Brace yourself for the Iran War

[sspadowsky]

Excerpted from today's Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/)

Iran Watch

In an interview with NBC's David Gregory, Bush refused to rule out the potential for military action against Iran.

This comes in the wake of a Seymour Hersh story in the New Yorker in which Hersh says his sources tell him that Bush's next strategic target is Iran.

"The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control -- against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism -- during his second term," Hersh writes.

Also from the NBC interview:

"Gregory: It's clear, sir, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you think that the word of the United States is still good enough around the world for you or future presidents to ever again launch a preventative or pre-emptive military strike?

"Bush: Well, you might remember that the intelligence that we used was close to the intelligence that the U.N. had about Saddam Hussein and that many countries had about Saddam Hussein. But we did find out that he had the intent and the capability of making weapons, which in my judgment still made him a dangerous man, and the world understood how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

"Gregory: Could you ever do it again, though?

"Bush: Well, hopefully we don't have to, but if we had to, to protect America, if, you know, if all else failed and we needed to use force to protect the citizens of the United States, I would do so."

But aren't American troops already overextended? Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times column: "The strains on the volunteer military from the war in Iraq are now unsettling as many Republicans as Democrats -- and exposing an enduring contradiction in President Bush's agenda."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From the same article, here's another example of the "fuck you" arrogance that's typical of this dickhead:

"The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

"THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the fuck else does this guy have to do before the public realizes he's going to bankrupt and destroy the fucking country?

[mburbank]

I had a 'countdown to war in Iran' thread going, but I think this will supercede it.

I don't think it matters wether we can establish credability for a strike on Iran. It only matters if the President doesn't exist in a bubble and he does. He doesn't read the papers, he has no idea our position in Iraq is unsustainable, let alone adding a venture into Iran, and stolen or real, he believes his re-election is a mandate to go with his gut.

It seems very likely we intend to strike Iran pretty soon. Expect trumped up press releases about how they tried to influence the upcoming election and a Condi Rice picture show on their Nuke weapons facilities in early spring. The fact that the last sattelite photos we showed the UN showed... nothing won't matter. The only question is, will Iran retalliate?

[Immortal Goat]

The only question is, will Iran retalliate?
I would say that the question isn't "Will they?', but rather "When, and how hard?". It isn't tough to see the troops just getting out of there after we gave up the search in Iraq simply walking a few miles (walking because their vehicles have been shot to shit) and doing the same shit in a different country. Iranians will hit just as hard as Iraq did, and the troops will be lost. Because THAT is the moral fiber that Bush presents every day. Screw the living, protect the unborn, and persecute the gays, brown people, and non-christians.

[Dole]

SURELY public opinion against such a move would be a hell of a lot more vocal this time around?? I think there would be absolute fecking bedlam over here if Blair backed Bush on attacking Iran - I think even his own party would rebel against him, it would finish him as a politician.
Wouldn't something similar happen in the US?? If there is still chaos and American troops dying in Iraq, surely even a fervent patriot wouldn't advocate another unprovoked attack against another nation?

[Immortal Goat]

Ah, but Dole, you forget the fact that as long as Bush says "I LOVE JESUS" loud enough, there is no way this country would do anything to hurt him. It's how he won re-election (if, in fact, it was fairly won) and people love him for it. Rednecks and Hillbills don't care about how bad things are over there, it isn't happening to them, unlike the "gay threat", which, to them, is a bigger problem than all the terrorists in the world.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, Bush has to protect the unborn. Who else is going to pay for all these wars?

[Perndog]

Israel is going to get a covert nod from the US to start bombing, then the US is going to join battle under the pretense of obligation to assist Israel.

[mburbank]

I would say that's wrong. It is not in the US interest to have to defend Israel. Of course, it's not really in our interest to be preparing to bomb Iran, either. I take it back. There is no telling what this administration would do, because they're all as crazy as shithouse rats.

[Perndog]

It is in the US interest to bomb, then invade Iran and subsequently the entire Middle East. The US is interested in global control, and this is arguably the least controlled region of the world. Well, there's China and Russia, but I expect the people in charge over here will be in a hurry to make nice with them when the time comes.

[Jeanette X]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_internets.jpg

[mburbank]

I'd say the fact that we can't get control of Iraq would stop us from invading Iran, but that would MAKE SENSE!

