming for another "regime change" project in Iran, and some of the more obvious repercussions we can expect if they go ahead with it. Today, I thought I'd try to fill in a few more details...

Iran's leaders have begun to make gestures of cooperation with the United States - which is not at all surprising given the presence of American forces in the surrounding countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rapidly declining legitimacy of the regime with the Iranian people. Given the Bush administration's goals for stemming the WMD proliferation and reigning in terrorist groups, it may be tempting to pursue closer ties with the powerful clerics. However, as McFaul and Milani note, there is little reason to believe that a commitment made by the Iranian government on these issues would be anything but an expedient retreat or, indeed, that it would be honored at all. In the meantime, by engaging the regime, the administration would "send a demoralizing signal to Iran's democratic forces," who over the long-term could actually provide the U.S. with "more lasting gains." From a PNAC memorandum, February 24, 2004, Subject: Regime Change for Iran.

First, let me make the obvious comparisons between Iran and another country we believed would "rise up against" their oppressive government and greet us as liberators, Iraq. (From the CIA factbook.)

Iran is sandwiched between Iraq to the West, and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. In other words, Iran is surrounded by US occupied/allied states. With a population of 25,374,691 (July 2004 est) and occupying an area of 437,072 sq km, Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho. On the other hand, Iraq, with a population of 69,018,924 (July 2004 est.) and a land area of 1.648 million sq km, is slightly larger than Alaska and has nearly 3 times the population of Iraq. The number of males age 15-49 that are fit for military service was estimated in 2004 to be 3,654,947. US economic sanctions and export controls have been in effect against Iran since it was designated a "state sponsor of terrorism" in 1988, but they have not had nearly the effect that the UN sanctions against Iraq following Operation Desert Storm have had, and Iran retains major gas contracts with eastern Europe, Russia, and China. Their two biggest export partners are Japan and China, something that's all the more notable because the big commercial banks in Japan and China have been financing America’s huge appetite for borrowed money. If China or Japan were to decide to stop buying US T-bills they could bring all of our borrowing to a halt virtually overnight.

OK, so taking all of this into the context of "will the Bush administration attack, or use it's proxy Israel to attack Iran?" any sane world leader would see the downside to the whole thing, right?

If you didn't pick up on it, the key word there was "sane". Are these guys sane? I have my doubts. We're talking about the crew that predicted rose parades after our Iraqi invasion. But there is a possibility, raised today in the Christian Science Monitor, that they may be playing a game of "liar's poker". Let me quote a bit of it.

--------------

January 27, 2005 The diplomatic equivalent of good cop-bad cop continues with Britain, Germany, and France on one side and the US and Israel on the other. Both camps strive to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking in London on Wednesday before a meeting with Tony Blair, warned that Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months in its "covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability," reports the Guardian.

Following recent statements by US Vice President Dick Cheney, that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did against Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, Gen. Mofaz said Iran was "the main long-term threat to the world." He stressed that "it would not be permitted to build a nuclear bomb," reports the Guardian.

'None of the Western countries can live with Iran having a nuclear capability,' he said. General Mofaz, who has said in the past that Israel has operational plans in place for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, refused to rule out military action.

--------------

So where are we, today? Iran has a strong "hand" in this game of liars poker (and I didn't even mention the threat to "middle east peace" between Israel and Palestine, and the repercussions of a war between Iran and Israel.) Obviously, "the world's sole remaining superpower" has a pretty strong hand, too. If you've ever played poker, you know that when you try to bluff a strong hand based on your own strong hand one thing you can count on is a big pot. IOW, the stakes are raised.

We also know, because "none of the Western countries can live with Iran having a nuclear capability", that the US' side isn't going to fold unless THEY are bluffing. I don't think they are, but what does Iran think?

We know (from yesterday) that the Israelis have what they need to strike and suspected Iranian nuclear enrichment facility. (And, we know that these facilities are HUGE, so they're easy to spot.

We know that Israel has struck a nuclear facility in the past, and publicly states that they'll do so, again, if they believe it's necessary.

And finally, we have a timetable. Less than 12 months.

We have a "wild card" in the game, too. Pakistan has "the Islamic bomb", but Musharraf is currently an ally, curiously enough an ally who is a strongman and siezed power in a coup. Can Musharraf hold onto power if his Muslim "constituents" are enraged by an attack on their neighbor, Iran?

Is Iran "buying time" by negotiating with our former European allies, or are they telling the truth about wanting to enrich the nuclear fuel only to the point of utility in a nuclear reactor for power generation? Are the US, Israel, or our former European allies prepared for the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on a nation that claims to have peaceful intent? Can anyone "prove" that Iran has the intention to build a nuclear weapon, before OR after a strike?

I don't have the answers, yet, but I'll keep digging. Right now all I can say for sure is, the possibility of full scale war in the middle east scares the shit out of me, but not the boys from PNAC. (Remember them from yesterday? Bush's cabinet?) PNAC has already publicly stated that "...it is time for the Bush administration to demonstrate that its commitment to democracy in the Middle East extends to U. S. policy toward Iran."

"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that...(t)hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." - George W. "Look at me! I'm a christian who doesn't go to church!" Bush's Inaugural Address, 1/20/05.

1/27/05

Original with supporting links: http://www.timbuk3.com/archive.htm#012705

[wabeewoman]

7. Intgeresting

and thought provoking. Thanks.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

8. Well Researched - Thanks