If you believe the left-wing Guardian, the Administration pendulum on Iran has swung back toward taking military action before Bush leaves office. The villain? Dick Cheney of course:
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
The story bases its conclusions on mostly anonymous sourcing. The problem with doing that was made amply clear last week as several reports by the media regarding an imminent Administration turn on Iraq toward withdrawal using unnamed sources proved to be absolutely bogus when President Bush came out on Friday saying he was contemplating no such thing.
But there is little doubt that the Cheney faction is putting tremendous pressure on the President to take out Iran’s nuclear program prior to their leaving office in 2009. The reasoning mentioned in the article better be made up by some lefty Guardian reporter because if it isn’t, it would constitute an arrogance beyond anything shown so far by the Bushies:
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.“The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,” Mr Cronin said. “The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.”
They don’t “trust” any potential successors to “deal with Iran decisively?” I can’t begin to tell you how offensive that idea is – not to mention its raw stupidity. The world may look a lot different to a new President on January 20, 2009 than it does to Dick Cheney and his advisers today or even next year.. And any military action taken against Iran next year – which is the current timetable – will mean that Cheney and Bush’s successor will be reaping the bulk of the whirlwind sown by the current Administration following any massive attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
And make no mistake. That “whirlwind” will be the mother of all blowbacks. We’ve been over and over the downside to attacking Iran so repeating the enormous cost to the United States and perhaps the west would be redundant punditry.
This is not to say that absorbing such a hit may not be necessary and that bombing the Iranian nuclear sites should not be done under any circumstances. There are few things in this world that would be more inimicable to American interests than Iran with nuclear weapons. The question has never been if that would be bad for America because even some lefties think it would be. The question has always been would the advantages in bombing Iran outweigh the disadvantages. And as far as I’m concerned, at this moment the scales tip toward negotiations and sanctions rather than war.
That’s because despite what Cheney and Bush want as far as “dealing” with Iran before they bid farewell to Washington, we still have time to head off the prospect of Iranian bomb making. To do so would require some tough diplomacy and even tougher work at the United Nations. But it can be done if we have the patience and the will to do so.
Iran’s construction of a bomb is not by any stretch of the imagination “imminent.” Dr. Jeffrey Hart of Arms Control Wonk explains why. Right now, the Iranians have installed and are operating around 2000 centrifuges at their main enrichment facility at Nantanz. But what does that mean as far as their ability to construct a nuclear device:
Iran could, with the current 1,968 centrifuges operating at 1.5-2.0 kg SWU per year and assuming 4.8 t SWU/a to produce 25 kg of 90 percent HEU, produce a significant quantity of HEU in 14-19 months or, say, September 2008-February 2009. (Readers might want to double check that calculation.)But the “general view†of the IC is still—at least as of June 2007—2010-2015.
That’s odd, isn’t it?
One explanation is that the IC must believe Iran is going to, or has, run into some substantial operational barrier—maybe those Iranian manufactured components and/or UF6 feedstock really do suck ball bearings—that could add a year or more to the estimates.
That might explain the IC sticking by the 2010-2015 estimates, as well as the recent slowdown from Iran’s crash installation period this spring. For example, “a senior European official†told WaPo’s Robin Wright “They’ve committed down a road to expand as quickly as possible. But Iran won’t be the first to discover that it does happen to be rocket science, and development has its peaks and troughs.â€
I had earlier noted that IAEA officials said Iran had enough good imported components 1,000-2,000 centrifuges, so that we would have to wait for evidence that Iran could get over 2,000. Stilll waiting, I guess.
Or, maybe, Iran may simply be attempting—as David Albright suggested—to learn to operate the centrifuges installed, rather than building more.
Or, maybe, Iran just wanted to create facts on the ground (underground, actually), avoid new sanctions and, perhaps, cut a deal.
The Iranians have experienced problems in mastering centrifuge technology, not unsurprising given the engineering tolerances involved in getting so many machines to work in synchronization. And as Hart points out, their supply of yellowcake may be deficient. And besides all of this, they have yet to enrich uranium beyond the 3-5% range although ratcheting up their enrichment process to achieve the 85% threshold to make a bomb would simply be a matter of time, not technology.
Even if the Iranians overcome all the technical challenges posed by enrichment, they still have to build a bomb. And you just don’t go to your local library and find a workable bomb design. Just ask the North Koreans whose “test” last summer was almost certainly a nuclear “fizzle” due to poor design. Unless they’ve purchased a tried and tested bomb design from A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who ran a nuclear convenience store, supplying expertise and technology to Iran back in the mid ‘90’s (or somewhere else), you must add another 6-9 months to any timetable to Iranian nuclear capability.
