posted February 15, 2006 05:22 PM              

In the last four and a half years since 9-11, critics of the Bush Administration's aggressive foreign policy have been playing defense. The invasion of Afghanistan, overthrow of the Taliban, and subsequent near-abandonment of that country to its vicious warlords and drug barons (generally the same people) have been all but ignored. We're approaching the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion that we now incontrovertibly know was sold with egregious lies and planned and executed with stunning incompetence. Even after three years of ever-escalating anti-American and inter-religious violence in Iraq, the White House is as divorced from reality in its public pronouncements as ever, and the domestic so-called opposition is as ineffectual as ever. Meanwhile, a host of other War on Terror failures -- from the appalling escape of Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora to the U.S.-fueled rise of Islamist parties in elections across the Middle East to 9-11 itself -- mark the Bush administration as perhaps the most incompetent managers of American (let alone global) security interests in modern history. What more could go wrong?
Plenty.

Brace yourself for a big new war. And start working to prevent it.

As incomprehensible as it might seem to most Americans in the wake of its Iraq failures, the Bush cabal is pushing full speed ahead for a military attack on Iran, perhaps as soon as next month. For the last year, it has been diligently laying the groundwork, trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to use the International Atomic Energy Agency as a bully pulpit to portray Iran as a country intent on illegally developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA hasn't bought it thus far, due mostly to a notable lack of evidence, but the campaign has done two things: it has enraged and emboldened Iran's hardliner cleric leadership, and it has planted the idea of Iran as an "axis of evil" rogue state firmly in the mind of the American public, the only audience in the world the Bushies really care about.

Even so, the IAEA/nuclear Iran rumblings have been background noise to most Americans, noise lost in a year of White House scandals and disasters. There has been no real groundswell of support for an attack on Iran -- but there has also been no serious opposition so far. The topic simply isn't on most Americans' radar. But it is very clearly on Bush's.

Domestically, we already know -- because Karl Rove told us -- that Republicans plan to make fear, terror, and national security the lynchpin of their midterm electoral strategy this year. It's hard to imagine their doing so with the thin, familiar gruel of Iraq's failures and a year-old NSA spying scandal. To make such a strategy work, Republicans will need a good, fresh example of their supposed stalwartness in the face of criticism. Like an attack on Iran.

Internationally, the Bush White House would like nothing better than to behead the rising Islamist tide that has swept through recent elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and, most explosively, now Palestine. The radical clerics in Tehran are not only the spiritual fathers to this revolution, but are directly tied to the new Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and to the Palestinian resistance; Washington wants regime change in Iran. It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros -- a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy. Fortunately for Bush, the case for military action need not involve such inconvenient truths. Even after the embarrassment of Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, to the Bush White House Iran's alleged nuclear program provides an ideal excuse for intervention.

At least initially, few expect the U.S. to launch an actual invasion of Iran. Much more likely is a strike by some combination of U.S. and Israeli forces, using U.S. intelligence, on some 40 sites identified as key to Iran's developing nuclear energy (and possibly weapons) program. Such a strike wouldn't be easy; the sites are widely scattered, often deeply buried, well-defended, and most are located in densely populated areas. Iranians learned from the Israeli strike on Iraq's developing nuclear program in 1981. There is thus talk of the use of American "bunker-busting" bombs, hundreds of which were provided recently to Israel.

Any attack on Iranian facilities would surely be answered, and probably escalated. And if war escalates, there is another prize: Iran's massive oil reserves, 90 percent of which are massed in one province along an Iraqi border crawling with U.S. troops.

The problem, of course, is that Iran is no Iraq, with a hated regime, crippled by decades of war, bombings, no-fly zones, and economic sanctions. The Tehran regime, for all its religious oppressiveness and rhetorical belligerence, has popular support, especially in the face of American (or Israeli) aggression. The savage American-installed Shah dictatorship (which was overthrown by the revolution in 1978) is still remembered and despised. Iran is a much larger, more populous, and more prosperous country. Its military is well-equipped; invaders cannot roam the skies unchallenged. Any attack on Iran would have even less international "coalition of the willing" support than the invasion of Iraq did. And Iran has links with terror groups around the world happy to target U.S. facilities.

