Next Stop: Tehran
The White House denies plans to attack Iran, but the signs all point in that direction.
By Philip Giraldi
By the time President Bush finally announced it, his surge strategy was old news. But an unexpected section of the speech jarred the normally somnolent mainstream media: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." Speculation that Bush was already plotting his next war nearly stole the story of how he plans to salvage the current one.
<snip>
Once the military and naval resources arrive at the end of February, the precise timing for a strike would depend on political and economic factors, as well as suitable weather conditions permitting aerial and satellite reconnaissance. But maintaining two carrier groups and support vessels in the Persian Gulf is hugely expensive, so the administration will be motivated to use them once all the components for an attack are in place. A Kuwaiti newspaper, relying on confidential sources in the Emirate?s government, predicts that the attack will take place before the first week of April, when Tony Blair steps down as British prime minister, under the assumption that he will provide political cover as well as material support in the form of minesweepers. As Kuwait?s government, host to the sprawling U.S. base Camp Doha and a prime target for Iranian retaliation, has been in the loop for planning vis-a-vis Iran, the suggested date has a high level of credibility.
<snip>
At least as significant as the military buildup is the intensifying rhetoric surrounding the Iranian threat. President Bush has guaranteed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the U.S. will defend Israel against Iran and will not engage Tehran in negotiations. At the 2006 annual meeting of AIPAC, the principal Israeli lobbying group, Vice President Dick Cheney stated in his keynote address, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." There have been similar, and frequent, iterations of that theme by Rice, Hadley, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and, most recently, by the Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns addressing an audience in Israel. Those who hope that Democrats will stop the rush to war need only note the repeated excoriation of Iran by party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Charles Schumer. Howard Dean has declared that the U.S. attack on Iraq was directed against the 'wrong enemy' while Iran is 'the right enemy.' Dean's DNC, which reportedly receives more than half of its funds from Jewish sources, would be understandably reluctant to oppose war against Iran.
<snip>
Iran is not an imminent threat and clearly doesn't want war, while the United States can ill afford another. But the Bush administration seems intent on toppling Ahmadinejad. The overwhelming victory of moderates and reformers in Iran?s December election shows that the Iranian people are peacefully working toward the same end. But the White House, showing interest neither in dialogue nor in letting the democratic process do its work, seems more inclined to let bombs do the talking.
<more>
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article3.html*
More notes from the Paleo vs Neo Con front. It's an interesting battle IMO.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
