Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Craig Lamson]

I see. The old 12th Imam stuff. The Shia have a belief in the endtimes similar to the Christian belief in the rapture. Extremist Christian televangelist John Hagee from San Antonio wants America to bring it on fast. He advocates a nuke attack on Iran. Do you agree with him? Does he speak for all Christians? Is he suicidal? Do do you make a distinction between one extremist endtimes belief and the other?

I dont see a difference berween either side wanting to bring the endtimes here now, and the radical christian belief is every bit as dangerous as Irans. The difference is that currently it's Iran who might have the power to do it. As far as I can tell Rev. Hagee has no nukes nor is iin the process of building any. Can you say the same for Iran? I did'nt think so.

George Bush has control of over 10,000 nukes and he's the most radically Christian President I've ever seen. Isn't he a friend of Hagee's? And Pat Robertson, for that matter.

Well our founding fathers were quite religious but lets not worry about that. But thanks so much for falling into the George Bush is a radical Christian trap. You made my day. Please show me where President Bush has ever made the statement that the ONLY way to world peace is conversion Christianity. I can provide President Imanutjobs statement that makes that claim for Islam.

Given that Iran is RULED by hardline religious leaders, leaders with a desire to return the world to Muslim power and law, that makes them a pertty potent threat to the rest of the free world. Add in nukes, the backing of Russia and China....well you get the picture, or at least you should.

And the US is ruled by a radical hardline religious leader. As for the backing of Russia and China, it's not a matter of those countries clamoring for war, it's quite the opposite--they are trying to stop an out of control regime from starting yet another war. You're the one not getting the picture. The rest of the world is.

Again thanks for making my day, I KNEW that you had to fall for this one! I guess that the weapons and nuke sales and tech help from Russia and China to Iran are just for show eh? Exactly what 'picture' is the rest of the world (well minus France, the UK and maybe even Germany) is seeing? The same one they saw when they looked at Iraq? You know that one with their heads firmly in the sand and their hands out raking int he cash? Yes why deal with a problem TODAY when it might be solved without a full sacle war when you can make a few bucks and simply HOPE it goes away.

Now you say the Iranian leadership is suicidal yet in your last sentence you state that you believe the Iranians plan to win. This is totally contradictory. Planning to win indicates a desire for self preservation, not suicide. Acquisition of nuclear weapons also indicates a desire for self preservation rather than suicide. If the reverse is the case, then you obviously believe the US, France, Britain, Israel and other nuclear states are suicidal. You should emigrate--quick.

Of course they are suicidal. They think they can win a war with the United States. And lets add in the fact that suicide is a favored way to die in radical Islam. You are thinking like a westerner.

Iran does not wish to declare war on the United States, as far as I know. If you have special insight into their thinking, rather than just more neocon babble, I'm keen to hear it.

And as I've pointed out before, while suicide bombers have been utilized by radical Islam, the leaders of Islam do not sacrifice themselves, do they? They persuade the disillusioned to blow themselves up for the cause, with promises of eternal heaven. The mullahs themselves do not volunteer for this. They are not suicidal. You're confusing the two issues. The employment of suicide bombers in Iraq is one of the main reasons the corporate takeover of that country failed. Radical Islam has discovered the tactical advantage enjoyed by those who are willing to sacrifice themselves. You have the US and Israel to thank for this.

You're thinking like someone who has been brainwashed by the "Center for Threat Awareness".

Have you been paying attention AT ALL to the words coming from Iran these days? Sheesh. All they are looking for is a REASON...any reason.

Lets review Mark because this appears to beyond you. IF the US had the political will to respond with a massive nuke attack to an Iranian Nuke attack it would be suicide for the Iranian leadership. However if the US lacks that will, AS I THINK THE IRANIANS BELIEVE, they might just think they can win.

And a death as a matyr is far better than dying in ones sleep....

Oh Geez those evil joos and their American friends again....

To borrow a phrase from the looney ct's...open your eyes Mark.

Now lets take this a step further try and project a bit. If we assume Iran tosses a few nukes around to clean a little house, what happens if they find a United States with a weak horse as a leader? Quite a few suicide bombers have hit their mark in the states and the population is stunned and inactive. No nukes get tossed back towards Iran. Israel is glowing now and can't respond. You think anyone in Europe is going to step in? Iran gets what it wants. Sound far fetched? I don't think so. I'm just hoping we don't sink this low.