Dole, the problem with what your thinking is A.) Bush doesn't need to get elected again, so what happens to his approval doesn't make much difference to him. B.) He's so insulated he doesn't have any idea that if we attacked Iraq his approval would plummet and C.) Failure does not make Neocons change their plans. The plan was a series of 'regime changes', The fact that the one we tried has turned into a disaster doesn't change the plan. If it did, Rummy would be out of a job and Condi wouldn't be taking Powells place. The plan is the plan. Period. That's why I think we're going to do Iran, and their Nuclear ambitions just make it a little easier.

[kellychaos]

Just a thought about a growing trend. Anytime we get involved with a muslim country, we get burnt by Al Qaeda and then Al Qaeda flourishes in THAT country. It's like the current administration is trying to provoke this kind of confrontation ... a confrontation that our army is ill-equipped to handle at this time (re: armor issue). We opened a hornet's nest in Iraq. It's ironic that the fear of Al Qaeda's connection with Iraq is exactly what we formed by invading it. This Al Qaeda connection began in Afghanistan ... and then Saudi Arabia ... then Somalia ... then Iraq ... and next Iran? Think back friends, it's true. We need to stay out of their bidness. It's not like I'm trying to be a ultra-liberal, hippy pussy about this ... it's just that I don't see the point.

[Sethomas]

I've had two very educated Republicans explain the Iraq war as the first step to turning the entire Mideast into Jesusapalutia. The more they went into details the more asinine it seemed, but hey, at least they seem to realize the damage they are and will be causing. They just don't give a fuck, which is the terrifying thing.

[Dole]

Dole, the problem with what your thinking is A.) Bush doesn't need to get elected again, so what happens to his approval doesn't make much difference to him. B.) He's so insulated he doesn't have any idea that if we attacked Iraq his approval would plummet and C.) Failure does not make Neocons change their plans. The plan was a series of 'regime changes', The fact that the one we tried has turned into a disaster doesn't change the plan. If it did, Rummy would be out of a job and Condi wouldn't be taking Powells place. The plan is the plan. Period. That's why I think we're going to do Iran, and their Nuclear ambitions just make it a little easier.

That makes sense Max (and thanks for making everything seem far worse than I envisioned!), but don't you think civil unrest would be a hell of a lot worse this time around in the states?? Or am I putting too much faith in the American public? It definitely would be in the UK, there would be fucking mayhem - there were the biggest civil protests in this country's history last time...it can only get bigger.

[Sojourn]

I think for the civil unrest to occur, there has to be a more distinct demarcation line between the approval and the non approval sections. Currently, the Iran issue stands at a 44% non approval rating. Bush only carries a 52% rating at this time. Clearly this isn't a landslide issue here but the grumbling is heard across the nation. There are always going to be more "colorful" protestations in any crowd in the US but I doubt it would escalate to mob quality.

[mburbank]

Are you talking riots? 'Cause we don't do that so much. But W did say that paying attention to a massive anti war protest would be like making policy based on a 'focus group'. That's kind of sweet, isn't it?

Chenney was on Imus this morning kind of test ballooning the idea of us needing to topple Iraq.

[kellychaos]

Aren't they toppled already? Apparently, the "cc: " memo list needs to be updated.

[Immortal Goat]

Mission Accomplished :(

[mburbank]

Sorry, I meant 'Iran'. Chenney was trash talking about Iran on Imus and the need for 'regime change' there.

It is totally on the table right now, and the only thing that might keep it from happening would be a near unanymous, very vocal "No way" from the public. This seems to be the only thing that ever changes W's mind. It's what made him accept 9/11 panel, it's what made him aloow Rice to testify. The only time he ever changes course is when it's clear no one outside the west wing supports it.

[Dole]

If he doesnt get a big 'no way' from the public whilst Iraq is still in such utter chaos, then my last vestigial traces of hope for humanity will be completely down the toilet.

[mburbank]

I agree with you, and frankly I think he's overreaching. But he's so insultd he doesn't know it.

I think he's going to run into brick walls on Iran and on Social Security privitization. He's still on a huge power trip, but what he doesn't realize is, all the Republicans in congress he's going to need in his camp don't have term limmits. He does. No matter what else happens (barring a constitutional amendment or Martial law) W has four years left and that's it.

