Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Michael Hogan]

Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag

BY TAMER EL-GHOBASHY

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, October 1st 2007

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been working on plans to hit Iran with "a broad bombing attack" on suspected nuclear and military facilities, Hersh says.

However, citing former intelligence officials and diplomats, Hersh reports the revised bombing plan is gaining support from the military leadership and the British government.

But the idea is being resisted by the Israelis, who would rather see Iran's nuclear facilities targeted directly, he said.

Hersh claims the main reasons behind the shift in strategy are a lack of public support for a major bombing campaign, and the belief in intelligence circles that Iran is at least five years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

"We're threatening Iran," Hersh commented on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday.

"But instead of saying to the American people ... it's going to be about nuclear weapons, it's now going to be about getting the guys that are killing ourboys."

A recently retired CIA official told Hersh that the changing tone toward Iran is similar to the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the agency "moving everybody to the Iran desk."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...an_sez_m-2.html

[Dawn Meredith]

Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag

BY TAMER EL-GHOBASHY

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, October 1st 2007

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been working on plans to hit Iran with "a broad bombing attack" on suspected nuclear and military facilities, Hersh says.

However, citing former intelligence officials and diplomats, Hersh reports the revised bombing plan is gaining support from the military leadership and the British government.

But the idea is being resisted by the Israelis, who would rather see Iran's nuclear facilities targeted directly, he said.

Hersh claims the main reasons behind the shift in strategy are a lack of public support for a major bombing campaign, and the belief in intelligence circles that Iran is at least five years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

"We're threatening Iran," Hersh commented on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday.

"But instead of saying to the American people ... it's going to be about nuclear weapons, it's now going to be about getting the guys that are killing ourboys."

A recently retired CIA official told Hersh that the changing tone toward Iran is similar to the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the agency "moving everybody to the Iran desk."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...an_sez_m-2.html

Frightening! And I don't think these nuts would lack Congressional authority after seeing the latest Democratic debate the other night.

We have never been closer to WW 111 yet the anti- war movement is almost non-existent.

Dawn

[Craig Lamson]

White House Orders New Plans For Attack On Iran

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is reporting there has been a significant increase in the tempo of planning for war with Iran inside the Bush administration. Writing in the New Yorker, Hersh reports the White House recently requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack. Hersh also reports the Bush administration's rationale for bombing Iran has shifted from Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program to Iran's role in Iraq. Hersh writes "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism." The focus is no longer a broad bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities but strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. On Sunday John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, called for the U.S. to attack Iran and for the overthrow of Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During a meeting in England, Bolton said negotiations with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to military action.

From todays headlines on www.democracynow.org Its coming folks....as promised and as I and others have said for some years now. Before the 2008 elections [to be stolen as well] they will bomb the hell ouf of Iran.....and could well precipitate a world confligration. I think it is time to impeach the bastards NOW - Chaney First, then Bush! [in the order of power]

Sounds perfect to me. And it just might be the ONLY THING that keeps YOU alive in the long run.

Makes this article seem spot on, even when you factor in the flaky nature of the source....

http://www.debka.com/

DEBKAfile reports: Russians employed at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor suddenly depart in a body, according to local Arab sources

October 1, 2007, 11:01 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28, and flew back to Russia. The agency’s one-liner offers no source or explanation. DEBKAfile have obtained no corroboration of its report from any other source.

The story appears to have originated with the ethnic Arabs who live near the reactor or who come in contact with its Russian staff. If true, DEBKAfile can offer three hypothetical scenarios to account for the Russians’ precipitate departure:

1. Another crisis has cropped up in the patchy Russian-Iranian dealings over the Bushehr reactor. This is unlikely because Russian president Vladimar Putin is due for a high-profile visit to Tehran on Oct. 16, when he plans to sign a series of nuclear accords with the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, Moscow, like Beijing, stands foursquare behind Iran’s efforts to delay harsher sanctions for its continued uranium enrichment. Only this week, the two powers gained Iran two to three months’ grace by forcing a delay in the UN Security Council session that was to have approved a third round of sanctions.

