The Bush admin paved the way for the conflict? It wasn't Irans defying the council. Hmmm...
By: Nasir Khan
Source: http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=551632
Is the United States going to attack Iran? This question is being asked around the world. The big American military build-up in the Persian Gulf has been going on for some time, and there is every reason to believe that Washington is setting stage for a major offensive against Iran.
In fact, the Bush administration has followed a carefully orchestrated strategy with a view to pave the way for a major conflict with Iran. The clearest signal comes from US Vice President Dick Cheney’s latest comments on February 23. At a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Cheney said that ‘all options’ are on the table if Iran continues to defy UN- led efforts to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear programmes. The news conference was held amidst tight security because thousands of protesters were voicing their anger at his visit. They called the main architect of invasion and occupation of Iraq a ‘war criminal’ and they called for the withdrawal of Australian soldiers from Iraq.
Cheney said that the United States remained ‘deeply concerned’ about Iran’s activities, including the ‘aggressive’ sponsoring of Hezbollah and ‘inflammatory statements’ by President Ahmadinejad: ‘We worked with European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and to resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference.’
‘But I have also made the point, and the president has also made the point, that all options are on the table,’ said Cheney.
Even though Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly for peaceful purpose, to generate energy, the United States and some of its allies suspect this could lead to Iran producing nuclear weapons that could challenge the nuclear power and political hegemony of the US and Israel in the Middle East.
Only the United States of America and Israel have some kind of ‘God-given’ right to have nuclear and other destructive weapons of mass destruction and to use them whenever they decide to do so.
The whole world knows that the US occupation forces used internationally banned weapons during their deadly assault on Fallujah. They also used prohibited substances including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals in their attacks. Fallujah residents reported that they saw ‘melted’ bodies in the city, which suggests that US military used napalm gas that makes the human body melt. Last summer, Israeli army littered the whole of south Lebanon with cluster bombs provided by the United States.
Let us recall the similar scenarios in 2002 and early 2003 when Iraq was accused by the United States of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the Bush administration knew that no such weapons existed in Iraq. But the pretext was used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. It was in furtherance of the grand strategy to bring the Middle East under America’s political hegemony and to control its oil resources. Now the US administration is using the same methods in the case of Iran.
The BBC recently revealed some clear indications of the US-planned attack on Iran. According to the BBC, the US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure. Any such attack would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
Iran is within an hour’s flying time from some American bases or aircraft carriers. In case of war, the US, most probably America and Israel together, will have no difficulty in destroying Iranian army, its military bases and the economic infrastructure of Iran.
* Military plans:
Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigating journalist, reported that American Special Operation Forces were already operating inside Iran in preparation for a possible air ground attack (New Yorker, 24 January 2005). He also later reported that current and former officials told him that one of the options being considered by the Bush administration called ‘for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as B61-11, against underground nuclear sites’. (New Yorker, 17 April 2005).
Hersh pointed out last year how the Bush administration had increased the secret activities inside Iran with a view to pave the way for a major air attack. He writes: ‘Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.’ (New Yorker, 17 April 2006).
The United States has been deeply involved in the affairs and politics of Iran since the Second World War. The Shah of Iran who had inherited throne from his father in 1941 was forced into exile in 1951 by the popular government headed by the Iranian leader Dr Mohammad Mossadegh. He nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. US intervened in 1953 and installed the Shah to power again. He established a dictatorship. In 1957 Washington helped the Shah create SAVAK, the notorious secret police, which silenced all those who criticised the policies of the Shah.
The brutal regime of the Shah came to an end in 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic. America cut off all diplomatic relations and imposed tight economic sanctions against Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Washington provided seed stock for biological weapons, weapons and financial backing to Iraq.
Iran continues to be a major concern to the US for a number of reasons. Iran, like Iraq, is a big country. It has oil wealth, water resources and a large population. After having occupied Iraq and its oils resources under control, in Washington’s calculation, Iran is the only country in the region that can challenge its domination of the Middle East. As the US controls the political developments throughout the Middle East, the only major country that has not capitulated to Washington is Iran. The stage is set for a new war of aggression and the Bush administration has been busy preparing for a massive attack on Iran.
Bush in his January 10, 2007 speech not only announced sending further US troops to Iraq; he also signalled his determination to reshape the entire Middle East under the domination of the United States.
‘Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of the extremist challenge,’ Bush declared. ‘This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.’ What he meant by ‘defending Iraq’s integrity’ and ‘stabilising the region’ was to safeguard the military occupation of Iraq without any complaint from any quarter and extending the US domination over Iran and Syria, who have not been brought to their knees yet. In his speech, Bush also declared: ‘We are taking steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.’