Most importantly, Iran shares borders with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as it would be easy for American troops to cross from neighboring countries into Iran during any hostilities, Iranian and pro-Iranian forces could easily make U.S. forces' lives hell in the already-tenuous situations of the two countries.

In other words, what Bush is playing with -- practically unnoticed by the American public -- is a conflagration that could involve Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the entire Middle East, and perhaps beyond. It has the potential to dwarf (on all sides) the body count thus far in Afghanistan and Iraq; inspire further generations of terrorism and anti-Ameican jihadism; severely damage the American economy; and decimate an American military already stretched thin and reeling from a badly mismanaged, relatively low-intensity insurgency in Iraq.

Why risk it? Stopping Islamism, oil, short-term domestic politics, and Iranian regime change, in that order. With their PNAC dreams of remaking the Middle East, it just might be too much of a honey pot for Bush's hawkish neo-cons to resist. The only minor complication is that such an imbroglio is not only by definition unwinnable, but is likely to be disastrous -- to the point where it could end America's status as a global superpower. (Which might well be a good thing, but for the horrific loss of mostly civilian life it would entail.)

How can such an outcome be prevented? The most likely scenario has nothing to do with political opposition at all -- it has to do with the willingness of Asian countries that covet Iranian oil, especially China, to countenance another U.S. military adventure. The U.S. is now so badly in debt to countries like China, Japan, and South Korea that while a limited raid is simple enough, any massive new military expenditure would literally require the Asian countries to be writing the checks, and they're not about to do so for a war that threatens their own strategic interests. Bush may well be finding out the limits of a global empire erected on other people's money.

But that scenario relies on stopping hostilities from expanding. To prevent them entirely requires domestic popular opposition. For a country already palpably tired of the Iraq war and wanting troop reductions (if not total withdrawal) there, a military incursion leading to a broader regional conflict will be pure madness. The only way it can play out politically for Bush is if it unfolds in stages. If a "justifiable" U.S. attack on "nuclear weapon" facilities leads to Iranian retaliation (which we, in turn, just have to respond to), such a war might float. If the probability of a broader and disastrous war becomes an issue ahead of time, the question then becomes the advisability -- or foolishness -- of the original raid. And especially in an election year, such public perceptions just might derail the whole thing.

Iran needs to become a political issue. It seems like a tall order, given the lack of Democratic leadership on anti-war issues and the unending swamp of Bush administration scandals and **** -ups revealed on what is essentially a daily basis. But consider the consequences of not acting.

The Bush administration's hostility to negotiation and the possibility of its attack on Iran, and the likely result, must be widely publicized. Now. Before it's too late, and we're stuck with another deadly disaster America will regret for generations.

Geov Parrish
WorkingForChange.com

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367

posted February 15, 2006 07:00 PM              

Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush’s term ends. In 2002, a year before the US invaded Iraq, high-ranking Americans had similarly shared their definitive vision of a post-Saddam Iraq, making it clear that they would change the regime in Baghdad.

posted February 15, 2006 07:59 PM              

and politicians are getting 'mistaken' for birds...and the vice president's shooting people and heart attacks of the rich and famous are happening...

and what's iran?...oh just a country on the other side of the world...the texas soap opera in america is so much more compelling... ...

and haliburton just keeps gettin' more and more $$$...

posted February 16, 2006 02:12 AM              

DALLAS - Who Shot J.R?

For millions of people around the world the most important news of the 80`s was not the Polish Revoloution.....the hostages in Iran.....the catestrophic earthquakes....the Iraq-Iran war.....or the American presidential elections. In fact the number 1 topic, all the way from Philadelphia to Hong Kong, from London to Johannesbrug wasn`t anything real at all. It happened in America on March 21st 1980 and was the simulated shooting of a rapacious Texas oilbaron at the hands of his low-life mistress, his wifes sister, in a popular American Tv Series.

http://www.ultimatedallas.com/episodeguide/shot.htm

posted February 16, 2006 02:22 AM              

the once and figureheaded leader of one of the worlds largest oil related companies...Haliburton...USA...

who cares about war when you have a texas-style mysterious shooting on your hands...replete with a main character, oil-related, corporate mogul, U.S. vice president perpetrator....shooting another texas politician??!!

how much more will real life imitate art and keep our collective, consumerist minds off the prospect of yet the next corporate-fueled war....??

posted February 16, 2006 02:29 AM              

“Until recently the impact of war on nature has often been ignored or obscured by the conflict itself. As the 1990-1991 Gulf War showed, such conflicts have devastating effects on the environment, biodiversity and the quality of life of local people long after the cessation of hostilities”, said Dr Michael Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International.