Time is the key. We still have it if we’re willing to use it constructively to put pressure on the Iranians to come to an agreement about enrichment. With adequate safeguards and monitoring by the IAEA, it would be possible to keep the Iranian nuclear program peaceful.
The uncertainty of the moment however, makes Iran a very dangerous nation. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had some interesting thoughts in response to a question at a recent speaking engagement:
Secretary Gates: I think that the general view of American intelligence is that they would be in a position to develop a nuclear device, probably sometime in the period 2010, 2011 to 2014 or 2015. There are those who believe that that could happen much sooner, in late 2008 or 2009. The reality is because of the way that Iran has conducted its affairs, we really don’t know, and it puts a higher premium, it seems to me, on the international community coming together in terms of strengthening the sanctions on Iran so that they begin to face some serious tradeoffs—in terms of their economic well-being and their economic future—for having nuclear weapons. I don’t think anyone begrudges Iran the capacity to have peaceful nuclear power under proper safeguards and supervision. The key is whether they will have nuclear weapons.[snip]
Having to take care of this problem militarily is in no one’s interest, but it does put a premium on unanimity in the international community—and I would say especially in the U.N. Security Council—in terms of ratcheting up the pressure on the Iranians, not next year or the year after, but right now, in line with the uncertainty about when their capability actually will come online.
Wise words. He’s not downplaying the threat in the slightest and yet, Gates is pointing out an alternative to war. Given the immense downside to attacking Iran, it simply makes sense to follow the course laid out by Gates and supported by Secretary Rice while eschewing the arrogant belief by some in the Administration that only they have the cohones to deal with the mullahs effectively and that Clinton and Obama (two Democrats who have not taken the military option off the table with Iran) are weak sisters who would somehow allow a nuclear armed Iran to threaten the peace.
Of course, the 800 pound gorrilla in the room is Israel and what her plans might be. The Administration is correct in believing that any attack from Israel on Iran would be seen by the mullahs as an attack by the United States. But Israel herself is conflicted about starting a war with Iran. On the one hand, they realize the Iranians are an existential threat to the existence of the Jewish state. On the other hand, they also would experience a tremendous downside by attacking the Iranians. The Israelis are self confident enough about their relationship with the United States that they wouldn’t ask “permission” to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s not to say they wouldn’t consult us if they are seriously contemplating such a course of action.
It is impossible at this point to guess Jerusalem’s intent. But it should also be fixed in the minds of our policy makers that the clock ticking toward Iranian nuclear capability also may have an Israeli component. For unless we can convince the Iranians to agree on close monitoring and intrusive inspections of their nuclear program, it is more than likely that the Israelis will take matters into their own hands if they feel threatened and attack first.
That thought should be a goad to the international community to get busy and pass additional sanctions on Iran unless they cooperate in proving to the world that their nuclear program is peaceful. Given their past rhetoric on Israel, the burden is on them, not us and not the Israelis, to prove to the world that their program will not be used to create weapons of mass destruction that would threaten their neighbors – all of whom are US allies.
Yes we have time. But the clock is ticking and the world has a lot of work to do.
UPDATE
Allah has some sobering thoughts:
My feelings about another Bush-managed war are the same as Dennis Miller’s were in an old bit he used to do about Germany’s reunification: much like a Martin and Lewis reunion, he said, he wasn’t impressed with their previous work and wasn’t really looking forward to seeing any of the new sh*t. Hey, George: Let Fred handle it. Or, god forbid, a Democrat if it comes to that.
He also thinks the story is something of an invention by The Guardian. While that may be true, I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind where Cheney stands on Iran and that he won’t do his utmost to have his views prevail.
9:07 am
Consider the source—The Guardian. Unreliable.
“A well-placed source in Washington said…”
Probably a “covert” desk jockey at Langley with limited access to anything relevant. Or, more likely, the assistant to said desk jockey. There is undoubtedly a plan on the drawing board, just as for any number of other contingencies. Doesn’t make it imminent nor does it rule out a strike on Iran. The regime in Teheran seems to be in self-destruct mode. Hopefully we’re offering a covert push.
9:43 am
Military Solution Fof Iran?...
The Guardian reports that the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, has decided to emphasize the military options in dealing with Iran. This would change the policy from last year’s decision to emphasize the diplomatic approaches to ending the Iran…
11:31 am
Its a good bet that the first sign of an upcoming attack on Iran will be the resignation/removal of Gates. He is NOT on board and doesn’t strike me as the kind of SecDef who would just suck it up and go along with a policy he so strongly disagrees with.
