Is Iran Being Set Up?

[Henny Penny]

No, this time it is not Larouche...

http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp07272005.html

Meanwhile, my pessimism deepens as I read an online excerpt from an article by Philip Giraldi, in the American Conservative. It indicates that:

(1) the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has been asked to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" and

(2) that Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi.

Can it get madder than this? The neocons' plans for a total reorganization of the "Greater Middle East" have been plain for some time now. Many have been warning against the prospect of an expansion of the Iraq War into Syria and Iran. You'd think that reality would smack these guys in the face and they'd call off anything so stupid. But they apparently think that by using conventional and nuclear weapons (first time any nation will do that since Nagasaki); by employing the Mujahadeen Khalq; by activating agents in place to organize demonstrations (as the CIA did so successfully in Iraq in 1953); by attacking from Azerbaijan they can actually pull this off. Do they even realize that southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical Shiism, and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shiites U.S. forces have acquired in Iraq?

[FogerRox]

1. LOL-- Mike MAlloy went over this maybe a month ago

[Henny Penny]

3. So Iran needn't worry?

[Henny Penny]

2. I posted this in response to the shutting down of Domitan's

thread quoting Larouche.

Irespective of the source, I think it is an important question.

Guess I'll just have to kick it myself!!

:kick:

[converted_democrat]

4. Let me help you out with that!!! n/t

[Henny Penny]

6. Hi Convert... I think the rule regarding sources should

surely not be so stringent when it comes to General Discussion.

Also shutting down a thread after just 30 mins means no-one has time to find a reputable source.

And I think the Iran question is a serious question. Much more important than whether or not * used a pen or his index finger... IMHO.

[wli]

5. obviously, yes

Iraq and Afghanistan were soft targets. Guess what they're both adjacent to? Ever heard of a pincer attack?

[Henny Penny]

8. I think that regime change in Iran has been a long term goal

but if the US admin wants to achieve it by military action involving recently setup bases in the central asian republics near by, they will have to act quickly.

"The SCO notice to Washington was followed by statements from the Uzbek and Kyrgyz governments suggesting they were reconsidering the future of American bases on their territory.

A day after his victory in the presidential polls on 17 July, Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev said the presence of a US base in the Central Asian nation should be reconsidered.

A week earlier, neighbouring Uzbekistan, too, had given warning shots to the US about its presence in this oil-rich country."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A7A5EC54-C516-4618-A277-52CE6622BCC3.htm

And if they are to act quickly, how could they possibly justify their actions?

[wli]

9. with a nuclear 9/11 part 2

The SCO is something of a serious issue. It's probable that the SCO will side against the US during an invasion of Iran, and so another Cheney warfraud may end up being a much broader conflict than we anticipate.

[Deja Q]

7. If it backfires, we're all toast. No oil = no life.

Of course, no jobs = no life because no money = no life.