Environmental impacts of the 1990 -1991 Gulf War

In 1991 BirdLife International and RSPB (BirdLife in the UK) sent three teams of scientists to the Gulf region to collaborate with the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (BirdLife in Saudi Arabia) to assess the environmental impacts of the war and resulting toxic oil pollution. The results of these and other assessments were published in 1993 in Sandgrouse, the Journal of the Ornithological Society of the Middle East.

These and other published data show that the 1990-1991 Gulf War resulted in by far the largest marine oil spills in history with 6-8 million barrels of crude oil spilled, severely polluting 560km of coast, totally obliterating intertidal ecosystems and resulting in large-scale oil slicks. Severe damage to marine environments in the northern Arabian Gulf resulted. Extensive mechanical damage by the manoevering armies also harmed the fragile desert crust and its ecosystem.

The environmental damage resulting from the 1990-1991 Gulf War was judged to be unprecedented according to a number of sources. On 19th January 1991, crude oil from five bombed oil tankers moored off the Mina Al-Ahmadi oil terminal and nearby oil pipelines in Kuwait produced a slick extending south-eastwards over 1,500km2. At the same time another major oil slick was reported from the Mina Al-Bakr terminal in Iraq.

Other oil spills occurred at Basrah refinery at the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab, from refineries on the coast of Kuwait, and from the storage depot at Al-Khafji just south of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border.

At the end of the Gulf War in March 1991 a total of 650 inland oil wells were left ablaze, 76 gushing crude oil and a further 99 were damaged. This resulted in 25-30 million barrels of crude oil spilling onto land with the larger of the numerous oil lakes estimated to cover 19km2. The last of the gushing wells were capped after nine months in November 1991.

In addition to gushing oil, it was calculated that 13,700 tonnes of toxic smoke poured daily into the atmosphere from the burning oil wells that spread many hundreds of miles and had respiratory and carcinogenic effects. At least 25% of Kuwait's desert was covered in oil or heavy deposits of acidic, oily soot. Many birds mistook the oil lakes for water from the air and landed on or next to them where many became oiled and died, while many others were affected when flying through smoke or by their sooty surroundings. The oil lakes and spills led to the evaporation of toxins into the atmosphere and contamination of groundwater.

More than twenty chemical, biological and possibly nuclear factories and stores were destroyed or badly damaged, and toxins widely dispersed, and hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium from radioactive shell materials reportedly discharged by US forces, mostly in and around the Hamar marsh, during heavy fighting at the end of the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

Up to 90% of Kuwait's desert surface was compacted, churned or otherwise impacted by military activities and desertification was greatly exacerbated. Valuable farmland habitat was destroyed and all existing protected areas for nature conservation were damaged. In the Jal Az-Zawr National Park most habitats were seriously impacted by military activities such as bunker construction, excavations and vehicle movements, and most of its fencing and gates were destroyed. The Doha Peninsula Reserve was also seriously impacted by military activities.

Counts of dead seabirds including the globally threatened Socotra Cormorant along the northern Arabian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia indicated that at least 30,000 wintering seabirds were killed by the Gulf War oil spills during January-April 1991.