I predict MASSIVE fraying of Repubican Party loyalty starting... well, lets see, Newt Ginrich releaeds a book critical of W, W has to use every ounce of political power he has to get the intelligence bill through congress... I guess it's lready begun.

The battle for the next big Republican strong man has already begun. My guess is no one has the balls to tell the President. I'd put money on Karl Rove already devoting less attention to W and a lot more to figure out who's the next figurehead on the Bow.

[Perndog]

Like you said, a near-unanimous public outcry would be necessary to prevent the upcoming war.

It ain't happening. 50 per cent, sure. 60, maybe. 70, I doubt it and near unanimous, not a chance. Time to stop worrying about if and how all the political machinations are going to work out and decide what you're going to do when the next war starts.

[Brandon]

As much as I think the Bushies would like -- in an ideal scenario -- to invade Iran, I don't see it happening. Based on what I've read, even the hawks seem to have reached a consensus that open war at this point would be extremely messy, if not outright disastrous.

[mburbank]

I just read Hersch's piece in the New Yorker and I highly recomend it anyone. I'm now pretty convinced that, absurd as it sounds, the administration intends to make war on Iraq. There's a lot more to the article than merely the statement that we have covert opps teams in Iran scouting target sites. The main point of the article is how covert operations has been removed from the CIA and transferred to the Penatgon, and it's now overseen by Rumsfled. By moving these operations to the Pentagon, they avoid any congressional oversight. It is no longer neccesary to tell anyone outside the west wing or the forth deck of the pentagon (except the operatives themselves) what these teams are doing.

Are you getting this? The CIA wasn't spooky, dangerous and secretive enough for W and company.

[Ant10708]

You have such a bad tendency to say Iraq instead of Iran. You sound like Cheney when he tries to talk about bin laden and Afghanstan and says Saddam and Iraq.

[Ant10708]

oh yeah can we get the article online?

[Sergeant_Tibbs]

Try this; http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[davinxtk]

My best friend is a 13Bravo in the Massachusetts National Guard.
For those who don't know, they play with cannons.

He was told that his unit might be activated and attached to part of the Utah National Guard that needs 13Bravos for an upcoming assignment in the middle east.


He kept saying "I think I'm going to Iraq."
I told him he's not.


He's going to Iran. :\
(He'll find this out officially in the beginning of February.)

[sspadowsky]

Even though I know that Iran is next, it's something I don't fully understand: Why? I know why Bush says they're a threat, but I want to know the real deal- what do we stand to gain, and why does that jackass think it's worth the gamble?

[davinxtk]

1. Oil
2. 'Nuclear Threat'
3. Oil
4. Oil
5. Another middle-eastern country with American influence.
6. Oil

[Sieko]

1. Oil
2. 'Nuclear Threat'
3. Oil
4. Oil
5. Another middle-eastern country with American influence.
6. Oil

Winner.

That would be the only reason.

Or that bush is just an ass and likes to kill brown people?

[Emu]

Because God TOLD him to, that's why. What kind of American are you?

[Sieko]

A canadian thanks.

AMERICA SUCKS!

[Ant10708]

Canada is in America.

[sspadowsky]

Even Britain is not hip to military action in Iran. If Bush goes for this one, he's going it alone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1452781,00.html

The Sunday Times - World

January 23, 2005

Straw snubs US hawks on Iran
JACK STRAW has drawn up a dossier putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush’s administration may seek Britain’s backing for a new conflict.

Straw and his officials fear that hawks in Washington will talk the American president into a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, just as they persuaded him to go to war in Iraq.

The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington.

He will press home the point at a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the incoming secretary of state, at a meeting in Washington tomorrow.

The document says a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany is “in the best interests of Iran and the international community”. It refers to “safeguarding Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology”.

The dossier, entitled Iran’s Nuclear Programme, was quietly issued in the Commons on the eve of Bush’s inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington — although privately tensions are running high between the two nations.

The approach contrasts with the government’s two Iraq dossiers, which were trumpeted to make the case for war.

US agents have tried to locate suspected nuclear sites in Iran, according to a report last week by Seymour Hersh, the investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal.

British officials are increasingly concerned that months of patient European-led diplomacy may explode in a torrent of bunker-busting attacks by US stealth bombers. There is also concern in London that the Pentagon may be ordered to act on the basis of its flawed intelligence, while British agents on the ground believe Iran is complying with nuclear inspectors.