2. Moscow or Tehran has been tipped off that a US or Israeli attack is imminent on the Bushehr plant and Iran’s other nuclear installations and acted to whip Russian personnel out of harm’s way.

3. Moscow has learned that an Iranian pre-emptive attack is imminent against American targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf and/or Israel.

Aside from these hypothetical scenarios, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report that the Khorramshar News Agency keeps its ear to the ground on happenings in Bushehr, because it is claimed by Khuzistan separatists as Arab land which they will fight to liberate from Iranian “occupation.”

[Craig Lamson]

You wouldn't know American or World history if your life depended on it. IMO

What happend in Iran in 1953? We [uSA] via CIA overthrew the democratic and duely elected leader of Iran and put in our puppet DICTATOR who tortured and abused  his people so your favorite company Hallibuton, in its earlier incarnations could get blood money for raping the oil, men, women and children of Iran. No Iranian forgets that....but you probably never knew it!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

http://www.rense.com/general40/roots.htm

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DN...n-Coup-1953.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/05/1542249

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...1678786&z=y

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html

it is the kind of venality and ignorance people like you show that allows and fuels the evils now going on by the Fascists in charge. The USG hav evertrown about 70 governments since WW2. Now it is time for us to overthrow the cabal behind that all....and take back our country. I'm sure we can NOT count on you being on the side of justice, peace, Constitution, law, justice or decentcy. So be it. All this was done [and lied about to our countrypersons and the world]. And they are still lying for their $$ benefit only - 911, reasons for Iraq War, and soon Iran. ETC!

You and the current cabal in power stand for nothing our country is supposed to stand for - less so for what humans should stand for. You support the current unelected cabal of fascisti and their serial lies. Sad. All for money....and power. Based on lies and hidden history.

What a joke Peter. I'm well aware of the history between Iran anf d the US, and I'm also very aware, (and you appear VERY unaware) that this is 2007. Deal with the PRESENT IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE!

Edited October 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Craig, Peter - please remember rules about civility. No-one has broken any, but we're getting a little heated. Think about what you post, please.

Peter,

If this attack is postponed again & again, under what conditions would you believe that such an attack on Iran was not going to happen?

Craig,

You'd have to admit that plans for an assault on Iran are probably in existence, and updated regularly. If such plans exist - and they probably do IMO - then would the change of a "D - Day" to suit US needs mean that there was NOT an intention to attack? How can you differentiate between a "just in case" plan and a "when the time is right" plan?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, Peter - please remember rules about civility. No-one has broken any, but we're getting a little heated. Think about what you post, please.

Peter,

If this attack is postponed again & again, under what conditions would you believe that such an attack on Iran was not going to happen?

Craig,

You'd have to admit that plans for an assault on Iran are probably in existence, and updated regularly. If such plans exist - and they probably do IMO - then would the change of a "D - Day" to suit US needs mean that there was NOT an intention to attack? How can you differentiate between a "just in case" plan and a "when the time is right" plan?

With out a doubt there have been many plans, updated on a regular basis. And I can't imagine that the "exact final" plan would be availbel to someone like Hersch. Someone is feeding someone a line.

The world has a real problem with Iran. Talk is worthless at this point. SO the question becomes,how long do you wait to deal with the problem?

Regardless of how "green" any given person might be, the brutal fact is that EVERYONE lives or dies by oil. If the Gulf is shut down, for the most part the world stops. Good or bad, right or wrong, that is REALITY.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Craig,

I'll take you up on that "the world needs oil" argument, if you don't mind.

If the world needs it (not disputed at this present time) then why do the US want to totally control it?

For me, it is more accurate to say that the US-UK needs oil in order to protect its elite financial base and ensure its continuing economic hegemony. With that hegemony under threat, the US-UK will engage in any war at the risk global destruction.

It's a case of a mad emperor fiddling amidst the flames of decay.

David

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I'll take you up on that "the world needs oil" argument, if you don't mind.

If the world needs it (not disputed at this present time) then why do the US want to totally control it?