Seven Risks to the environment and biodiversity
Based on the unprecedented environmental damage caused by the 1990-1991 Gulf War and available data on the environmental effects of recent conflicts in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, BirdLife has identified seven risks to the environment and biodiversity - and as a consequence also to local people - posed by war:

1. Physical destruction and disturbance of natural habitats of international importance and wildlife resulting from weapons use

2. Toxic pollution of natural habitats and wildlife resulting from oil spills or oil-well fires caused by fighting or deliberate damage

3. Radiological, chemical or bio-toxic contamination of natural habitats and wildlife resulting from the use of weapons of mass destruction and conventional bombing of military or industrial facilities

4. Physical destruction of natural habitats and wildlife resulting from increased human pressure caused by mass movements of refugees (ie, water pollution, use of wood as fuel, hunting of wildlife)

5. Burning of wetland and forest vegetation as a result of fighting or deliberate damage

6. Desertification exacerbated by military vehicles and weapons use

7. Extinction of endemic species or subspecies

Iraq has a number of internationally important natural areas, in particular Important Bird Areas (IBAs). "Waders and waterbirds will be particularly at risk from oil spills because Iraq is at the northern end of the Arabian Gulf which is one of the top five sites in the world for wintering wader birds and a key refuelling area for hundreds of thousands of migratory waterbirds during the spring and autumn period" said Mike Evans, a BirdLife researcher who visited the Arabian Gulf in 1991.

Many of the natural habitats and sites impacted in the 1990-1991 Gulf War will be at risk again [in the present war].

A new war could result in physical destruction of natural areas and wildlife in Iraq and the northern Arabian Gulf. The main habitats in Iraq are:

* Wetlands (<5%)

* Coastal (<5%)

* Desert (<80% of land)

* Steppe (<15% of land)

* Forest and high mountain scrub (<5% of land)

Iraq contains 42 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and the Mesopotamian marshes Endemic Bird Area (EBA). Sixteen globally threatened or near-threatened bird species occur in the country, plus three unique endemic wetland bird species (Iraq Babbler, Basra Reed Warbler, Grey Hypocolius) and five endemic or near-endemic marshland sub-species (Little Grebe, African Darter, Black Francolin, White-eared Bulbul, Hooded Crow) [10].

"It was the heart-rending image of an oiled bird that became a symbol of the environmental impact of the first Gulf War. BirdLife International hopes that images of oiled birds do not once again fill our television screens in 2003", said Dr Rands.

Mesopotamian marshlands
Before their near-total destruction between 1991 and 2002, the 15,000km2 Mesopotamian marshlands formed one of the most extensive wetland ecosystems in western Eurasia. It comprised a complex of interconnected freshwater lakes, marshes and inundated floodplains following the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, extending from Baghdad in the north to Basra in the south. Approximately 50km2 may remain. These remnants would have the potential to help restore the marshlands.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report The Mesopotamian Marshlands shows that destruction of the marshes in the 1990s had a devastating effect on wildlife and people, "with significant implications to global biodiversity from Siberia to southern Africa ... Mammals and fish that existed only in the marshlands are now considered extinct. Coastal fisheries in the northern Gulf, dependent on the marshlands for spawning grounds, have also experienced a sharp decline." A sub-species of Otter and the Bandicoot Rat are also believed to have become extinct [11].

The impact of this destruction has also deprived the indigenous Ma’dan people who have lived in these marshes for 5,000 years, pursuing a sustainable way of life based on the abundant fish and wildlife living in the wetlands, of their traditional homeland. These marshlands were also important spawning grounds for a multi-million dollar shrimp fishery in the Arabian Gulf and also provided 60% of fish eaten in Iraq. Most of Iraq’s rice, sugarcane and Water Buffalo used to be reared in the marshlands.

They were also heavily degraded by the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Much of the fighting took place in and around these wetlands resulting in extensive burning, heavy bombing and the widespread use of napalm and chemical weapons. [The war being waged in Iraq now] could lead to their final destruction.

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

More Information

[16/02/03] BirdLife International identified the main threats to the environment posed by war in Iraq in a dossier of information, maps and photographs sent to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK and USA) and the Government of Iraq. The dossier highlights threats to local people and key natural sites critical for globally threatened and endemic biodiversity in Iraq and the endangered Mesopotamian wetlands and will also be posted on the internet.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/war.htm

posted February 24, 2006 11:12 PM              

If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility.

Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area.

Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries.

Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills is - according to foreign reports - home to Israel's Jericho missile base. Both Israeli and international media have published commercial satellite images of the Zakhariya and Dimona sites.

Abasi, a senior lecturer at Tehran University, was quoted in the Roz internet news site, identified with reform circles in Iran.

