Bush’s Gulf War IV strategy!!!

[sonz]

What was presented as Bush's new Iraq strategy will become Bush's Gulf War IV strategy.

The first batch of American forces, around 3,500 to 4,000 troops, arrived in Iraq earlier this week, part of a new Iraq strategy the American President George W. Bush announced in a televised speech on January 10.
The new strategy Bush talked about in his latest public address carries no news for Iraq and it is not aimed at correcting the mistakes he had made there, the so-called new strategy is not intended for Iraq, it is actually a new strategy for Iran, as stated an editorial on Qatar’s Al Watan newspaper.

Despite many attempts by officials at the Bush administration to downplay the significance of the American President’s speech, many analysts and political experts, explained that the message was clear and carried a hidden threat to Iran and Syria.

The American President served a stern warning to Tehran and Damascus, accusing them of aiding Sunni anti-occupation resistance in Iraq and not preventing the infiltration of fighters into Iraq through their borders with the country. Now the U.S. military will destroy this evil network, says Bush, adding that America will not wait till Iran acquires nuclear arms or take control of the Gulf region.

On December 23 2006, the UN Security Council responded to Bush’s pressures to act against Iran by unanimously approving a new resolution limiting Tehran’s ability to obtain materials that could aid its nuclear and missile programs.

So far, Tehran has demonstrated determination not to bow to Western pressures or threats, even the threat of further UN Security Council sanctions.

Both the Council and the Iranian President have hardened their resolve and the Islamic Republic is now viewed by Washington and Israel as a near-term nuclear threat.

Those who maintain that the U.S. won’t consider launching another war in the region, this time against Iran, because if it did, its 130,000 troops deployed in Iraq would become hostages overnight, are simply fooling themselves. The war is coming.

Those denying the likelihood of military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities must not have read numerous media reports, including a recent one in The Sunday Times, stating that the Israelis are mulling an air-strikes against Iran using bunker busters to bomb enrichment facilities in Natanz, Asfahan and Arak.

Those denying likelihood of a joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran have failed to read between the lines of recent deployment of the USS John C. Stennis to the Middle East that will put two U.S. aircraft carriers in the volatile Gulf region for the first time since Iraq war broke out in March 2003.

U.S. military officials themselves admitted that a second carrier group is meant as a plain warning to Iran.

"This demonstrates our resolve to do what we can to bring security and stability to the region," Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain has been recently quoted as saying.

Indeed Bush’s new strategy is a strategy that reads much like a tragedy.

[Keltoi]

Pretty dramatic article, but based on nothing of course. The only Iranian agents that need worry about U.S. military threats are those operating inside Iraq and funneling IED explosives and arms across the border. The Iranian embassy in Iraq was raided by U.S. forces at about the same time as Bush's speech, so it was a warning to Iran, but not of an impending attack. If Iran keeps its nose clean in relation to Iraq, there is no need to worry about the 130,000 troops next door.

[Trumble]

It really shouldn't be necessary to ask a moderator to indicate his source.

Those denying the likelihood of military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities must not have read numerous media reports, including a recent one in The Sunday Times, stating that the Israelis are mulling an air-strikes against Iran using bunker busters to bomb enrichment facilities in Natanz, Asfahan and Arak.

It's rather more likely that they have read them and are perhaps skeptical of the Sunday Times' capability (telepathy?) to ascertain what the senior Israeli military may, or may not, be 'mulling'. Not to mention that there are obvious reasons why both sides might want to plant that story, even if totally untrue. BTW, can anyone link to one of these "numerous media reports" that isn't either the Sunday Times one, or based directly on it?