There's no such thing as 'tossing a few nukes around to clean a little house'. It's mass suicide. Regardless of who leads America. there's no way a nuclear attack on the US can be carried out without retaliation on a scale unprecedented. You forget that US missiles can be launched from the ground, the air and the sea (via America's nuclear ships and submarines). The notion that Iran could launch such a war and escape a response is comic book stuff. Your scenario is ridiculous.

Sure there is Mark. I've not mentioned a nuke attack on America, now have I. If I was Iran it would be the LAST thing I would do. I would not provke the US into that level of response, but rather parlyze it with something like the "perfect day"

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates...merican-beslan/

It worked really well in Breslan...

Without the political will to respond with massive nuke force, it does not happen. And if you ask me America is heading towards just that position.

Can Iran nuke Israel without being turned into a glass parking lot? Quite possible.

I'm very well aware of the firepower available to the US and also PAINFULLY aware of the lack of will of those who might control this country in the future. They look a LOT like you.

Comic book stuff eh? I guess time will tell.

This just might however be a perfect ending for you, given your past posts.

Of course, we know that if Iran had nukes they would be most unlikely to use them. Why? Well, in the 50 odd years they have been in existence, no one has ever used them, except your country when, comfortable in the knowledge that there would be no retaliation, they bombed away. Since the fifties, quite a few states have had the power to launch nuclear war but no-one has--not even Kim Jong-Il. Leaders share a common trait, regardless of whether they lead Iran, China, the US or North Korea, namely their lives are spent attaining power over others--a trait which indicates self preservation, not suicide. They love to send soldiers to fight conventional wars but none of them want nuclear war because the lives of themselves and their families would forfeited. Moreover, the damage Iran could cause its enemies would be dwarfed by the total destruction of Iran which would be caused by the massive retaliatory strike.

You are using western values again. We are not talking about a rational thought in Iran, but rather one driven by religious extremists. Extremists with a stated desire for world domination. Not even in your wildest anti American dreams coud you say the same about us or any of the rest of the nuke club. Once again your entire point is driven by ther being a massive counter attack on Iran if they lob a few nukes. That outcome is not the only possibility...see above.

If any country is hellbent on world domination, it is the US. The empirical evidence is clear. The US, via the CIA, sponsored the coup which overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah in 1953. Has Iran ever dared do the same to the US? The US is currently fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually on defence, despite the fact it faces no immediate and forseeable threat. The US plans to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, despite Russian protests. The US interferes in the domestic affairs of other nations and often resorts to economic and military threats to achieve its ends. I could go on. How does Iran compare with the US on this? Apart from the inflammatory rhetoric# which Iran sometimes uses, their record of military intervention in other states pales when compared to that of the US.

You're being spoon fed the hawkish neocon agenda and you're too naive to realise it.

# speaking of inflammatory rhetoric, Ahmadinejad's infamous comment about wiping Israel off the map is a misquotation which was brazenly manipulated by those trying to paint him as a warmonger. Sid Walker analysed the issue in post #18 of this thread.

Really? Can you name a SINGLE country where the US has taken over and now owns? I did not think so. Talk about rhetoric.

No threats poised by the forces we are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan? Surely you jest.

How does Iran and its sponsors compare to the US? Quite well actually, both past and present.

I'm being spoonfed? I don't think so, the spoon appears to be in your mouth instead.

And finally we have "eliminated from the page of history" or "wiped from the map". It appears either will do quite nicely given the continuing words frothing forth from Iran.

Personally, I believe nukes are the ultimate deterrent. It would be better if they didn't exist but since they do it should be accepted that many countries will acquire the technology. If we don't accept this fact, we will be condemned to an endless cycle of pre-emptive preventative wars from which there is a good chance of a slide into global conflict on religious lines, imo. Unfortunately, this appears to be the path that the US and Israel wish to follow.

In the hands of resonable people I would agree with you. What about in the hands of unreasonable people? Therein lies the problem. And I hate to break it to you Mark, but we already are dealing with global conflict based on religion.......

Except for your unsupported claim, you have yet to show evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. All you've shown is that they have a strong desire for self preservation.

My replies are underlined

[Mark Stapleton]

Ladies and gentile men, put your hands together and give a warm Tel Aviv welcome to ...

Aunti Semite!

Let all who peruse these cyberpages take note that the alleged Mr. Lamson is playing the oldest, tiredest, most transparent trick in the book.