Iranian affairs experts believe Abasi's statements are part of propaganda battle being wages by all sides - including Israel and Iran - in the lead up to next months United Nations Security Council debate on Iran's nuclear program.

At this stage, the possibility that sanctions will be leveled at Iran are extremely low.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/687022.html

posted March 17, 2006 02:39 PM              

Will Bush Deflect Impeachment Talk By Starting A War In Iran?
By Walter C. Uhler

Listening to Vice President Cheney and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exchange threats of war while both nations hover, like vultures, over the moribund carcass of Iraq's insurgency-racked shotgun democracy, I was reminded of David Low's famous 1939 cartoon, "Rendezvous." Mr. Low, you'll recall, depicted Hitler and Stalin as bloodthirsty tyrants, tipping their hats in salutation while standing over Poland's corpse. Thus, Hitler saluted Stalin: "The scum of the earth I believe?" Stalin replied: "The bloody assassin of the workers, I presume?"

But, unlike Hitler and Stalin, who collaborated to effect Poland's dismemberment, Cheney and Ahmadinejad play 'winner take all." Thanks to the criminal dishonesty and gross incompetence of Cheney, his fellow "cabal-mate," Rumsfeld, a sycophantic Condoleezza Rice and their "Bubble-boy President," George W. Bush, the debacle crafted in Iraq by America's war party has strengthened both the position and confidence of Iran - not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East. Moreover, America's debacle in Iraq has emboldened Ahmadinejad -- Cheney's ultraconservative "double" -- to contemplate a clash of civilizations aimed at the eradication of Israel. Now, both bloodthirsty megalomaniacs seem ready to wage war.

For Cheney - and, thus, for Rumsfeld, Rice and their "Bubble-boy" -- the pretexts for war will be Iran's pursuit of the bomb and its "putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq." [Rumsfeld, 7 March 2006] To be persuasive, however, they must once again count on the patriotic suspension of disbelief by the mainstream news media and widespread public ignorance of foreign affairs, both of which served them so well during the run-up to war in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad waxes confident in the knowledge that Iran's oil can be leveraged against the American economy, that virtually all Iranians will unite behind him in the event of a U.S. attack, that America's conventional military forces have been stretched to the breaking point and that an attack on Iran might ignite a Middle East explosion that destroys Israel.

Unfortunately, Cheney's pretexts appear to be seeping through. First, the mainstream media helped to "frame" Iran in the minds of countless Americans. It did so when it engaged in a feeding frenzy over allegations (never proven) that newly elected President Ahmadinejad personally held Americans hostage during the American embassy seizure of 1979. And it did so by linking those false, but viscerally felt, allegations to America's current suspicions about Iran's nuclear program.

Today, the media dutifully reports Ahmadinejad's obnoxious views about Israel, Iran's surreptitious shipments of IEDs "capable of penetrating U.S. troops' armor" [ABC News, March 6, 2006], and the worst-case nuclear scenarios propagated by officials in Bubble-boy's administration. As a result, Americans now believe that Iran constitutes their most dangerous security threat.

Yet, thanks to some excellent recent reporting by the New York Times, anyone possessing even half a brain should know that, unless it receives some enriched uranium from an outside source, Iran probably is years away from possessing the capability to build a bomb (assuming it seeks a bomb).

Moreover, after putting aside their outrage over the hypocritical gall exhibited by members of Bubble-boy's administration who complain about any other country's meddling in Iraq, Americans would do well to recall that it was Bubble-boy's chaotic "success" in removing Saddam Hussein that freed Iraq's Shiites to welcome the meddling by Iran's coreligionists.

Thus, here's a safe prediction: Were the U.S. to attack Iran, many of the same Iraqi Shiites who temporarily tolerate America's occupation of their country -- as long as the occupiers devote their attention to the Sunni insurgency - would immediately come to the aid of their cross-border religious brethren.

Consequently, neither Iran's alleged pursuit of the bomb nor its indisputable meddling in Iraq constitute legitimate near-term national security threats justifying an American attack.

Thus, if an attack occurs, it probably will be limited to missile strikes and bomb drops on selected nuclear facilities. And if the attack occurs before or during October, you can bet it's because Karl Rove has persuaded the Bubble-boy that measures greater than heated rhetoric and threats of war are required to prevent the Democrats from taking control of the House of Representatives after November's mid-term elections.