Fears in London of an attack were fuelled when Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, said that Iran was “top of the list” as a trouble spot for the administration. Rice said it was an “outpost of tyranny”.

The message that the British government wants no part in another war in the Middle East will be reinforced by Tony Blair when he meets Bush in Brussels next month and at an Anglo-American summit in Washington after the British general election, which is expected in May.

The foreign secretary’s dossier sets out in detail the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since Iran signed up to an agreement 15 months ago.

Despite his confidence in the negotiations, which have been frustrated by setbacks, IAEA minutes published in his dossier show that the agency believes that all declared nuclear material has been accounted for.

However, minutes of a key meeting last November show that “the agency is not yet in a position to conclude there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran”.

The minutes go on: “In view of the past undeclared nature of significant aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, and its past pattern of concealment, however, this conclusion can be expected to take longer than in normal circumstances.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we look at the possibility of another invasion, and, without Britain, I don't think we'll have much of a 'coalition.'

[Sieko]

Canada is in America.

Canada is part of NORTH america, which i think is an insult :explode

[pjalne]

The US is also a part of North America, you know.

[sspadowsky]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=62282005

British commanders fear reaction to American aggression

TIM RIPLEY

REPORTS of an increasingly hard-line US policy towards Iran are starting to worry British generals and diplomats, who fear the 9,650-strong UK garrison in southern Iraq would be targeted by Tehran in retaliation to any strike by the Bush administration.

The allegations of US covert operations inside Iran have added to the worries in Whitehall that the stand-off with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions could be moving into a more dangerous phase.

Last summer’s capture of eight Royal Marines by Iranian Revolutionary Guards off southern Iraq has convinced many senior British officers and diplomats that any increase in tension with Iran would result in ‘blow back’ against British forces in Iraq. The marines were eventually released unharmed but it later emerged that Iranian gunboats entered Iraqi territorial waters to abduct the marines’ patrol boats.

Revolutionary Guard naval forces conducted the operation, apparently on the orders of hard-line Mullahs, causing tension within the Tehran government which had been trying to cultivate the Europeans as a counter-weight to the Americans. "We now think the Iranians were sending us a signal," said one British officer. "They were saying, if you get too close to the Americans we can make life very difficult for you and you will pay a price."

Foreign Office sources are particularly worried that the departure of Colin Powell from the Bush administration has left the neo-conservatives in control of US foreign policy in Washington. British intelligence sources are becoming worried that the Iranians will employ a strategy to strike back at US interests and its allies across the Middle East.

Here, the role of the large Shia population in southern Iraq will be crucial and this could make life very uncomfortable for the British garrison in the Basra region.

Until now the Shia of southern Iraq have generally been co-operative with British forces, but the fear is that Tehran could activate "sleeper" cells to launch an all- out guerrilla war.

There were credible reports that last summer Tehran concentrated troops along the border with Iraq in response to US sabre-rattling over the nuclear issue, raising the possibility that Iran might try to seize Iraqi territory.

[Sieko]

The US is also a part of North America, you know.

Whish is why i find it insulting, Quick are we?

[pjalne]

Hey, I was just wondering why you were protesting when Ant said Canada is in America.

[Immortal Goat]

Canadians hate to be called American because they are better than us in every way. :(

[Stak]

Indeed

I mean, come on, they have maple syrup, hockey, and Dan Aykroyd, what else could you want?

[ArrowX]

The entire Idead for Bush going after oil seemed a joke to me at first but now I'm really seeing it as true. Think about it, Iraq, next Iran why not go after korea the country with an active nuclear development plan? Answer: Theres no oil in Korea

[mburbank]

I don't think it's all about oil for a lot of the Neocons, although it's critical.

It goes like this.

A.) Our friends are all as rich as hell from the oil bidness.
Therefore
B.) America is never getting off the oil tit if we can help it.
C.) Democracies are a good place to do bidness. Even better than friendly dictatorships (see saudi arabia) on account of they can go south very suddenly (see Iran) and even the ugly fanatical people you prop up can chage sides (see afghanistan)
D.) Democracy is the bestest most natural form of government, especially if a totally unregulated free market (see haliburton) can run it. All people want this form of democrcay and if they're current governments are toppled it will happen because that's the way things naturally go, especially if our military and opur bidness is there to make it happen.
E.) This process is infallible.
So
F.) The Iraq fuck up is just a temporary aboration, not really that bad, going to be fine as soon as they have elections and certainly not the fault of the above process, because as we said, it's infallible.
So
G.) On to Iran and then Syria.