To wit: Scream ANTI-SEMITE! whenever truth, logic, common sense, and common decency cannot be found on your side of the playground.

Is this the best that the enemies of justice have to offer?

Folks, we're in better shape than we think.

So in the spirit of fair play I'll ask you to join me in leveling the playing field by singing one of Mel Brook's greatest hits ...

Pick up some rags

and stuff them in your shoes,

it's the anti-Semitic Polka

Carlos the Joker

Charles,

Craig's repeated attempts at baiting me by brandishing a childish manifestation of the anti-semite card (after I asked him to desist) remind me of a recent debate on US TV between John Mearsheimer and Abe Foxman, the subject of which was the recent release of the Mearsheimer/Walt book. While Mearsheimer tried to argue, quite reasonably, that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups have had a significant influence on US foreign policy for many years (a fact which is perfectly clear from an objective analysis of the facts), he was constantly accused of anti-semitic motives by Mr. Foxman, who appeared so agitated that he seemed almost incoherent. Fortunately, Mearsheimer kept his dignity and his cool, while Mr. Foxman lost his head and the debate.

I thought Craig's silly assertion that Iran was the regional superpower would be his biggest gaffe but he has topped it with the incredibly stupid assertion that Iran could launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the US and escape retaliation. It's pointless debating a person who claims black is white.

I'm thankful for your posts during this 'debate'. It's nice to engage in discussion with an adult.

p.s. 'A Certain Arrogance' has arrived at last. I shall devour it without delay.

[Matthew Lewis]

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

Just one quick thing. The Apache Longbow is not a missle but rather a helicopter. I'm sure it was just a typo. Carry on.

[Charles Drago]

p.s. 'A Certain Arrogance' has arrived at last. I shall devour it without delay.

Mark,

I look forward to your review.

And please attribute the, shall we say, creative layout of my contribution to tipsy typesetters.

[Mark Stapleton]

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

Just one quick thing. The Apache Longbow is not a missle but rather a helicopter. I'm sure it was just a typo. Carry on.

Right you are, Matthew. My mistake. I'll file it under 'B' for boofheaded blunder.

An amazing piece of attacking weaponry is the Longbow. Capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger and Sidewinder missiles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache

[Mark Stapleton]

Report: U.S. Upgrading Diego Garcia Base For Attack on Iran

The Scottish newspaper The Herald is reporting the US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for possible strikes on Iran. The U.S. has used Diego Garcia during the first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush Requests $88 Million To Fit Bunker Busting Bombs on B-2 Bombers

In Washington the Bush administration has requested $88 million to fit bunker busting bombs to B-2 stealth bombers. Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned if the proposal is linked to an attack on Iran. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia said "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan."

U.S. & France Criticize El Baradei's Comments on Iran

This comes as the UN Nuclear watchdog Mohamaed El Baradei is being criticized by some for publicly saying there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

French defense minister Herve Morin: "Everyone has their view. Our information, and it is backed up by other countries, is contrary to IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei's comments)."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack brushed aside El Baradei's comments and urged him to not to speak about diplomatic issues. McCormack said: "He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency. I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."

from www.democracynow.org Oct 30, 07

Its comming soon...folks...wake up!

Peter,

It's incredible that noncompliance with IAEA guidelines is being cited by the US and its proxies as the main reason for military intervention in Iran yet when the head of that organisation states publicly that there is no evidence to indicate Iran is building nukes, America and its cheer squad tell him to mind his own business!

It's all quite surreal.

Like you say, it's all coming soon. In the event of an attack on Iran, I predict the US bases in Iraq will be the first target of an Iranian counter.

When reports start to indicate that America is making extra efforts to reinforce these bases, that will be the signal that it's 'game on', imo.

[Douglas Caddy]

Report: U.S. Upgrading Diego Garcia Base For Attack on Iran

The Scottish newspaper The Herald is reporting the US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for possible strikes on Iran. The U.S. has used Diego Garcia during the first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush Requests $88 Million To Fit Bunker Busting Bombs on B-2 Bombers

In Washington the Bush administration has requested $88 million to fit bunker busting bombs to B-2 stealth bombers. Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned if the proposal is linked to an attack on Iran. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia said "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan."