In fact, a huge military build-up in the Persian Gulf had been gaining momentum. The World Net Daily’s staff writer Dr Jerome Corsi has pointed out that by the end of February, an American armada of 50 warships will be stationed in the area. The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) aircraft carrier battle group has gone to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) aircraft carrier battle group already stationed there. Besides, the USS Boxer (LDH 4) amphibious assault ship is stationed in the Persian Gulf. The USS Bataan (LHD 5) was also sent to the area in January. A fleet of 12 ships supports each carrier attack group, including two guided missile-cruisers, two guided missile destroyers, and an attack submarine.
American military domination of the Middle East is maintained by a vast network of military bases throughout the region. The US military in case of war has the capacity to crush Iran by round-the-clock bombing using cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes. Batteries of Patriot anti-missile systems are at present being installed in the Gulf states to protect vital US military assets.
Despite the clear war preparations that are going on, President Bush continues to declare that the US has no immediate plans to attack Iran. The fact remains that his objective is to have an Iran closely allied with the US as under the Shah and the rest of the Arab rulers. Such an objective will not be achieved by negotiations to end the nuclear standoff but by changing the present rulers of Iran. As no clandestine operations have succeeded so far to bring the clerics to capitulation, the Bush administration thinks that a major blitzkrieg will do the job and protect the American interests in the Middle East. But we all know what those interests are.
The dangerous course followed by Washington has not been the focus of only informed media, but also of some important American public figures. At the end of last year, the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraqi crisis. However, President Bush has taken a total opposite direction and blames Iran and Syria for the US military losses in Iraq!
Perhaps the most realistic warning of the dangerous policies followed by the Bush administration came in the February 1, 2007 testimony of the former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Senate Foreign relations Committee.
Deeply critical of the disastrous policies followed by Bush, Brzezinski said: ‘The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.’
Brzezinski fully aware of the policy of the use of overwhelming military power predicted that ‘if the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam’.
In a sharp critique of Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror,’ Brzezinski described as ‘a mythical historical narrative’ where the attempts are being made to equate Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda with the threat posed to the US by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Russia: ‘This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and Stalinism was able to mobilise not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.’
He warned that ‘to argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicentre, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.’
Brzezinski saw the danger of the White House manufacturing ‘some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States’ to blame Iran and using it as a pretext to unleash a ‘defensive’ military action against Iran.
According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times (January14, 2007), an attack on Iran can come anytime. This information was obtained from a reliable source, which said that President Bush had held a meeting with Vice president Cheney, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Codoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House to discuss the plan for an attack in minute detail. While Gates and Rice seem to have suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go ahead with the attack in the near future.
But there is also opposition to the plans of Bush and Cheney in the military and navy. Some generals and admirals have recently said that they would resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran.
Despite all the military build-up in and around the Middle East, war is not a foregone conclusion. Bush and Cheney also have an alternative course by which they can continue to further the interests of American imperialism short of war. They can engage in a meaningful dialogue with Iran and Syria in order to avoid another war and spare the life and livelihood of millions of people.
-- Nasir Khan is a historian and a peace activist.
Last edited by Woodrow; 04-11-2007 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Added Source link
The Bush admin paved the way for the conflict? It wasn't Irans defying the council. Hmmm...
Iran has already gone to war, it is just that it is a Silent war.Despite all the military build-up in and around the Middle East, war is not a foregone conclusion.
The connection that many aren't making is the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict that occurred not long ago. This was Iran's first "blow" in Wilberhum's silent war.
First:
Iran ad Iraq are NOT linked issues.
Many US citizens dislike what Bush is doing in Iraq, and will do almost
anything legal, to end the adventure.
However, Iran is another story. The same people that deplore what s going on in Iraq, would cheer if Bush eliminated Iran's nuclear threat.
The reasons are quite simple. Iran wanted to capture the Shah alive.
They didnt. Then they wanted the USA to simply turn him over to them
when he came to the USA for medical treatment.
The idea that Iran 'demands' that the USA do something like turning a man
over to a lynch mob, offends the common US citizen.
They do NOT care how it seems to Iran. AND they are not going to care.
So since that time Iran has been at war with the USA. The hostages
in Lebanon are the most blatant example. The hostages from the embassy
are another example.
It doesnt matter how Iran views what it is doing. What matters is how
the USA views what Iran is doing. The people of the USA currently feel
that Iran is delibretly rattling its sabre to drive the price of oil up.