11:34 am
I believe the way that’s usually done is that they wait until the deed is done, and then resign. The reason is that once the president makes a decision involving military action, best not tip off the enemy that we’re coming and put American boys in danger.
Cy Vance resigned the day after the debacle in the desert back in 1980 for the same reason.
12:00 pm
it would certainly behoove us as a nation to wait and hope the next leader is willing and able to pursue a foreign policy with less arrogance, more intelligence, and above all vision. given cheney’s (and his sock-puppet) record to date someone should take the keys to the military away.
12:30 pm
The Iranian people can’t even put gas in their cars. They hate their government almost as much as we do. That’s the key to this whole thing. Defeating Iran’s insanity should come from within Iran. When the people in a country filled with oil can’t even put gas in their cars, they’re gonna get pissed, which they are.
The blowback from (another) US nudged internal uprising along those lines might be preferable the blowback from bombing the crap outta them. Even though that would be more fun and we’d get to use more of our f’ing cool exploding stuff. (I LOVE Future Weapons)
The great thing about blowback though, is that it’s exactly like Gozer the Gozerian from Ghost Busters. It’s gonna happen anyway, so let’s try to think of the least scary form. Like, I dunno, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man? Do they have marshmallows in Iran?
4:36 pm
Wow, for a bunch of republicans you guys are on the ball.
Yes, we lefties think Iran with nukes is a scary prospect indeed. Yes, the Guardian is definitely unreliable. Yes, a war with Iran would be a disaster on every level imaginable.
But unlike Shrub, SecDef Gates is an adult and he undoubtedly knows that attacking Tehran is a bad move, and I’m willing to bet he’d bodily stand in the way of such an endeavor.
5:20 pm
Check for horsemen. I agree with Rick and admitted it publicly.
http://proctoringcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/this-could-be-sign-of-apocolypse.html
5:49 pm
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.
This is the impression the administration has been emitting for months (closer to a year) now. I’ve been hoping the impression is primarily a negotiation tool, but it’s hard to tell, which is the point – the Iranians can’t be sure. (Cheney’s involvement is necessary to make the possibility that it’s real more convincing.)
6:48 pm
You’d probably think of me as a lefty, but I wouldn’t trust the Guardian as far as I could throw it, particularly on secret sources in the US administration.
That having been said, I’d say that there are clearly two camps in the US admin and that these camps keep contradicting each other. The only reason why you’d have conflicting camps is because they have different policy agendas, and with regard to Iran, there are really only two positions. “We should attack Iran before they get near to Nukes” and “We shouldn’t attack Iran unless it becomes absolutely, irrevocably necessary.”
That’s the only explaination for the constant rounds of “Iran is killing US troops, here’s the sketchy evidence” and “Actually, there’s thousands of tons of arms flooding into the country and only a some of it is coming from Iran” point-counterpoint from different Washington and Military sources.
If I had to guess, I’d say that Cheyney and co are all up for a bit of bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb,bombing Iran, and lots of military and Pentagon types are terrified that they are under the control of idiots who are going to get a lot of people killed for no good reason if they get their way. That’s the thing with military types. You can ignore reality as a politician for as long as the polls hold out, but if you ignore reality in action you tend to end up shot.
“Defeating Iran’s insanity should come from within Iran.”
If Iraq has shown us anything it has to be this. And the insanity might be replaced with more insanity. God knows, the French Revolution didn’t exactly usher in an era of peace and tranquility and the Russian one started badly and just got worse and worse for years. But eventually, you have to hope that something stable will come to pass, and once it does everyone gets too excited about their fancy new car, or the fact that the shops seem so much fuller, and they just don’t get the passion up for any more revolutioning.
7:33 pm
Those who assume that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel – before Israel would use her’s on Iran – seem to assume also: Iran (the Mullah regime there) is ready to commit suicide.
What ever you may object to this regime – they are no suiciders.
Even if they lost their power through domestic reform or revolution – quite possible in the coming decade, as a majority of the Iranians is against the Theocrats – the Mullahs would not go mad, but try to launch a come-back to power the usual way. Shiites can take defeats, and have a long breath, as you can learn from their history.
So, although it is never agreable to have ANOTHER nuclear power, and Iran in particular, I would not be too scared.
Anyway, if it were so horrible for Israel that Iran might get nuclear weapons – why not make a deal with them: Israel scraps all HER own about 200 nuclear weapons – and Iran, in return, gives up the civil nuclear program they try to establish right now …
It also is absolutely unlikely that a nuclear armed Iran would give nuclear weapons to AlQaida – these Sunnite extremists are their lethal enemies, and it would be the very last thing Shiite Iran would do: empowering those who want to annihilate them – AlQaida sees Shiites as heretics who have to be extinguished.
