HERE IT COMES! Setting up the Iran attack

[LunaC]

The PNAC/WH/Pentagon only needed one “new Pearl Harbor” moment to set their grand plans in motion. Staging another 911 event in America as a pretext for attacking Iran would only shred their “fighting them there” propaganda and accentuate the Incompetence Factor established in-no-uncertain terms by Katrina and reinforced by the escalating chaos in Iraq. They need a new excuse before they can play with more of their military toys especially since they‘re already scattered throughout the MidEast living room.

I predict Israel will be the first to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran and the U.S. will use it as a handy-dandy excuse to jump into the fray and check off another country on the PNAC Wish List. The new propaganda will be “We have a duty, obligation and responsibility to serve, protect and aid our allies and we had no choice.”

“The OTHER GUY started it!“ is the only plausible excuse they can sell to an increasingly uneasy and war-weary public and the path towards that end is already being paved....

Former Israeli General Warns of Pre-Emptive Strike on Iran
Jerusalem - 11 March 2006

Israel has a contingency plan for a crushing military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The revelation by a retired Israeli general has set off a political storm.

Former army Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon says Israel has the ability to launch a pre-emptive strike that could set back Iran's nuclear program for years. He said that a single attack would not be sufficient, and that Israel was not limited to air strikes, a possible reference to submarine-fired missiles. Ya'alon who ended his term as army chief last year, said Israel's anti-missile defenses would protect it from an Iranian counterattack.

His remarks set off a political storm, with government officials accusing him of giving away military secrets. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert played down the comments.

Olmert said Israel is part of an international coalition against a nuclear Iran, suggesting that the Jewish state would not act alone.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-11-voa16.cfm

===================
How bad can it get?

The ingredients for a NUCLEAR CONFLICT are all in place!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LunaC/10

[Jara sang]

1. A downed airliner or attack on U.S. vessel.

That is how it will go down. There is a history of that kind of thing in the Gulf. An attack on a U.S. vessel in the Straits of Hormuz is my guess. Like the attack on the USS Stark.

[FreakinDJ]

2. The addition of a carrier strike force

When the carriers are in place

or if they want to deny allegations the carriers will be just outsife the straights and an incident shall occure

[retread]

3. You mean like the "attack" on the USS Maddox ? n/t

[lovuian]

4. Operation Swarmer was a test run

for it!!!

[ThomWV]

5. I Do Not Think The People Can Be Fooled Again

I have to believe that as a people we are too smart to let it happen again.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

6. LOL!!

:rofl:

[lectrobyte]

10. I thought that in 2003 about Iraq. I could not believe that people

would not be rioting in the streets, and that even the most dyed-in-the-wool republican could see the stupidity and wrong-headedness of invading Iraq.

[lanah]

14. congress 'can be fooled again'

only four FOUR congressmen voted against sending Iran to the UN...Kucinich, Paul, McDermott, and Stark.

The rest of them voted to go along with Bush's next load of crap. We need to throw them all out.

[rman]

18. We're smart enough not to be fooled but not powerful enough to prevent it

Seriously, how would we "not let it happen again"?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Remember the Alamo!

Ubbelievable.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. I think Sharon's stroke put a kink in their plan

maybe delayed it a little bit.

Other than that, I think you are correct. I told my friends this 6 months ago. I said, "I know you think I'm crazy, just remember I said this. Maybe we'll all get lucky and you'll be able to give me shit for it. I hope so."

[magneto]

9. If another country--Iran--attacks Israel...

Do you think America should come to Israel's aid?

[FogMachine]

12. Nope. Israel can defend itself.

[Comadreja]

11. How would this

. . .justify confiscating iranian oilfields?

[LunaC]

13. The U.S. has a habit of maintaining a military presence after a conflict

for "keeping the peace." The U.S. also spends big bucks to rebuild the country it's destroyed and taking control of the oilfields to help pay for the repairs is a tactic successfully used in Iraq.

Since I think Iran can create a collosal FUBAR of epic proportions, I doubt the U.S will get to play the role of Occupier in this instance, but that doesn't mean they won't at least try.

[Odin2005]

15. If we attack Iran all hell will break loose.

Islmaists start rioting all over the middle east, the region will decend into chaos. The house of Saud, and the Mubarak and Musharrif regimes will collapse. Israel will be overrun with suicide bombers.

[LunaC]

16. The rest of the world will hardly notice.

“…the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt.”

The rest of the world will have their own problems to contend with. Oil shortages lead to supply shortages leads to explosive frustration, anger and riots in the streets. In the U.S, the Mayberry Machiavellis get to enact their coveted Martial Law. Mission Accomplished.

[radfringe]

17. I've been saying this for the past 3 years

--snip---
I predict Israel will be the first to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran and the U.S. will use it as a handy-dandy excuse to jump into the fray and check off another country on the PNAC Wish List. The new propaganda will be “We have a duty, obligation and responsibility to serve, protect and aid our allies and we had no choice.”

----------

although I wouldn't discount a terrattack on US soil to touch things off - but this is more of a risky tactic for the bushies. the bushies have been singing that song of "we are safer - have we been attacked since 9-11?" the argument being since we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9-11 then it means bush*'s homeland security plans are working.

another attack on US SOIL, would sort of blow a hole in that argument

ennywhoo- Israel attacking Iran, Iran retailiating against Israel will mean we will have to go to Israel's defense. The pesky fact that Israel attacked first will be swept under the rug/white washed and just plain ignored