Republicans will use the threat of war, or war itself, to deflect attention from the Bubble-boy's "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," as well as his string of abysmal failures. Such failures increasingly penetrate the minds of even the most politically obtuse of Americans and, thus, jeopardize continued Republican control of the House.

Simply consider Bubble-boy's record: (1) failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11, (2) lies and deceit about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda to scare gullible Americans into supporting an illegal, immoral preventive war, (3) gross incompetence in conducting America's post-invasion occupation, (4) war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (5) criminal neglect while Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, (6) illegal eavesdropping on innocent Americans in willful violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Had such evil and incompetence occurred in Japan, where people truly understand shame and honor, the whole administration might have committed seppuku. But this is twenty-first century America, teeming with unshakable Bush supporters - abetted by FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times and neoconservative "dead-enders" at The Weekly Standard -- who understand neither shame nor honor, just the inflating Bubble-boy's bubble.

Which is why honorable Americans have no recourse but to impeach, convict and remove Bush/Cheney from office -- as a prelude to their criminal indictments, trials and probable convictions.

Sentiment to impeach has gathered steam. In November 2005 a Zogby poll indicated that 51% of Americans supported the impeachment of Bush, were it proved that he lied to them in order to invade Iraq. On March 1st, Garrison Keillor called for Bush's impeachment, as did the esteemed Lewis Lapham, in the March 2006 issue of Harper's. (This writer made the case for impeachment in June 2005, see http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/impeach.html , which he supplemented in January 2006, see http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/Gestapo.html .)

Thus, it was no accident that the 8 March 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal raised the issue of impeachment. Yet the thrust of the Journal article was that Democrats are wary about pursuing impeachment, having seen how swing-voting Americans rebuked Republicans at the polls for having impeached President Clinton.

Although the Journal raises a legitimate question, when it asks whether Democrats can achieve a majority in the House of Representatives by campaigning for Bubble-boy's impeachment; the entire tenor of the article would have changed, had it acknowledged the obvious: that lying to conceal a "blow job" is profoundly less impeachable than lying to invade another country.

Judging by the rhetoric of officials in Bubble-boy's administration, however, they're not counting on help from the Wall Street Journal. Instead, they appear ready to risk spreading religious war across the entire Middle East, causing an untold number of deaths and bringing forth near universal condemnation by launching a preemptive strike on Iran.

Thus, although the pretext will be one of preventing Iran from getting the bomb, you can bet the farm that if the bombs cause an October surprise - they will have been dropped to prevent any possibility of Bubble-boy's impeachment.

posted April 02, 2006 12:27 AM              

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 2, 2006; A01

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

posted April 02, 2006 12:28 AM              

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence

Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.

posted April 02, 2006 01:56 AM              

The Idiot

The devil

The breathtaking Breath Taker

posted April 02, 2006 03:37 AM              

quote:

---

Only way to bring on more terrorism is to instigate it.

---

You got that right, DayDreamer...

These morons in power don't speak for me...

posted April 03, 2006 11:34 PM              

quote:

---

The problem, of course, is that Iran is no Iraq, with a hated regime, crippled by decades of war, bombings, no-fly zones, and economic sanctions. The Tehran regime, for all its religious oppressiveness and rhetorical belligerence, has popular support, especially in the face of American (or Israeli) aggression. The savage American-installed Shah dictatorship (which was overthrown by the revolution in 1978) is still remembered and despised. Iran is a much larger, more populous, and more prosperous country. Its military is well-equipped; invaders cannot roam the skies unchallenged. Any attack on Iran would have even less international "coalition of the willing" support than the invasion of Iraq did. And Iran has links with terror groups around the world happy to target U.S. facilities.

Most importantly, Iran shares borders with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as it would be easy for American troops to cross from neighboring countries into Iran during any hostilities, Iranian and pro-Iranian forces could easily make U.S. forces' lives hell in the already-tenuous situations of the two countries.