U.S. & France Criticize El Baradei's Comments on Iran

This comes as the UN Nuclear watchdog Mohamaed El Baradei is being criticized by some for publicly saying there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

French defense minister Herve Morin: "Everyone has their view. Our information, and it is backed up by other countries, is contrary to IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei's comments)."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack brushed aside El Baradei's comments and urged him to not to speak about diplomatic issues. McCormack said: "He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency. I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."

from www.democracynow.org Oct 30, 07

Its comming soon...folks...wake up!

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

Attacking Iran for Israel?

By RAY McGOVERN

www.counterpunch.org

October 31, 2007

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10312007.html

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.

If this sounds familiar it is, in fact, déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, US intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq-the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes-the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence." Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" There is a simpler answer.

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."

Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 US intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years. It has become downright embarrassing-like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neo-conservatives" like James Woolsey, who in August publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt Tehran's nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb."

The day before Ambassador Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. That is why the Israeli ambassador says there is "very little time"-less than 15 months.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976. Westinghouse and General Electric successfully lobbied for approval to sell the Shah for $6.4 billion the kind of nuclear facilities that Iran is now building, but the deal fell through when the Shah was ousted in 1979.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and Israel's current leaders are pressing for the US to obliterate Iran's fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush in the past. And the real rationale is reminiscent of the one revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10 2002, Zelikow said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is-it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities. During a Jan. 20, 2005 interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush's second inauguration, Cheney put Iran "right at the top of the list of trouble spots," and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran's nuclear program. Cheney then added, with remarkable nonchalance:

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

Does this not sound like the so-called "Cheney plan" being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli attack; Iranian retaliation; the United States springing to the defense of its "ally" Israel?

A big fan of preemption, the vice president was the first U.S. official to speak approvingly of Israel's air attack on Iraq's reactor at Osirak in 1981. He included that endorsement in his important speech of Aug. 26, 2002, in which he set the terms of reference for the subsequent campaign to persuade Congress to approve war with Iraq.

Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt. Ten years after the attack on Osirak, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981."

Nothing is known of Ivri's response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of "we could not have done it without your country's help." Indeed, although the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq at the time), intelligence and operational support that the Pentagon shared with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid. With Vice President Cheney now calling the shots, similar support is a virtual certainty in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

It is no secret that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was already pressing in 2003 for an early preemptive strike, insisting that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than the time forecast by U.S. intelligence. Sharon even brought his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.

More troubling still, in the fall of 2004 Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as Chair of the younger Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.

A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized;" that he had our president "wrapped around his little finger." Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately ousted from the advisory board and is now persona non grata at the White House in which he worked for so many years.

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister at the time and took Bush on a helicopter tour of the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:

"If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he had decided to take Sharon "at face value" and unleash him.

At that point the president brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians. In Ron Suskind's Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who took part at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," the president said with a frown. He then said it was time to end America's efforts in the region: "I don't see much we can do over there at this point."

O'Neill reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of more nuanced and balanced longstanding policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." According to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled."

It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is unusual-but-sensible foot-dragging by the U.S. military. It seems likely that the senior military leadership has told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6-and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And in an online Q-and-A on Sept. 27, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest spoke of a possible "revolt" if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

"This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, has said...that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Besides, it's not the 'war' or 'bombing' part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?"

How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it. If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.

And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey, "cakewalk" Ken Adelman and other "neo-cons." The air campaign "will be easy," says McInerney, a FOX pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. "Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate," he adds, and several hundred aircraft, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."

And the likely White House rationale for war? Since, particularly with the fiasco of Iraq as backdrop, it will be a hard sell to promote the idea of an imminent threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, the White House PR machine has already begun focusing on other "evidence"- amorphous so far-indicating that Iran is supporting those who are "killing our troops in Iraq."

The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how "easily" it can all be done-Cakewalk II.

Madness.

It is not as though our country has lacked statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other countries:

"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

(George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and Robert Gates' branch chief in the early 1970s. McGovern now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com

A shorter version of this article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com.

[Mark Stapleton]

Excellent article from Ray McGovern. Thanks for posting this, Douglas.

So there we have it. From the lips of the Israeli Ambassador himself. Israel needs America to attack Iran......for Israel. As for the possibility/probability of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians being killed, America being considered as a nation of warmongering savages, skyrocketing oil prices and subsequent economic chaos etc etc.

Hey, that's not Israel's problem.

[John Simkin]

So there we have it. From the lips of the Israeli Ambassador himself. Israel needs America to attack Iran......for Israel. As for the possibility/probability of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians being killed, America being considered as a nation of warmongering savages, skyrocketing oil prices and subsequent economic chaos etc etc.