Now it's also true that Iran may well be working really hard on a nuclear weapons program. If I was Iran, I'd sure as hell be working on it, because we'd be coming even if they didn't. It's part of the plan, and just about the only thing Iran can do to stop it is get some Nuckear weapons. Ironic, huh?

[Immortal Goat]

The Iraq fuck up is just a temporary aboration
For a second, I thought you said "abortion" :(

[kellychaos]

Word on the street is that this is all a front and that we're going to sell chemical weapons to technology to Iran in order to subdue our mortal enemies, the insurgents, in Iraq. Brilliant! Stay tuned! This may take 15+ years to be effective.

[FurankuS]

From my intelligence, it would seem that as long as Bush keeps one soldier in each territory, he can still gather resources from it. I just hope that Iran doesn't roll too many 6s!

EDIT: D'oh! I forgot the most important part! Since Bush already has an infantry card, cavalry card, artillery card, AND wild card, if he can take Iran then he's guaranteed extra troops. He just has to watch out for that blasted Kamchatka...

Russian bastards.

[Gommi]

Bush being the cororate tool that he is wants nothing more then to gain a tighter hold on the world. Spread capitalism and shit. His lies of freedom and liberty of the middle Eastern citizens are sickening, and the media does his bidding. Now he's targeting Iran. Well this is imperialism alright. If he truly wanted peace, then diplomacy is the only way to go (but that isn't the American way)

[Helm]

Furankus, I bet your secret mission is to make everybody laugh

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Bush being the cororate tool that he is wants nothing more then to gain a tighter hold on the world. Spread capitalism and shit. His lies of freedom and liberty of the middle Eastern citizens are sickening, and the media does his bidding. Now he's targeting Iran. Well this is imperialism alright. If he truly wanted peace, then diplomacy is the only way to go (but that isn't the American way)

Alright, whose fucking character is this?

[GAsux]

I suppose Rice's speech today pretty much sets the bar. Neato.

[sspadowsky]

True dat. Why didn't she just say, "We'll make the obligatory token gesture to the UN, as if we give a fuck what they say, and then we start flash-fryin' the towel-heads."

I mean, really, at this point, why not just come out and say it?

[ziggytrix]

Cuz for the most part, Americans have the benefit of doublethinking that we are totally in the right, and anyone who disagrees is with the terrorists anyway.

[Ant10708]

Or the commies!

[thebiggameover]

I suppose Rice's speech today pretty much sets the bar. Neato.

link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Freedom is on the march.

[Immortal Goat]

no timetable had been set

What is so fucking hard about picking a date and sticking with it? It seems that every time something that SHOULD have a deadline doesn't.

When is the Iraq war going to end? No timetable?
When are we going to start paying more attention to where Bin Laden is? No timetable?
When will we bring about the events of the Book of Revelations through the use of nuclear weaponry? Within the next four years.

[The Whackmiester]

After Iran, who's next?

[Mr. Oysterhead]

You lucky bastards across the ocean in not-brown lands.

[Supercooldude]

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a muslim extremist country which deserves to be bombed because they harbor terrorists, fund terrorist groups, and are trying to obtain nuclear capability. GO BUSH! GO USA!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

:lol2

[The Whackmiester]

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a muslim extremist country which deserves to be bombed because they harbor terrorists, fund terrorist groups, and are trying to obtain nuclear capability. GO BUSH! GO USA!

Attacking now would be a mistake: most of America's troops are in Iraq, and Iran seems pretty hard to reach, what with the barbaric insurgency blowing everything to crap and what not.

[Ant10708]

Attacking now would be a mistake but not because we have troops stationed all around the country. If anything thats an advantage.

[Dole]

who the FUCK is the 'whackmiester'? -in fact, don't answer that just KILL IT NOW

and drown 'supercooldude' while you're at it.

[FurankuS]

Well, Iran IS a threat...

With the recent elections in Iraq the possibility of the country splitting is pretty high (especially since it looks like the Sunni Muslims aren't going to pull through). If Iraq split:

The Shiites would most likely merge/ be conquered by Iran (the badness of this should be obvious)

The Kurds would start raising hell in northern ex-Iraq/ eastern Turkey to establish a Kurdish state

The Sunnis would...uh...I don't know what they'd probably do.