To the common US citizen, taking people hostage, and holding them for
ransom, is a heinous crime. A country that does that loses ALL credibility.
The common USA citizen believe ANY statement from Iran to be a lie.
They will NOT change their minds, unless the current Iran government falls.
Which 'I' think is very unlikely.
So in essence, the people of the USA may dislike Bush, but they dislike Iran
a GREAT deal more. If he bombs Iran, his popularity will go UP, not down.
Further, it doesnt mattter what threat Iran and its people make.
The USA like Iran, doesnt scare. In this game of chicken, both cats will
collide, head on. No one will flinch.
So have no illusions. If it comes to war, it will be REAL war. Not the useless
inertia you seen in Iraq. You will see mass mobilizations, and a country united. Frankly I have little hope personaly. You cannot reason with fanatics
who want war.
Bush said it VERY clearly. 'Iran will not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons'
Yes yes, we know that Iran purchased some from the old USSR.
So what?
The only chance I see is if Iran backs down. After observing bullies for many
years, I dont think that is likely.
It is very sad, and very unfortunate.
One more comment, a bit more subtle
New York Sun Editorial
May 11, 2006
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.
Much of the rest of Ahmadinejad's letter is devoted to portraying Mr. Bush as an infidel. Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power. All the "carrots" that the doves in the American foreign policy establishment want to offer - abandoning Israel, offering Iran "security guarantees" and economic and political relations - fall short of what Iran's president demands. He demands that America "follow the true path," that is, convert to Islam. Short of that, America will not receive peace from the Iranian regime.
Mr. Bush has been clear that America wishes the Iranian people well and supports them in their quest for freedom from their clerical regime. He needs to do everything he can to help the Iranian people oust the regime in Tehran before the regime has a chance to launch its offensive against America. Such an offensive by Iran would be dangerous enough with conventional weapons; we certainly don't want to permit a nation that is about to attack us to have nuclear weapons. And our president would do us all a service by telling Americans about this Iranian declaration of war. When Al Qaeda issued its February 1998 fatwa, only a few Americans recognized its significance as a declaration of war. That took until September 11, 2001. This time around, let's not miss the warning.
Well the scilent war is Silent no more.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
But I guess it was only silent to those that were not lessening.Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says
America cant afford to start a war with Iran anytime soon, they're over-stretched in Iraq already.
format_quote Originally Posted by sonz
Hmmmmm. Iran says their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. And so why is this paragraph in the article?
There are 7 countries that we know for sure have nuclear weapons and the author knows it too. And therefore the words “Only the United States of America and Israel” are inserted for propaganda purposes to make Muslims hate. And it has succeeded.
And a welcome to Chiteng!
-
Depends if we put boots on the ground or bombs in the air.format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
But I hope we do neither.
That is quite true. It wont be possible to invade Iran.format_quote Originally Posted by Philosopher
However, one can also argue that invasion is NOT needed.
Bombardment is not as expensive as invasion, and leaves no US military
bodies (usually)
No sniping, no roadside bombs, no street battles.
If there is going to be military action against Iran it will be quick and decisive. Why? For the very reasons many point out as to why the U.S. is "overstretched". The U.S. doesn't have the time, patience, or manpower for another prolonged occupation. It will be quick, highly destructive, and highly unfortunate for Iran. Let us all pray it doesn't reach that point.
To all the Iran cheerleaders;
As other posters have noted, the US doesn't have to "invade" Iran to cause major economic suffering. In fact, an actual ground invasion and a march to Tehran would be a nightmare. If it comes down to it, the attack will chiefly be from B-2 radar-evading bombers and crusie missiles. Stand off missiles would be used to attack radar and SAM sites and the Iranian Navy along the coast. There might be a few special operations raids...but no big land force.
The deeply buried Iranian fuel-processing facilities would be hard to destroy completely, but they have a major weakness....they require major amounts of electricity to operate. This has to be brought in. Electrical generation plants and transmission lines are highly vulnerable. Hydroelectic dams? How many of those do you think would survive? Ports? Oil terminals? Of course, this would destroy the Iranian economy and cause a severe oil price shock that might prompt a global recession. the Iranians would strike back, lobbing missiles at Kuwait and the UAE. They would shoot down some US planes and they might even damage or sink a US ship or two...perhaps a couple of oil tankers. Oil shipmetn out of the Persian Gulf would be dangerous for some time. They would unleash suicide or car bombers at US and Israel and perhaps even European targets all over the world and a lot of civilians would die. They might even unleash Hizbollah on Israel. they might attack oil facilities or the government of Saudi out of spite.