The nuclear danger Iran poses to us or Israel is HYPED.
There are interested powers and people who hype it. The Cheney Gang, mainly.
And most of the rest of the Americans, once again, follows suit. As it was in the case of Iraq’s WMD.
So, let’s cool down this time BEFORE the desaster starts, and have a sober look on REALITY!
8:36 pm
Lee: I am more concerned about China developing a blue-water navy than I am an Iranian nuke. Mercifully, they take a while to develop and Iran is not going to have one during this presidential administration.
9:03 pm
Re Iran and Israel, here’s an interesting interview with a former Mossad director (1989 to 1996). He is quite convinced that the Iranian leadership has religious motivations for pursuing WMDs and ballistic missile systems: “All devout Muslims are instructed to be proactive to hasten the reappearance of the Mahdi.”
9:04 pm
Here’s the link. http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1224
1:50 am
Leo,
I think your analysis is entirely plausible until you get to this part:
“It also is absolutely unlikely that a nuclear armed Iran would give nuclear weapons to AlQaida – these Sunnite extremists are their lethal enemies, and it would be the very last thing Shiite Iran would do: empowering those who want to annihilate them – AlQaida sees Shiites as heretics who have to be extinguished.
The nuclear danger Iran poses to us or Israel is HYPED.”
Then how to explain the fact that Iran is currently harboring al Qaeda, including Bin Laden’s son, Saad. Sorry but that is one of many talking points which has been eclipsed by facts on the ground (and it was never true but became conventional wisdom anyway). Remember “secular” Saddam would never work with al Qaeda because they were religious fanatics. When Sunni and Shia interests intersect, they are perfectly capable of cooperating. And that would be the same “secular” Saddam who had the Koran transcribed, word for word, in his own blood. They may hate each other but the infidel always takes priority.
And the Iranians may not give nukes to terrorists for a multitude of reasons but it won’t be because the terrorists in question happen to be Sunni Muslims rather than Shiite Persians. Don’t ask the head of the House Intelligence Committee to flesh out these nuances but those of us who have followed this stuff know otherwise.
FWIW, as I stated this morning, I put little stock in the Guardian report. The really damaging national security secrets come out in the NYT’s, as we all know by now.
4:33 am
To Chris:
There is no AlQaida-Iran cooperation.
Who tells us that there is? Reliable sources?
I could tell you that I’ve heard this: Right now AlQaida is paid by the US government … and the US government might give nuclear weapons to AlQaida.
Would you believe it?
You wouldn’t!
Why not?
Because it cannot but be bullshit.
And you were right. You wouldn’t need any research to come to that conclusion, and only very strong, very reliable indications might start you consider such a claim.
So do I in the case of AlQaida-Iran.
Look at all the blatant government lies about Iranian support for Sunni insurgency and civil war efforts. Why should the Shiite Iranians help those who kill their Shiite Iraqi allies and Iranian pilgrims? Iran supports the US efforts to crush the Sunni attempt to restore Sunni power in Iraq. SIIC & Badr Corps are US allies AND Iran’s allies – allies of both!
Goebbels and Hitler once famously stated: You’ve got to give the people always only ONE enemy. – So they merged all their enemies into ONE: Jews, Communists, Capitalist – all ONE capital enemy, the three conspirating together against the German people.
This is a psychological mechanism that works everywhere, also among lefties.
Sober people know to differ between their enemies, keep them apart – and use the antagonisms or different interests among them to fight them successfully.
By the way, the NYTimes is NOT a reliable source when it comes to the MidEast. Gordon, their journalist in charge of this area, is a warmonger, mostly just parrotting US government and army propaganda. Like disgraced Judy Miller in 2003.
5:07 am
“And the Iranians may not give nukes to terrorists for a multitude of reasons but it won’t be because the terrorists in question happen to be Sunni Muslims rather than Shiite Persians. Don’t ask the head of the House Intelligence Committee to flesh out these nuances but those of us who have followed this stuff know otherwise.”
But the leader of Al-Q in Iraq announced not a week ago that Iranians had two months to stop their support for the illegitimate government in Iraq or else Al-Q would unleash their carefully prepared terror campaign against Iran.
