US could attack Iran by this spring
Guardian:
The Guardian has its on irrational war with AEI. Recently it falsely accused AEI of using money from Exxon-Mobile to undermine the "consensus" on global warming. Having been caught in a major blunder it appears that the paper is doubling up its left wing paranoia.
When the US goes after Iran it will not be limited to a strike on its nuke facilities. Iran's Ayatollah foolishly suggested that Iran would retaliate against the US anywhere in the world which makes it all the more imperative that the US destroy Iran's ability to make war anywhere.
I believe what is really happening is that the US is putting itself in a position to respond to provocations by Iran as we clean up the nest of spies it has in Iraq.
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.Plans and intent are two different things. You always have plans for adversaries like Iran and as Iran acts more irrationally those plans are updated and refined.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
...
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.
"All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation."
One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?
Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike.
"I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force."
...
The Guardian has its on irrational war with AEI. Recently it falsely accused AEI of using money from Exxon-Mobile to undermine the "consensus" on global warming. Having been caught in a major blunder it appears that the paper is doubling up its left wing paranoia.
When the US goes after Iran it will not be limited to a strike on its nuke facilities. Iran's Ayatollah foolishly suggested that Iran would retaliate against the US anywhere in the world which makes it all the more imperative that the US destroy Iran's ability to make war anywhere.
I believe what is really happening is that the US is putting itself in a position to respond to provocations by Iran as we clean up the nest of spies it has in Iraq.
The commentary at the end of the post seems contradictory, is the US planning to "destroy Iran's ability to make war anywhere" or merely "respond to provocations by Iran"
ReplyDeleteThe provocations already exist. The US has witheld evidence of them that is said would be released. Is this because they are saving the political ammunition to justify the an attack when one is carried out?
It is very unusual for Bush administration officials to deny that military force is an option. They usually say someting like "all options are on the table".
If they wanted only to exert pressure denying the use of military force would be the exact opposite of what they wanted, it would reduce pressure not exert pressure.
Are the denials an attempt to achieve surprise or an attempt to exert pressure my making it seem like they are trying to achieve surprise?