For me, it is more accurate to say that the US-UK needs oil in order to protect its elite financial base and ensure its continuing economic hegemony. With that hegemony under threat, the US-UK will engage in any war at the risk global destruction.

It's a case of a mad emperor fiddling amidst the flames of decay.

David

Ok David, let talk.

I'll ask why you think the US wants to totally CONTROL IT? That is clearly never going to happen. At best all the US can and will do is PROTECT the sources in the most danger. And of course its in the best interest of the US to protect its economy, an economy I might add, ripples to the entire world.

What ends are you willing to accept?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Ok David, let talk.

I'll ask why you think the US wants to totally CONTROL IT? That is clearly never going to happen. At best all the US can and will do is PROTECT the sources in the most danger. And of course its in the best interest of the US to protect its economy, an economy I might add, ripples to the entire world.

What ends are you willing to accept?

Craig,

This is perhaps where we differ. I think the UK-USA-European alliance is - and has been - out to control the world's oil reserves as a means of fostering a dollar imperialism. I also think this is fairly plain, given the history of oil and all that has been written about it. Whoever controls oil controls the world. Protecting those sources is no less than protecting their imperialism.

And yes, I agree that the US economic model ripples across the whole world. Is this good or bad? One thing that is certain is that the US model effortlessly captures and holds fast the crudest and least enlightened emotional drives of mankind. Greed and the accumulation of unimaginably vast wealth to the merest fraction of the world's population.

To achieve this black desire, the UK USA step foot in everybody else's backyard and take what they want, when they want it. And if the owner of the backyard complains, they are set about ruthlessly and brutally.

Tranlsate the foregoing to your property, Craig. The property you think you own. Tomorrow, the same US-UK forces might decide that your property/backyard is next in line for their brand of takeover.

Do you complain or accept the inevitable?

What I am willing to accept is a fair and level playing field. Where fair and sensible laws are applied across the spectrum and not just applied against those who have no power to oppose them. The latter is, of course, the method of the bullyboy.

There is the added argument also, that all sorts of technological advances have been made but kept under wraps. Free energy being one of them. If Tesla was correct, and I believe he was (we don't know his material is still classified), then energy is freely available to everyone. You can just suck it out of the atmosphere and use it at will. No cost involved.

Can't have that can we. Control would evaporate overnight. Governments would founder. Excessive accumulation would almost cease and the elite would be sent packing...

Sounds good to me.

David

[Mark Stapleton]

The world has a real problem with Iran. , that is REALITY.

No, this is FANTASY.

You're in a bubble, Craig. Get out. You have a problem with Iran because you percieve global politics solely through the prism of US strategic interests. The rest of the world is not blind. The reality is that China, North Korea, Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India already have nuclear weapons. Countries outside the region also have substantial nuclear capability.

Israel and the US have a problem with Iran. No-one else really has a problem. Don't Americanise this issue by claiming that the entire western world is arrayed against Iran. Prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war are just an echoing the desires of their corporate masters (and financial sponsors). The war on terror bullxxxx is way past its shelf life. Lame arguments about Iran's lack of democracy are just rank hypocrisy given what other nuclear armed nations, including America and Israel, do to their citizens. Any pretext for war against Iran will be as hollow as it was in Iraq.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Len Colby]

Israel and the US have a problem with Iran. No-one else really has a problem. Don't Americanise this issue by claiming that the entire western world is arrayed against Iran. Prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war are just an echoing the desires of their corporate masters (and financial sponsors).

Though I largely agree with you that war or a strike against Iran would be an unjustified act of insanity I think you’re wrong in believing that nation getting nukes wouldn’t be a serious problem. Despite your assertions to the contrary many people in Europe or at least their elected leaders seem to think likewise. Who do you imagine are the “corporate masters (and financial sponsors)” of the “prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war” whose corporate interest is it in to go to war with Iran other than arms dealers. There is a difference between saying a nuclear Iran is a problem and advocating war against that country.

[Len Colby]

Israel and the US have a problem with Iran. No-one else really has a problem. Don't Americanise this issue by claiming that the entire western world is arrayed against Iran. Prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war are just an echoing the desires of their corporate masters (and financial sponsors).