So if civil war breaks out in Iraq, Iran becomes VERY important.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

With the recent elections in Iraq the possibility of the country splitting is pretty high (especially since it looks like the Sunni Muslims aren't going to pull through). If Iraq split:

The Shiites would most likely merge/ be conquered by Iran (the badness of this should be obvious)

I think it's pretty unlikely that the Iraqi Shiites would simply hand themselves over to Iran. I don't think the high number of Shiites who voted last month simply did that with a hope of getting annexed by Iran.

As for Iran "conquering" the Shiite sections of Iraq, I think that's out of the question.

The Kurds have already essentially voted for a regional governing body for themselves. I think they would like their own nation, but I think they also realize that working with the Shiite electorate to establish a democratic Iraq is a very good first step. I don't think the Kurds will feel compelled to squabble with Turkey over land if they feel that the nation of Iraq could serve as their potential homeland.

So if civil war breaks out in Iraq, Iran becomes VERY important.

I don't really see that as a key reason to worry about Iran. I'd say their undemocratic practices, their nuclear capacity, as well as their history of state-sponsored terrorism should be cause for more alarm than whether or not Iran has a key role in the hypothetical impending civil war in Iraq.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050218-111237-6122r

Iran readies for feared attack by U.S.

By Borzou Daragahi
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 19, 2005

Iran has begun preparing for a possible U.S. attack, announcing efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of "asymmetrical" warfare used against American troops in neighboring Iraq.
"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," an Iranian official close to the hard-line camp, which runs the country's security and military apparatus, said on the condition of anonymity.
Tensions between Tehran and Washington have increased over Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.
Tehran insists its desire for atomic energy is entirely peaceful while Washington accuses the Muslim state of using nuclear energy as a fig leaf to make weapons.
President Bush said in an interview with Belgian television yesterday that he strongly prefers a diplomatic effort over military action to deal with Iran.
"You never want a president to say never," Mr. Bush said, "but military action is ... never the president's first choice. Diplomacy is always the president's first choice, at least my first choice."
The president issued his strongest warning to Iran during last month's State of the Union speech, telling Tehran that it "must give up" its nuclear program and support for terrorism, and pledging U.S. support for Iranians who openly oppose Iran's unelected regime.
In recent days, Iranian newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7-million-strong "Basiji" militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras. Iranian generals have conducted massive war games near the Iraqi border.
One Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war.
"Over the last year they've developed their tactics of asymmetrical war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said on the condition of anonymity.
It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to an actual mobilization and how much is a propaganda ploy.
Iranian officials and analysts have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering such a move and to frighten a war-weary American public.
"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at New York's Columbia University.
"If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America is important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if America knows it will pay a heavy price."
Bush administration officials have said there are no immediate plans to attack Iran and the possibility is considered remote because deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere limit U.S. capacity for a major new offensive.
Iran, in addition to developing plans for guerrilla warfare against an invading army, also is attempting to give the impression that it is bolstering its conventional forces.
In December, Iran announced its largest war games "ever," deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles along its western border.
More recently, Iran's press reported that the Iranian air force had received orders to engage any plane that violates Iranian airspace. These reports followed the disclosure that unmanned American drone planes have been monitoring Iranian nuclear sites.
"It is obvious that with Iran surrounded by the United States forces and America pressing the nuclear issue, Iran wants to make a show of force," said a Western diplomat from Tehran, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts.
Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men.
The armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers of the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles based on North Korean designs that have ranges of up to 1,500 miles.
But both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech weaponry of the United States.
"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate and much of it is worn," military expert Anthony Cordesman wrote in a December 2004 assessment of Iran's military. He said Iran lost between 50 percent and 60 percent of its military equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, "and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them."
Iran's highly classified Quds forces, which have a global network of operatives and answer directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could create a myriad of woes outside Iran's borders.
In neighboring Iraq, where the United States says Tehran already has been interfering, many brush off the current low-level infiltration as minor compared with the damage Tehran is capable of unleashing.
"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said in a recent interview.
• David R. Sands contributed to this article.

