|
The Israeli government, in passing new legislation aimed directly at investigations surrounding PM Ehud Olmert, has all but confirmed that a hawkish Israeli-U.S. alliance has plans to strike Iranian infrastructure sometime before the end of the year and most likely when the U.S. Navy has had a chance to refuel, tune up, and redeploy it's carrier task forces to the region in the early fall.
The Knesset passed legislation today that would supercede previous legislation involving the indictment of a Prime Minister. Previously, if a Prime Minister were convicted of a felony during his term in office, they would have to resign their position after the conviction, but the new law, requires any acting Prime Minister to resign during an indictment, and thus, whether the charges are substantiated or not.
The term of Israel's PM is now extremely susceptible to mere political machinations and accusations, and, perhaps in response to the passage of the new law, PM Olmert announced today that diplomatic and economic sanctions had been "exhausted" with Iran and that joint U.S./Israeli Naval operations should be firmly considered.
All this in keeping with the plans of the Bush administration to provide for a "unique...scheduling" opportunity to occur in the fall, with the arrival of naval forces in the Gulf area.
Any U.S. imposed blockade on the shipment of oil through the Strait of Hormuz will be seen as a direct provocation of Iran's government and industry, and will further add to the already dire U.S. oil economy.
Any conflict arising out of such an action will also invoke the "continuity of government" plans which the administration set forth last year, plans which grant the administration the authority to usurp the powers of the Congress and Judiciary should any conflict arise, and postpone elections as long as they see fit.
While a permanent military dictatorship is obviously ridiculous, it is clear that the administration might use just such a conflict to further the political and economic goals of the corporate/U.S. military complex in the region, and handcuff the next president to a hornet's nest stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq, and including Iran.
And my observations from the weekend:
9 Signs of Imminent War with Iran
As the primary is all but decided, and Democrats are largely focused on defeating McCain at the polls this fall, it's worth remembering that the current administration is not yet out of office, and still primarily composed of radicals, criminals, torturers, liars, thieves, and basic tormentors of the other 99% humanity.
These are the people who now have control of our government, and command of our armed forces. It is no time to celebrate.
That being said, the recent shake-up in Lebanon and the timing of the President's visit to the region should remind us that the neo-conservatives and their timid opponents within our government, will have one last major attempt to bring the country to the brink of war before the elections, if we take into account how wars are planned and how tactical operations are carried out.
Let's take a little stroll down memory lane.
On May 4th, 2007, the president issued National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20. This was typically absent from any major mainstream forum.
Executive Order 51, as it is usually called, basically outlines a plan for a "Continuity of Government" procedure which is to take place in the event of any "catastrophe," which is, of course, to be defined by this insane, delusional, criminal administration.
In the event that the implementation of Executive Directive 51 is judged appropriate, national elections are to be postponed indefinitely.
Until order is restored.
In the president's opinion.
Catastrophe is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
In January of 2008, shortly after the incident in the Strait of Hormuz between Iranian speedboats and the USS Harry Truman, many provisions of the directive were repealed by H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
However, President Bush attached a signing statement negating the aspects of the bill which demanded the repeal, stating simply:
"Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 28, 2008
A few months later, as the Naval presence in the region was due to reach a crucial interlude known to strategists as a critical junction in the "6+2" method of deployment, which I will discuss below, Admiral Fallon resigned his command of Centcom in early March, temporarily forestalling a strategic build up aimed at establishing a unique window of opportunity to occur around the end of April.
It is worth noting that Fallon, as the Centcom commander, would have had the personal authority of ordering the USS Harry Truman not to fire on the allegedly belligerent Iranian boats in January, and as most visitors to DK probably know, he is rumored to have left his position due to disagreements with the administration about U.S. priorities and strategy in the region, to be replaced by General Petraeus, the administration's saving grace in the "surge" pitch last summer.
Shortly after Admiral Fallon's resignation, actually, less than a week, Vice President Cheney traveled to the Middle East, presumably to discuss the administration's plans for the region with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Israel, you know, the real planners and power players of governments and multi-billion dollar financial actors.
Fast forward one month to the beginning of April, when Andrew Cockburn at counterpunch.org, among others, reported that the president had been given Congressional authorization, and an initial $300 million, to pursue covert offensives against the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, through the funding of militant groups in the region which oppose the Iranian government.
Israel and other allies in the region also completed major domestic security operations at this time, spanning 5 days, most of which dealt with facing a two-front war against both regional enemies in Lebanon and the risk of Israeli cities being attacked by chemical warheads from neighboring Arab states.
On April 29th, the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the gulf to replace the USS Harry Truman, and Secretary Gates stated that the extra naval presence in the region should serve as a "reminder" to the Iranians.
On April 30th, the State Department released a report clarifying the classification of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in 2007, stating that "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the region.
It's worth noting that both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton voted for the label in 2007, or participated in the drafting of the bill or some of it's proposed alternatives. In other words, it wasn't opposed.
By May 8th, the USS Truman was in Rhodes and out of the Gulf, however, mainstream press reports confirmed that Centcom plans for comprehensive naval and air strikes on Iran had been approved, meaning the strategies that Fallon had refused to address were now firmly in place and plans for the Pentagon's "long war" in the region, to be fought with cooperation of Israel and on multiple fronts, were ready for action.
A few days later, two tentative ceasefires were strangely reached almost simultaneously with Shiite militia groups in both Sadr City and Lebanon, just as the President prepared for a visit to the region, his second in 5 months, efforts which will undoubtedly be sold to the public in the next few months as our "one last attempt at diplomacy" with the now officially demonized Iranians.
Also, Jenna Bush got married on May 10th.