It would a heck of a lot like a war. This is why it hasn't happened yet.Still, there will be no doubt about who won when it is done.
I hope there is somebody in Iran who, sonner rather than later, gives Amedinajad leash a big yank on his leash and says.."bad dog"
Get this general talking nonsense....format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You go in, be ready to get a taste of your own medicine AGAIN! - Think 9/11 and how you were brought to your knees....
Your not sad you just want war using some idea about Nuclear weapons. Man we have heard it all we know what you want and you know what you so stop the BS about nuclear weapons, what the US want is oil and by God they will do anything to get.format_quote Originally Posted by ChitengFirst:
Iran ad Iraq are NOT linked issues.LoL For countries that are right next to each other it is hard not to being linked.
Many US citizens dislike what Bush is doing in Iraq, and will do almost
anything legal, to end the adventure.That's why they keep voting him in right?
However, Iran is another story. The same people that deplore what s going on in Iraq, would cheer if Bush eliminated Iran's nuclear threat.So Iran has a nuclear bomb now. Like Iraq had WMD.
The reasons are quite simple. Iran wanted to capture the Shah alive.
They didnt. Then they wanted the USA to simply turn him over to them
when he came to the USA for medical treatment.
The idea that Iran 'demands' that the USA do something like turning a man
over to a lynch mob, offends the common US citizen.
They do NOT care how it seems to Iran. AND they are not going to care.
Anyone remember Saddam Hussein? And how they US handed him you some “mob”.
So since that time Iran has been at war with the USA.I don't think you know the meaing of "war"... Iran has not been to war with someone of 400 years or so. The hostages
in Lebanon are the most blatant example. The hostages from the embassy
are another example.
It doesnt matter how Iran views what it is doing. What matters is how
the USA views what Iran is doing. Yea sure who care's what they think. The people of the USA currently feel
that Iran is delibretly rattling its sabre to drive the price of oil up.Oil?
To the common US citizen, taking people hostage, and holding them for
ransom, is a heinous crime. A country that does that loses ALL credibility.
The common USA citizen believe ANY statement from Iran to be a lie.
They will NOT change their minds, unless the current Iran government falls.
Which 'I' think is very unlikely.
So in essence, the people of the USA may dislike Bush, but they dislike Iran
a GREAT deal more. If he bombs Iran, his popularity will go UP, not down.
Further, it doesnt mattter what threat Iran and its people make.
he USA like Iran, doesnt scare. In this game of chicken, both cats will
collide, head on. No one will flinch.
So have no illusions. If it comes to war, it will be REAL war. Not the useless
inertia you seen in Iraq. You will see mass mobilizations, and a country united. Frankly I have little hope personaly. You cannot reason with fanatics
who want war. Well it's you who want's war not Iran. I sure you will not see Iran bombing the US.
Bush said it VERY clearly. 'Iran will not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons'
Yea I think he siad some like that before o yea Iraq and some thing about WOMD
Yes yes, we know that Iran purchased some from the old USSR.
So what?
The only chance I see is if Iran backs down. After observing bullies for many
years, I dont think that is likely.
It is very sad, and very unfortunate.
Last edited by Idris; 04-12-2007 at 09:56 AM.
Bush was never voted in to begin with.so stating ''he gets voted in'' is senile!
You are wrong. I am quite sad indeed. I have served in one lost warformat_quote Originally Posted by Idris
in 1965, I have no desire to see it all again. However, it looks like
Iraq will be the same. Bush was very foolish indeed.
As for Iran, and its nuclear ambitions. Yes, I agree Iran keeps saying
that it only wants the technology for peacefull puposes.
And no one, believes them. As for the oil, we dont buy any oil from Iran.
So I dont see your point.
I am an old man now, and all I can do is pray. Sometimes, prayer is all you have.
Chiteng you have no idea that this BS about Nuclear weapones is about do you? You are right about Iran having a Nuclear weapone but not the one you know.
So I will tell you
The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:
The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
If this happens the $ will go down lol
PLz read more.This is not fake it's real life.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11613.htm
As I said, the USA does not buy oil from Iran.format_quote Originally Posted by Idris
I am puzzled as to why you assume what Iran does will impact the USA.
As for its nuclear ambitions, they are quite obvious.
Also, as I said, I am an old man, I dont hold the dollar as sacred.
I really think you have not comprehended what I have just told you. Everyone buys oil in the dollar. What will happen if Iran starts selling oil in Euro? I do not have time to explain all of it but plz read the link I have put down for you.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11613.htm
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks