Member since:
November 25, 2005

ATTACK ON IRAN IMMINENT - RUMOR OR FACT?

March 28, 2007 12:27 PM EDT (Updated: March 28, 2007 08:51 PM EDT)

views: 200 | rating: 8.4/10 (13 votes) | comments: 48

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED START ANOTHER WAR ?

There are persistent and growing indications - imagined and real - that the U.S. and who knows who else - are preparing to attack Iran in the near future. I imagine most who read this will probably write off this prospect as outlandish. Why this scoffing response would be perfectly understandable is painfully obvious:

There are probably only two people in the world that believe we are winning the war in Iraq: President Bush, and Vice President Cheney.
Polls, popular opinion, critical opinion, weigh in on the speculation that the Bush presidency may be noted in future generations as the absolute worst one in American History. If Bush is interested in a admirable legacy he best radically change the direction of his initiatives.
The Democrats on the surface have regained control of the congress and are expected to start blocking Bush's 'adventurism.'
On a daily basis the press throws in our faces the scary news that out military forces are stretched dangerously thin. HOw under such conditions could we even fantasize about opening yet another front.
Our armed forces lack vital equipment.
The morale has to be low due to the fact that the same troops that have been employed are reemployed over and over again.
There is a slight problem with Russia and China probably not welcoming a U.S. attack.
Word that Syria, Lebanon, Hamas rearmed to the teeth with an even greater capacity to blow the whole of Israel to bits and who may love the idea of a 'justified' pretext to start the extinction of the Jewish state once the U.S. attacks Iran.
The so called insurgency is not stopping the daily slaughter in the unnamed 'civil' war between the various factions in Iraq.
The majority of public opinion, reinforced by the recent congressional vote to impose a timeline for withdrawal of our troops clearly indicates that most Americans are war weary having little desire to passively watch as the Iraqi meat grinder indefinitely chew up more manpower and national treasure in this seemiongly no win political black hole.

Given the above facts - most sensible people would likely conclude that the idea let alone the action of attacking Iran in the near future is totally outlandish, illogical, counter intuitve, unaffordable, and a number of other limiting terms. I would like to concur that this idea defies conventional linear logic. However this judgement assumes that the wise people who rule our country and make the truly significant decisions are indeed exponents of linear logic.

So what supports the notion that an attack on Iran may be near at hand? First the speculation, then the facts:

I heard a disturbing psychic on Coast to Coast Radio last night predicting that Iran would be attacked by the US as early as April, 7th of this year. He claims to be a psychic who also has the ear of a number of important people who shower him with vital inside information. According to him we - that is the present leadership of President Bush and Company - have had Iran in our sites as part of the grand scheme to impose our authority over that part of the world. He indicated that the U.S. as pin pointed over 200 locations to bomb on an initial air-strike and has a name picked out for the attack.
The motives for imposing our power over Iran is based on the assumption of wide spread dissatisfaction with the extreme Mullah control and the bet that if we attack the dissidents will back us up.
He also said that the chief motive for attacking Iran is oil.

So much for speculation. Now for the facts:

Notice today's New York Times on page A9 headlined: "U.S. OPENS NAVAL EXERCISE IN PERSIAN GULF". It part it reads: "In a calculated show of force, the United States Navy began a major exercise in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday, a move that Bush administration officials said was part of a broader strategy to contain Iranian power in the region.... The exercise was clearly intended to send a signal that even with its forces stretched thin by the Iraq war, the United States still has the military means to project power in the region.
The report adds: " Iran has been trying to send a message for some time that we are on the way out, that they are the natural great power of the region and that everybody should circle around Iran," said the senior American official [a code for a significant spokesmen for the government on the level of lets say Cheney] who declined to be identified because he does not customarily speak to the news media." [What pray tell does that explanation mean?]
The report goes on: 'The American naval maneuvers are one element of a broader strategy to counter the Iranians and reassure nervous allies. It also involves the deployment of Patriot antimissile systems to Qatar and Kuwait and the dispatch of minesweeping equipment to the region."
In yet another 'message to Iran' another unamed official said " ... We are here to stay."
"Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned : 'We should have no illusions about the nature of this [Iranian] regime or about their designs for their nuclear program, their intentions for Iraq or their ambitions in the gulf region." [Of course their is no mention of our own intentions for the region].
"With American carrier aircraft simulated attack missions in the Persian Gulf, some administration officials sought to emphasize that the exercise was not a cover for an impending air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Nor would the United States enter Iranian territorial waters, the officials said."
The article concludes: " It is not a precursor to war," said one official [again unnamed] who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press. [Why isn't President Bush up in arms over this anonymous 'unauthorized communication to the press?] "It is not a sign that we are building up capability in the region to attack. [I'm glad he set the record straight as I was getting a bit nervous]. Sending two aircraft carriers should be seen as a demonstration of our capability." [This I believe.]
In a related story on Drudge this morning a headline reads: "Russian Intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border." The story goes on: "
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future."
Now add to this the elevated tensions due to the capture of the British sailors by the Iranians with both sides claiming the other is IN THE WRONG. Is this text, pre text, by one or both sides? Your guess is as good as mine.

I don't know about you but considering the disaster we have gotten ourselves into because of the botched calculations of our present leadership - the above denials of calculated aggression on our part may more properly be considered as coded messages of probable truths.

Perhaps it would be wise for us to go to war with Iran but if so shouldn't we as a nation make that determination in open debate and not leave it to our proven untrustworthy administration to drag us into an unknown, uncertain, potential expanding quagmire?