So to review:
i. our Congress labeled the Iranian Army as a terrorist organization in 2007
ii. the President declared that he can suspend Consitutional government and elections in the event of another major conflict with a terrorist organization in that same year, which would mean any conflict with Iran could be classified as such,
iii. all non-compliant military commanders have been removed or have resigned,
iv. any questioning of Bush's Martial authority by the members of Congress has been disregarded by his signing statement,
v. the official military plans are confirmed,
vi. guns and funds are going to local militia throughout the region with the expressed consent of the Congress, that is, on the books
vii. the navy's tactical timeline, which will bring us to the brink of war by placing a substantial force in the region over the summer, is set to culminate shortly after the Olympics
viii. George Bush's direct line of descent might be preserved if Jenna procreates with her lawful husband in the next few months
ix. VP Cheney, the real power broker in our government, has been to the region to discuss our plans with our strategic allies.
The 6+2 strategy discussed above is a hot topic of discussion in navy forums, especially among those who are in support of action against Iran and look forward to a "September Surprise" as many retired Navy strategists and Bush supporters are calling it.
The 6+2 carrier theory was designed to insure that the Navy has 6 aircraft carriers available within 30 days to anywhere in the world, with 2 more available by 90 days. Hence, the 6+2.
Here's how the ex-navy buffs have it lining up:
"6 & 30 Days:
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Deployed to Gulf
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Deployed on way to Japan
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - Next Atlantic Fleet Carrier to Deploy
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - Next Pacific Fleet Carrier to Deploy
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Surge Atlantic Carrier Behind Roosevelt
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Surge Pacific Carrier Behind Reagan
2 & 90 Days:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Rotating from Japan to San Diego (Currently Deployed)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Currently Deployed, Returning Home
2 & 180 Days:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - 16-month Extended Docking Availability Began April 11th
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Currently Deployed, Extended Drydock Availability Begins After Deployment
Nuclear Refueling:
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) - Unavailable until end of 2008
Check closely, we list both carriers for 60 days as deployed today, plus a 180 day carrier as deployed today. In other words, they won't be unavailable until the Navy decides them to be.
I don't know what it means, but a scheduling "coincidence" has generated a considerable amount of naval power availability this summer, and we note the first strike weapons are on the move. The next big sign is to wait and see what the Peleliu ESG does when the Iwo Jima ESG deploys. If both are in the Middle East at the same time late this summer, that is a pretty solid sign of a September Surprise. 4 reasons why: Abu Musa island, Sirri, and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Check the map, those islands are arsenals on the deep water channel in and out of the Gulf, they will require Marines to secure in a war against Iran."
I spent days trying to confirm that the USS Truman had exited the Gulf and sadly, only confirmed it by reading Greek newspapers.
Any tactical redeployments or "bumping up" of Marine deployments in the region, unrelated to developments in Iraq or Afghanistan will also be a sure sign that imminent action is planned to seize positions in the Strait of Hormuz, or face down the Iranians with a serious threat of war.
Indeed, this nation will be at the brink of a much larger war.
And just months before the election, if not simultaneously.
I hope to start some real discussion about this because I think a few scenarios are possible.
One is that this administration will leave us with yet another burden, and perhaps the most grave, serious one yet. I know that a lot of analysis has been dedicated to strategic deployments in the past, but this one is important because it will be their last one, their last real chance to bring all the plans together.
Another scenario is that we might see an extraordinary usurpation of power and further defilement of the Constitution by this administration, which is truly unprecedented and an insult to the laws of the land, as we've already seen this administration repeal two of the liberties guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.
In the first case, how will either of the candidates respond to such a crisis, should it occur?
Will Obama inherit a new war, and be handcuffed both by the neo-cons and his own statements about the U.S. remaining loyal to Israel for "600 years?"
Will either candidate be inevitably forced to institute a draft?
Is conflict with Iran really manageable in the sense that military planners believe it to be? The messages from the Pentagon and the State Department are contradictory. If Iran truly possesses nuclear know-how and materials, and supports worldwide Jihad, then is it not possible that they've already planted materials and cells in either the domestic U.S. or Israel?
And will this administration concede power to the newly elected president, whoever that may be, contrary to it's own statements?
Let's not forget how Bush Co. gained power in 2000, and no, it was not Ralph Nader's fault, it was because an election was corrupted and the people of Florida defrauded, and the Court was complicit in that theft, thinking that people would rather have good news and a return to the mall rather than justice.
And do we not also know from the irregularities in Ohio in 2004 that the criminal elements operating our government, with their talent for dirty tactics and sheer lust for power, must not be taken lightly? I think it is incorrect to attribute rightfully conceived suspicions surrounding the behavior of this government during past elections solely to the realm of fantasy, to simply dismiss all of the evidence we have regarding this rampant corruption because it is often endorsed by overly eager liberal paranoiacs. The fact is, these are very, very, cruel, inhumane, and intelligent creatures we're talking about, who are truly capable of almost any action if it will preserve their ability to exercise power.
I think we should be preparing for a unique, unprecedented Constitutional showdown this year, judging from both the escalating situation with Iran, which is going along as planned, and the challenges that another conflict will pose to a newly elected president, who might then have to face a criminal executive.
While the Democrats have remained timid on impeachment, perhaps some kind of proceedings need to be aimed at this administration, to shackle them from abusing our forms of government any longer and to prevent them from walking brazenly into yet another crisis, largely of their own making.
I believe that this country faces, for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, the serious threat of global catastrophe involving the widespread use of nuclear weapons, and more startlingly, that in the event of just such a crisis, the lives of the domestic population and the letter of the law will rely solely on the "pleasure of the president" and his advisor's seemingly limitless talent for embracing the sadistic and absurd.
Enough of the regurgitated, TV pundit-inspired, psychobabble. The primaries are all but over. What must we demand from the next president? And what can we do to restrain President Cheney?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