[ItalianStereotype]

http://207.44.245.159/article8130.htm

Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran

By Mark Jensen

02/19/05 --United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) - - Scott Ritter,
appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped
two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's
Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that
George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and
claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in
Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful
whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more
portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect
the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in
Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his
listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on
Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president
has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S.
officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed
off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its
purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop
nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also
expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to
regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter
regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush
has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the
advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S.
authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the
percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to
48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official
involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be
reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan
magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming
Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative
journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic
target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been
conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last
summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the
leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and
consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and
missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the
U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the
military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of
Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become
clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and
that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in
Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like
Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be
remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater
conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to
discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail
narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a
hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them
showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the
war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth
about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq
and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial
following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound
Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100
Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for
Peace of Pierce County.

Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County.
http://www.ufppc.org/


I tend to think that Ritter is a douche, but there's always the what if. I'm torn on war with Iran; on one hand, it'll put the Chinese in check and destroy a major bastion of international terrorism, but our resources are also stretched enough as it is.

[Sergeant_Tibbs]

So is this Bush just trying to get european support before blowing the shit out of Iran?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1423628,00.html

The US president, George Bush, said today that world leaders should speak with one voice on Iran as the second leg of his European tour took him to Germany and a meeting with Gerhard Schröder.
Alongside Syria, Iran has been the focus of Mr Bush's foreign policy pronouncements during his meetings with European leaders on what has been billed as a fence-mending trip to heal the divisions caused by the Iraq war.

He said the international community needed to present a united front if it was to prevent Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons, which Washington suspects is the purpose of its civilian nuclear programme.

"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they should not have a nuclear weapon," Mr Bush said at a press conference with Mr Schröder. "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon, for the sake of security and peace."

Germany, Britain and France are involved in negotiations to persuade Iran to switch to a form of reactor technology that cannot be used to make warheads in return for other incentives, but Washington does not support proposals such as offering Tehran membership of the World Trade Organisation.

Mr Bush said the Iranians had been caught enriching uranium in violation of their international agreements.

"They have breached a contract with the international community. They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us."

Mr Schröder sought to downplay differences with the US.

"We absolutely agree that Iran must say no to any kind of nuclear weapons," he told reporters. "Iran must not have any nuclear weapons. They must waive any right to the production thereof."

Iran, global warming and the EU's plan to lift its arms embargo on China are the principal points of disagreement between Washington and Europe.

On Syria, over which the US has cooperated with France on a UN resolution calling on it to pull its troops out of Lebanon, Mr Bush reiterated the demand and added that Damascus must also withdraw its "secret services" from its southern neighbour.

Since the assasination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hiriri last week, which opposition politicians in Beirut blame on Syria, international pressure has mounted for it to end its involvement in Lebanon.

The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, today dispatched his intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, a veteran of negotiations between Israel and Palestinian factions, to defuse the tension in Damascus.

Syria opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq and is accused of harbouring senior former Iraqi regime officials and allowing Islamic militants to slip into Iraq to fight US forces.

Mr Bush thanked Germany for its "vital" contribution in Iraq. Germany refused to deploy troops but is training Iraqi security officers in the United Arab Emirates and has forgiven billions of Iraqi debt.

"I fully understand the limit of German contributions," Mr Bush told the press conference.

The next and final stage of Mr Bush's visit takes him to the Slovakian capital of Bratislava for talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I tend to think that Ritter is a douche, but there's always the what if. I'm torn on war with Iran; on one hand, it'll put the Chinese in check and destroy a major bastion of international terrorism, but our resources are also stretched enough as it is.

I tend to take Scott Ritter at his word, especially considering our inability to find the "stockpiles" of WMDs that Ritter said all along weren't in Iraq.

However, with that said, I have my doubts about this one. The guy hasn't been in that line of work for like seven years now, and while I trust him on Iraq based off his experience there, I don't know how reliable he is on Iran.

As for war with Iran-- Well, this is sort of why I think I disliked the justification for war in Iraq. At least one of the reasons. Iran has a very clear record of state sponsored terrorism, and particularly the scary Islamic fundamentalist kind that hit us on 9/11. I also think there's much more of a statement to make by working with the French to get Syria out of Lebanon, one of the few Middle Eastern countries who can even brag about having some semblance of democracy.

I dunno, from what I've heard, Iran is just full of red-staters waiting to be liberated and buy stuff at GAP and McDonalds (do they have those there already?). But we've heard that before. :)

[ziggytrix]

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22/bush.iran.ap/