In other words, what Bush is playing with -- practically unnoticed by the American public -- is a conflagration that could involve Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the entire Middle East, and perhaps beyond. It has the potential to dwarf (on all sides) the body count thus far in Afghanistan and Iraq; inspire further generations of terrorism and anti-Ameican jihadism; severely damage the American economy; and decimate an American military already stretched thin and reeling from a badly mismanaged, relatively low-intensity insurgency in Iraq.

---

posted April 03, 2006 11:44 PM              

White House's national security strategy reaffirms 'first strike' doctrine

On Thursday, March 16, President George W. Bush issued his second-term National Security Strategy, a document that outlined the administration's strategy for using diplomatic, economic, and military tools to deal with global challenges.
Ironically, the document that outlines a series of "successes" and "extraordinary progress in the expansion of freedom, democracy, and human dignity" since 2002 makes few references to the one issue that most clearly defines the Bush presidency -- the war in Iraq.

It does confirm, however, that the U.S. is involved in a long-term war against terrorism (a war it believes it is winning), considers preemptive strikes against countries that might threaten the U.S., as outlined in 2002, a legitimate response, and singles out Iran as the country posing the "greatest challenge" to the U.S.

In a letter introducing the National Security Strategy (NSS), Bush said: "The ideals that have inspired our history -- freedom, democracy, and human dignity -- are increasingly inspiring individuals and nations throughout the world... We choose leadership over isolationism and the pursuit of free trade and open markets over protectionism."

"We choose to deal with challenges now rather than leaving them for future generations. We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy."

According to the White House, the NSS, which "explains how we are working to protect the American people, advance American interests, enhance global security, and expand global liberty and prosperity... [rests] upon two pillars":

"The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity -- working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies."

"The second pillar of the strategy is confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies."

The National Security Strategy asserts that the "war on terrorism" is a protracted struggle, and, "In the short run, the fight involves using military force and other instruments of national power to kill or capture the terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation, prevent them from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and cut off their sources of support."

"In the long run, winning the war on terror means winning the battle of ideas, for it is ideas that can turn the disenchanted into murderers willing to kill innocent victims," it adds.

And in a nod toward a possible strike against Iran, which was recently referred to the U.N. Security Council for refusing to abandon its nuclear program, the NSS states that the U.S. is "committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people".

The report reinforces the importance of the World Trade Organization's so-called Doha Development Agenda, as well as regional and bilateral free trade agreements.

And it calls for developing "agendas for cooperative action with the other centers of global power". According to the NSS, unlike the "ideological struggles of the 20th century which saw the great powers divided by ideology as well as by national interest.... the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century finds the great powers all on the same side -- opposing the terrorists."

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past," it asserts. "The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first."

The release of the National Security Strategy came at a time when the administration was again being buried by an avalanche of bad news, both at home and abroad. Despite having launched yet another round of speeches aimed at winning the U.S. public's support for his Iraq venture, the president's poll ratings continue to plummet, having recently hit the lowest numbers of his presidency.

The administration has also come under heavy fire from Congress for supporting the now-collapsed deal that would have handed over terminal operations at six U.S. ports to a Dubai-based company.

And a recent poll released by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that just 28 percent of respondents were confident that the U.S. will succeed in its aims in Iraq, down from 40 percent 18 months ago.

In the run-up to the release of the NSS, in remarks that appeared to disagree with the assessments of other administration spokespersons, Bush said that, "By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world that they want a future of freedom and peace. We're helping Iraqis build a strong democracy so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency marginalized."

Interestingly, the NSS was released only days after Knight Ridder News Service pointed out that the U.S. military "have dramatically increased airstrikes in Iraq during the past five months, a change of tactics that may foreshadow how the United States plans to battle a still-strong insurgency while reducing the number of U.S. ground troops serving here."

Then, the Pentagon launched its largest air campaign -- against an increasingly phantom Iraqi insurgency -- since the 2003 invasion, targeting a "suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of the city of Samarra with more than 50 aircraft and 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi ground forces. Few insurgents and weapons were uncovered in this extremely expensive operation.

And, just prior to the release of the NSS, Gen. John Abizaid, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq, told a House of Representatives subcommittee that he could not rule out the possibility that the U.S. would maintain a permanent military presence in the country.

