US, NATO military build up points to new war?

[citizinemag]

I'm new to this forum. I hope you find this article informative.

It has a lot of research about the military build-up in naval, aerial, and amphibious assault forces by the US military in the last few months off the shores of Iran.

It is a very long article, but it has links to other news reports about apparent preparations by the US and Israeli military to assault Iran when ready.

Most US government spokespeople have denied any "offensive" desires, but I suppose this is a good example of "Watch what we do, not what we say." What does everyone here think?

http://www.citizinemag.com/politics/0703_iran.htm

Military build-up by U.S. and NATO may presage new conflict in the Middle East.

By Thom White

March 24, 2007 -- In 2005, after rumors began circulating of a planned U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, President George W. Bush responded that, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous." He added, "Having said that, all options are on the table." Observers noted that Mr. Bush was making a veiled reference to the option of a U.S. military assault on Iran.

In a February 24, 2007, interview, U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney said that the Bush Administration would continue to try to "persuade" Iran to halt their nuclear enrichment program, but repeated the line that "all options are on the table," for the U.S. to prevent Iran from have enriched uranium. Most public statements from the White House and Pentagon have denied a plan of attack, but reports on U.S. and coalition troop deployments in the past few months point toward new and wider "U.S. military action."

In February 2007, The Sunday Herald (UK) reported that, "Senior commanders have produced contingency plans for a series of attacks on the Iranian homeland ... With three carrier groups soon to be deployed in the Gulf … has the capacity to launch air strikes or even make limited amphibious landings … From its bases in Bulgaria and the former Soviet central Asian republics, it can employ air power to destroy suspected targets either by using stealth bombers or pre-programmed cruise missiles."

The writer, Trevor Royle, then asked the pivotal question at hand: "Is Bush going for broke by laying plans to attack Iran or is he involved in a dangerous game of brinksmanship?"

[bemildred]

1. Well, they would certainly like to, attack Iran I mean.

But they lack the means, in several different ways, and the consquences would be severe, so I don't think they will. Of course, they are proven to be reckless fools, so reason may not be a sound guide.

Welcome to DU and I/P.

[citizinemag]

2. False-Flag Operation to start war with Iran?

I guess the most salient part of the article is toward the end where it talks about what the "spark" will be to set off the war once US/Coaltion forces are aligned for the attack. Most of the article is just making the case that the US is preparing to attack Iran, but then there's this:

"During his February 1, 2007, hearing, Zbigniew Brzezinski made some startling remarks about misgivings he had that the Bush Administration might blame Iran for an upcoming terrorist attack in the U.S., and send U.S. bombers against this foreign land, even if there is not sufficient evidence to justify the accusation against Iran.

"Mr. Brzezinski said: "A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves an Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran."

"Brzezinski's description of a terrorist attack "blamed" on Iran which "forces" the U.S. into a pre-planned "defensive" war against Iran (note the quotation marks) would be termed by many to be a "false flag attack."

"What is a "false-flag"? Adri Mehra of the Minnesota Daily wrote about false-flag operations in history and explained, "False flags are top-secret military operations that are designed to look like they were conducted by other governments -- in short, pretending to be the enemy in order to start a war. The name is derived from the practice of flying "false colors" in naval warfare, in which a ship raises the flag of a country other than its own in order to deceive and confuse other ships, and provide a means for attack and, ultimately, a pretext for war."

"There are many signs that the Bush Administration is preparing a military confrontation with Iran, but would U.S. government leaders be willing and able to use a "false-flag" terrorist incident blamed on Iran to plunge America into a dangerous new military adventure?"

[bonito]

3. It has been looking that way

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that monitors this site http://www.debka.com/ and what they are reporting about Bahrain makes it look more realistic as well.

[Lithos]

4. Locking per I/P guidelines

The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

Lithos
DU Moderator