posted April 04, 2006 10:52 PM              

Fool Me Twice

By Joseph Cirincione
Foreign Policy, March 27, 2006
I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.

Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.”

The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again.

Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

quote:

---

In May 2004 the National Journal listed Cirincione as one of the 100 people who will play a critical role in the policy debates of this administration. The World Affairs Councils of America also named him one of 500 people whose views have the most influence in shaping American foreign policy

---

posted April 04, 2006 10:53 PM              

Clarke is unambiguous on this point. “In actuality,” Clarke wrote (p. 117), “Clinton had been pursuing the opposite path to what Freeh imagined.” Clarke noted (p. 118) “while Freeh had been pursuing the Saudis, the White House had been preparing for war.” President Clinton was adamant that action against Tehran had to be overwhelming and total, fuming (p 118) that “I don’t want any pissant half-measures.” In July 1996, Joint Chiefs Chairman John Shalikashvili presented a plan for Army and Marine divisions to invade and occupy Iran. Shalikashvili, Clarke concluded simply, “was talking about all-out war.”

posted April 04, 2006 11:01 PM              

Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said the 9/11 report confirms a judgment that U.S. counterterrorism officials had reached soon after the attacks. At the time, the Bush administration was seeking evidence pointing to Iraqi involvement in the attacks. “See if Saddam did this,” Bush instructed Clarke on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies.” “See if he’s linked in any way.”

posted April 06, 2006 06:44 PM              

Source: Chalabi responsible for the forged WMD documents

Guest blogged by David Edwards

Video in Windows Media format...
Video in QuickTime format...

This report from tonight's episode of MSNBC's Hardball suggests that Fitzgerald has expanded the 'traitorgate' investigation to include the forged documents that the Bush Administration used to mislead Americans into thinking that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon.

The report also says that Judy Miller's source, Ahmad Chalabi, was responsible for the forged documents.
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/3817233.html

posted April 12, 2006 04:55 PM              

By Mark Sappenfield
The Christian Science Monitor
Wed Apr 12, 4:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Time and again this week, President Bush and his team reiterated their position on Iran's nuclear program: America wants a diplomatic solution, and any suggestion it is moving toward an inevitable strike on Iran is "wild speculation."

At the same time, however, Mr. Bush has remained steadfast in his statements that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and "no option is off the table" to prevent it.

The news Tuesday that Iran is now producing enriched uranium for atomic reactors - considered a first step toward nuclear weapons - has heightened the sense that America and Iran are on a collision course. A new article in The New Yorker claims that the administration is again on a path to war.

Yet amid the tumult is an effort to shape a debate that's more robust than the one before the Iraq war. While military action doesn't appear certain, the hint of it raises questions on the use of force, and what it might - and might not - accomplish.

It seems likely that precision airstrikes could set Iran's nuclear program back at least a year and perhaps several. Whether that delay is worth the probable consequences - the strengthening of a despotic regime within Iran and the increased likelihood of terrorism in nearby Iraq and the broader region - is what's at issue.

"The military option has a lot of costs," says Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute here. "But is the cost of the Islamic Republic of Iran having a nuclear weapon greater?"

Reports out of Iran Tuesday suggested that the country has moved closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Tuesday's announcement claimed that Iran now has 164 centrifuges, which yield more-concentrated uranium. Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon - and the country's leaders insist that the program is solely for nuclear power - but it is a concern for international officials.

Few security analysts think Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon against the United States. It is an established nation motivated by self-preservation as much as power.

Indeed, Iran's terrorist links are capable of causing much more damage than they do.

But Iran does not desire to prompt the US or Israel to a major response, says Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If Iran used a nuclear weapon against New York - or if it could be traced back to Iran - Tehran would fall ... and the Iranians know that."

More likely, Iran would ratchet up its terrorist activities, knowing that enemies would be less inclined to retaliate strongly against a nuclear foe. For Dr. Rubin, that still makes a military strike "the lesser of two evils" if diplomatic efforts fail.

With the United States Army fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are the most likely option. The operation might take five days, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who participated in a war game on the subject in late 2004.

Some sites, like the centrifuge facility in Natanz, are obvious and would be relatively easy to target. Others are less known or more deeply buried, leading to speculation that the United States might use special nuclear weapons designed to penetrate deep into fortified bunkers.

While that remains a possibility, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, called the suggestion "completely nuts," and analysts agree it would be disastrous for American interests in Middle East.

The use of conventional weapons is problematic enough. Not only do experts like Colonel Gardiner question whether America could locate and destroy all the relevant targets, but they also wonder whether even a successful attack is worth the cost.

"None of [the military options] are any good," says Gardiner.

No matter how precise or limited, any airstrike against Iran is likely to be perceived there as a declaration of war. "There is a tendency to think of it as a quick, surgical action short of war," says Dr. Biddle. "That is a mistake."

Surely, Iran would retaliate through a more aggressive terrorism campaign, he and others say, and with US troops close at hand in Iraq, they could become the first targets. Iran could also try to close the narrow Strait of Hormuz - through which all Persian Gulf traffic, including oil tankers, must pass.

Iran's internal strife
In some ways, though, the greatest effect could be within Iran itself. For years, a younger generation seeking democratic reforms has struggled against Iran's government of autocratic clerics, who espouse the destruction of America and Israel.

Yet unlike Iraq, a splintered country that was essentially the creation of British imperialism, Iran has a national history stretching back thousands of years to the days of the Persians. As in any country, an attack from a foreign power would likely rally support for the government.

"Iranians are fiercely nationalistic," says Rubin.

He believes the US could mitigate that somewhat by also attacking symbols of the regime's repression, such as the ministry of information and the guard towers in the country's most infamous political prison.

Others, however, see a different lesson from history. When America helped topple Iran's government in 1953, Iranian outrage spawned the hostage crisis of 1979. Now, the US and Iran could be on a course again to poison their relations for a generation.

The concern is that the US might attack before all other options have been exhausted. Indeed, America and Iran still don't talk to each other diplomatically; they rely on Europe as a mediator.

Given that Iran is surrounded by American troops - in Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west - some suggest that there may still be a diplomatic way forward: A direct US offer to Iran of security guarantees for cooperation with its nuclear program.

Says Robert Hunter, a former US ambassador to NATO: "If you try and fail, at least you have a circumstance that clarifies the issue."

posted April 15, 2006 01:10 PM              

Iran issues stark military warning to United States
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/060415084241.xdv0o3w3.html