"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid told the House Subcommittee. "No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."

Abizaid also pointed out that the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region. "Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.

At a speech at the U.S. Institute of Peace on the day of the NSS release, Stephen Hadley, the president's national security advisor, said that, "The doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy."

posted April 04, 2006 01:17 AM              

When future historians write about this war, I suspect they will sum it up like this: In the year 2003, neoconservatives within the Bush Administration were duped by an Iranian double agent into attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein in order to pave the way for a pro-Iran, Shia-controlled Iraq. It was one of the greatest acts of espionage ever perpetrated against the superpower.

Who is this Iranian double agent? His name is Ahmed Chalabi, the founder of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress (INC). The CIA now knows that the INC was either a front for, or had deep links to, Iranian intelligence and that Chalabi was passing U.S. secrets to Tehran. How was Chalabi getting ahold of our secrets? The neocons in the Bush Administration were giving our secrets to him!

Who were these neocons? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Cheney, to name a few. Their plans for the invasion of Iraq did not begin after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or even when they took office in 2001. It began in 1997 when they founded the nonprofit organization Project for the New American Century.

The neocons laid out their vision for "American global leadership" (i.e. world domination) in their Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997. They wrote: "It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge" (i.e. military preemption); to "promote freedom abroad" (i.e. occupy totalitarian regimes); and to institute the "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" (i.e. kill Muslims).

In January 1998, members of the Project wrote to President Clinton, urging him to "remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power." They argued that he was responsible for a destabilized Middle East that was putting American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states and oil in jeopardy.

Clinton rejected their argument, choosing a policy of containment over regime change. Containment was effective in keeping WMDs away from Saddam, but sanctions were helping to keep him in power by weakening resistance movements. This angered the neocons. Once they realized that the Project couldn't be achieved with Clinton in power, plans were set in motion to steal the 2000 election.

Or so I suspect. There is no smoking-gun proof of this, but if you look at that list of Project signatures back in 1997, you will find Jeb Bush's name right next to Dick Cheney. Could it only be a coincidence that the voter fraud, which ultimately won Bush (and more importantly Cheney) the White House and ensured the implementation of the Project, occurred in the state headed by Jeb Bush, a signatory to the project? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Even before the neocons hijacked America, Ahmed Chalabi was their handpicked, pro-U.S. puppet leader primed to assume power through "democratic" elections after Iraq's liberation. Chalabi was the primary, if only, source for the administration's false claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda. He was feeding the administration (and The New York Times, it turns out) the disinformation they wanted to hear. Bush, the neocons and the media took Chalabi's chum like a bunch of chumps, ignoring our own intelligence officers who were suspicious of Chalabi and his claims from the very beginning.

Chalabi's lies became the uncontested truth after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's The Guardian newspaper reports that an Iranian spy (not Chalabi) warned the United States of the impending attacks but was not believed. If true, that means Iran knew about the attacks and, perhaps, even helped to plan and/or finance them. The 9-11 Commission confirmed that Iran has had connections to al Qaeda since 1991.

Iran might have foreseen that the attacks would provide a catalyst for the invasion of Iraq. And now Iran has exactly what they wanted: Saddam is gone and Iraq is up for grabs. If you are afraid Bush will send us to war against Iran, I've got news for you: We already are. The majority Shia population of Iraq is attacking our troops everyday. They are being supported by Iran -- which is 90 percent Shia -- because Tehran wants an ally in the Middle East to help them spread their version of fundamentalist Islam and increase international terrorism.

To summarize: Bush's foreign policy decisions were actually being controlled by Iran through Chalabi. Bush allowed an Iranian spy to access high-level U.S. secrets that more than likely ended up in the possession of al Qaeda terrorists. Hundreds of our troops died doing Iran's dirty work, and now they are killing more Americans everyday without consequence in a power struggle over Iraq.

Is there any wonder why Iran supports the re-election of George W. Bush?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-24.htm

posted April 04, 2006 03:07 PM              

but i remain a little baffled by Iran's support for the bush regime...to instigate war in Iraq seems plausible...but did they foresee an attack on their own country? is this what your article implies...do they welcome the opportunity?

makes my brain spin ...(like 77 billions cycles per second)...