Though I largely agree with you that war or a strike against Iran would be an unjustified act of insanity I think you’re wrong in believing that nation getting nukes wouldn’t be a serious problem. Despite your assertions to the contrary many people in Europe or at least their elected leaders seem to think likewise. Who do you imagine are the “corporate masters (and financial sponsors)” of the “prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war” whose corporate interest is it in to go to war with Iran other than arms dealers. There is a difference between saying a nuclear Iran is a problem and advocating war against that country.

[Craig Lamson]

The world has a real problem with Iran. , that is REALITY.

No, this is FANTASY.

You're in a bubble, Craig. Get out. You have a problem with Iran because you percieve global politics solely through the prism of US strategic interests. The rest of the world is not blind. The reality is that China, North Korea, Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India already have nuclear weapons. Countries outside the region also have substantial nuclear capability.

Israel and the US have a problem with Iran. No-one else really has a problem. Don't Americanise this issue by claiming that the entire western world is arrayed against Iran. Prostitute politicians from the UK, France and Canada who advocate war are just an echoing the desires of their corporate masters (and financial sponsors). The war on terror bullxxxx is way past its shelf life. Lame arguments about Iran's lack of democracy are just rank hypocrisy given what other nuclear armed nations, including America and Israel, do to their citizens. Any pretext for war against Iran will be as hollow as it was in Iraq.

Fantasy eh? I suggest that fantasy is finding Iran just fine thank you very much. Given your track record of support I'm not the least bit suprised at your stance.

And for the record, since it went right over your head,I never suggested that the entire world is arrayed against Iran. Are you simply projecting here? What I stated and still remains true, is that the entire world is at RISK.

There is of course a glimmer of hope that some wiser heads now see the light. Your "prostitute's" from France, UK, Germany and Canada actually understand the depth of the problem and just might be brings some stones to the table.

Truck on Mark.

[Craig Lamson]

Ok David, let talk.

I'll ask why you think the US wants to totally CONTROL IT? That is clearly never going to happen. At best all the US can and will do is PROTECT the sources in the most danger. And of course its in the best interest of the US to protect its economy, an economy I might add, ripples to the entire world.

What ends are you willing to accept?

Craig,

This is perhaps where we differ. I think the UK-USA-European alliance is - and has been - out to control the world's oil reserves as a means of fostering a dollar imperialism. I also think this is fairly plain, given the history of oil and all that has been written about it. Whoever controls oil controls the world. Protecting those sources is no less than protecting their imperialism.

And yes, I agree that the US economic model ripples across the whole world. Is this good or bad? One thing that is certain is that the US model effortlessly captures and holds fast the crudest and least enlightened emotional drives of mankind. Greed and the accumulation of unimaginably vast wealth to the merest fraction of the world's population.

To achieve this black desire, the UK USA step foot in everybody else's backyard and take what they want, when they want it. And if the owner of the backyard complains, they are set about ruthlessly and brutally.

Tranlsate the foregoing to your property, Craig. The property you think you own. Tomorrow, the same US-UK forces might decide that your property/backyard is next in line for their brand of takeover.

Do you complain or accept the inevitable?

What I am willing to accept is a fair and level playing field. Where fair and sensible laws are applied across the spectrum and not just applied against those who have no power to oppose them. The latter is, of course, the method of the bullyboy.

There is the added argument also, that all sorts of technological advances have been made but kept under wraps. Free energy being one of them. If Tesla was correct, and I believe he was (we don't know his material is still classified), then energy is freely available to everyone. You can just suck it out of the atmosphere and use it at will. No cost involved.

Can't have that can we. Control would evaporate overnight. Governments would founder. Excessive accumulation would almost cease and the elite would be sent packing...

Sounds good to me.

David

How exactly can the US control the world’s oil? Do you think we have a hoots chance of controlling the oil in Russia? Do you think we can take it from Hugo?

Greed IS good to quote Gordon Gecko. It's what motivates quite a large part of the population of the world. Can greed sometimes go overboard? Sure, but what does not? I’ll take it anyday over the alternatives.