Here is a book that Craig should read.

[Craig Lamson]

So there we have it. From the lips of the Israeli Ambassador himself. Israel needs America to attack Iran......for Israel. As for the possibility/probability of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians being killed, America being considered as a nation of warmongering savages, skyrocketing oil prices and subsequent economic chaos etc etc.

Here is a book that Craig should read.

John why in the world should I care what a bunch of eurowennies think of the USA? IIRC the country of choice for the brightest of Europe is the USA. Pardon me but the rest of you can suck an egg.

[Craig Lamson]

Excellent article from Ray McGovern. Thanks for posting this, Douglas.

So there we have it. From the lips of the Israeli Ambassador himself. Israel needs America to attack Iran......for Israel. As for the possibility/probability of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians being killed, America being considered as a nation of warmongering savages, skyrocketing oil prices and subsequent economic chaos etc etc.

Hey, that's not Israel's problem.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb Iraaaaaan....

Mc Govern MIGHT want to review the record of ElBaradei,. It he does he would find that the sap has his head firmly planted where the sun don't shine...which is WHY he is worthless in his current position.

And by the way MArk, going back to our discussion, you make this amazing and stupid statement:

"...... but he has topped it with the incredibly stupid assertion that Iran could launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the US and escape retaliation. It's pointless debating a person who claims black is white."

My my, are you a shape shifter or just an argument shifter? The topic under discussion was a NUCLEAR retaliation, and yes its VERY possible for Iran to not get nuked into the stone age. Its gonna take balls of steel for someone to light the Nuclear candles and send them to Iran, both in the USA and in Israel and the international pressure NOT to use nukes is going to be intense, regardless of the damage done by Iran. I don't think any leader in todays world is going to pull that switch, well except fro the nutjobs in Iran.

Lets just file your sillyness under 'B' for boofheaded blunder.

Now will there be a CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS retaliation? Yes. But thats another subject.....

[Douglas Caddy]

Report: U.S. Upgrading Diego Garcia Base For Attack on Iran

The Scottish newspaper The Herald is reporting the US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for possible strikes on Iran. The U.S. has used Diego Garcia during the first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush Requests $88 Million To Fit Bunker Busting Bombs on B-2 Bombers

In Washington the Bush administration has requested $88 million to fit bunker busting bombs to B-2 stealth bombers. Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned if the proposal is linked to an attack on Iran. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia said "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan."

U.S. & France Criticize El Baradei's Comments on Iran

This comes as the UN Nuclear watchdog Mohamaed El Baradei is being criticized by some for publicly saying there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

French defense minister Herve Morin: "Everyone has their view. Our information, and it is backed up by other countries, is contrary to IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei's comments)."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack brushed aside El Baradei's comments and urged him to not to speak about diplomatic issues. McCormack said: "He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency. I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."

from www.democracynow.org Oct 30, 07

Its comming soon...folks...wake up!

30 Senators warn Bush that he has no authority to attack Iran

AFP"

Published: Thursday November 1,

Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric.

The senators, 29 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic Republic through diplomacy.

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," the letter signed by senators including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden said.

The letter warned that a resolution passed by the Senate in September, calling for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, should not be used as a pretext for war.

It hit out at "provocative statements and actions" by the administration on Iran, after Bush last month warned Tehran must be barred from nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of "World War III."

"These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy," the letter, coordinated by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, said.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of the administration's policies, sent his own letter this week to Bush, reportedly calling on him to open direct talks with Tehran.

His staff confirmed the letter had been sent, but declined to release a copy.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb Iraaaaaan....

Since you're so keen, I trust you'll be signing up for the Army reserves to make your contribution.

Or are you too scared?

[Craig Lamson]

Bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb Iraaaaaan....

Since you're so keen, I trust you'll be signing up for the Army reserves to make your contribution.

Or are you too scared?

I see your memory has failed you again...this has been discussed.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb Iran, bomb Iraaaaaan....

Since you're so keen, I trust you'll be signing up for the Army reserves to make your contribution.

Or are you too scared?

I see your memory has failed you again...this has been discussed.

Shame on you. I'm disappointed that you would let an injury stop you from performing your patriotic duty. They don't make armchair warriors like they used to.

OK, if you can't be in the military how about the diplomatic corps? Had any experience? Doesn't matter, I think they're going to relax that requirement. Have a look at this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11479