I'm a realist. I understand there is good and evil everywhere. I also understand that massive change is simply not going to happen. And even if the world’s governments were to fail tomorrow, you and I both know that in the long run we will end up right back here. It’s only a matter of time. It's simply human nature.

Property comes and property goes. The state has the right and uses it often to condemn private property and convert it to the public domain. Happens all the time in America. If it were to happen to me would I be happy? Depends. But one thing is certain, I'll have to deal with it when the time comes. The realist in me knows deep down that I really own no real estate for example. I simply RENT it from the government in the form of property taxes. I pay or else. .... Realism.

Bottom line here is that I'm not an economist, I'm just a hack photographer from Jumpoff Place Indiana, USA. I certain that your expertise in the financial world blows my understanding of the subject away. So do I know what I'm talking about here?... not a chance. It’s simply my uninformed opinion based on the view from where I sit.

And from where I sit, it looks to me that, from my realist's point of view, is that the current system, as broken as it may be is a darn sight better than tossing it all away and starting from scratch.

Of course that is just my 2 cents worth.

Now if you want to talk photography......

[Guest David Guyatt]

How exactly can the US control the world’s oil? Do you think we have a hoots chance of controlling the oil in Russia? Do you think we can take it from Hugo?

Greed IS good to quote Gordon Gecko. It's what motivates quite a large part of the population of the world. Can greed sometimes go overboard? Sure, but what does not? I’ll take it anyday over the alternatives.

I'm a realist. I understand there is good and evil everywhere. I also understand that massive change is simply not going to happen. And even if the world’s governments were to fail tomorrow, you and I both know that in the long run we will end up right back here. It’s only a matter of time. It's simply human nature.

Property comes and property goes. The state has the right and uses it often to condemn private property and convert it to the public domain. Happens all the time in America. If it were to happen to me would I be happy? Depends. But one thing is certain, I'll have to deal with it when the time comes. The realist in me knows deep down that I really own no real estate for example. I simply RENT it from the government in the form of property taxes. I pay or else. .... Realism.

Bottom line here is that I'm not an economist, I'm just a hack photographer from Jumpoff Place Indiana, USA. I certain that your expertise in the financial world blows my understanding of the subject away. So do I know what I'm talking about here?... not a chance. It’s simply my uninformed opinion based on the view from where I sit.

And from where I sit, it looks to me that, from my realist's point of view, is that the current system, as broken as it may be is a darn sight better than tossing it all away and starting from scratch.

Of course that is just my 2 cents worth.

Now if you want to talk photography......

Can we take control of oil from Hugo and Russia you say. Russia might be a problem now but "we" tried, we really tried a la Yukos etc. But Putin was too savvy.

Hugo can be taken anytime I would argue, in the same way "we" took Iraq, and are apparently planning to take Iran. And if "we" do take Iran everybody should step back and ponder. Who next? It's a frightening scenario. Possibly a terrifying scenario.

On Greed: Adam Smith coined the term about self-interest being in the public good and up to a point that cannot be doubted. But. And it’s a big but, I think we’re way beyond what Smith would conceivably sanction. He is regarded as one of the moral economists and held strong moral views (unlike, I think, today’s Smithians). Greed is so out of control is so noxious now that is destroying the fabric of society. The hand maiden of greed is corruption, and that also is rampant. We canot trust those in power to work for the interests of the majority (the democratic principle par excellence) but only for the few and themselves.

And on property Craig, I take great argument with you. The government doesn’t own the country, the people do. The government are supposed to be the stewards of the people.

I think you confusing realism with cynicism. On second thoughts, maybe you view is more realistic these days. What a dreadful pity to concede that.

I think the solution is not to toss everything away but, rather, to fix the political and economic system so that it reflects the need of the people – not the few. The latter is where the real problem lays now. I think that you Craig, are a democrat, in the sense that you believe in the democratic principle. I know I am and I think most of us here are likewise committed. What we stand for and are trying to fight for is a restoration of democracy. It was there once in the New World (up to a point anyway).

David