I assume that you think that this is a bluff…
If you believe that Iran and Al-Q are ever going to be allies you are badly uninformed. If you think that the Iranians, after all their work to allegedly procure nuclear weapons are going to hand it over to people who consider them to be the worst kind of apostates and who will inevitably bring back untold harm to Iran, then, well…
I just can’t think of a useful term to describe this sort of thinking which would be within the bounds of polite doscourse.
2:26 pm
9-11 was a failure of imagination on our part, Drongo. Everyone, including the 9-11 Commission, agrees on that. The NIE (just out today!) says that Iran is supporting AQ, Leo. Iran can’t nuke us without fear of retaliation. But I’m quite certain that if AQ went to Ahmadinejad and laid out a workable plan for detonating a nuke in Manhattan, he’d be willing to entertain the plan as long as Iran maintained deniability. So you guys go on all you want about how Sunni and Shiite will never cooperate. It’s nonsense. They have in the past and will in the future when they have an alignment of interests against the West. And if they’re not capable of cooperating, why is Iran currently hosting a couple of hundred AQ, including Saad Bin Laden?
5:34 pm
All these “informations” about AlQaida in Iran are simply LIES, dear Chris.
As all the US government’s “informations” about Iraq’s WMD had been LIES (not errors – the CIA was not so stupid to believe that “Curveball” was a reliable source, f.e.; etc.).
Faked intelligence.
Hyped intelligence.
Deliberately misread intelligence.
Fixed intelligence (fixed to meet the policy).
It is as likely that Cheney & Bush will ally with AlQaida to fight Iran,
as Iran will ally with AlQaida to fight the USA. – Both alliances will not happen.
Chris, you immediately believe in ANY information about cooperation of AlQaida & Iran, and immediately dismiss or refuse to hear at all ANY information about the lethal antagonism between AlQaida and Iran.
In 2002/2003 you believed in ANY information about Iraq’s WMD given by your government, didn’t you?
You wanted to be fooled then, and you want to be fooled again now.
The DEVIL is always ONE, and so Devil Iran and Devil AlQaida must go together, act together in a lethal hidden conspiracy against the forces of The Good.
Such is an irresistable pre-conception for many people.
What we experience today is the preparation for the coming assault on Iran.
And it is done again with reckless deception of the public.
And little consideration concerning the aftermath.
5:59 pm
“The NIE (just out today!) says that Iran is supporting AQ”
Now, where have we seen a faked up “gotcha” NIE report just before an unwise and misguided military action with inevitably disaterous consequences…
No, I just can’t quite seem to place it…
“But I’m quite certain that if AQ went to Ahmadinejad and laid out a workable plan for detonating a nuke in Manhattan, he’d be willing to entertain the plan as long as Iran maintained deniability.”
That’s a giggle for a start. It should be obvious to anyone that if a nuke goes off in NY, a nuke goes off in Tehran before anyone’s even started putting out the fires. Deniability will be a hypothetical issue. It is inconceivable that it would happen any other way.
6:18 pm
That’s a giggle for a start. It should be obvious to anyone that if a nuke goes off in NY, a nuke goes off in Tehran before anyone’s even started putting out the fires. Deniability will be a hypothetical issue. It is inconceivable that it would happen any other way.
Or the AQinWhereEver™ franchisees decides the Iranian nuke is better used against heretics (less of a chance that there will be a subsequent World War on Islam, for starters), and smuggles it into Tehran.
7:37 pm
Okay, I get it. When the NIE suits your purposes, it’s credible. But when it doesn’t well then it’s full of lies. So you guys are arguing that Bin Laden, Jr. is not in Iran, even though the entire world knows he is. And Iran isn’t arming AQI because they really don’t want to harm our military effort in Iraq. Regardless of what the US military says (and smoking ied’s). Because as everyone knows, they’re just itching to fight in Iran. But Senator Webb says the military is against our Iraq involvement so why would they be for an Iranian intervention?
Facts are malleable and apparently any intelligence which contradicts your preconceived notions is also a trumped up Cheney lie. Do you honestly think that 16 agencies came to these conclusions, post-Iraq, because they wanted to see another war in the ME? No need to answer that, of course you do. It’s much easier to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that the bad guys are in the US government and not in the ME.
Saddam was peaceful (and secular!) so no problem. Same with Ahmadinejad, I suppose. No threat. No bad intentions. Possibly just misunderstood. The Quds forces killing Americans are rogue elements in AJ’s command perhaps. No rationalization is too difficult for you. Can we get some mustard with those pretzels?
1:32 am
“When the NIE suits your purposes, it’s credible. But when it doesn’t well then it’s full of lies.”
Huh? No, I don’t think that it is credible ever again after it was shown how easily it was twisted and politicised.
“Do you honestly think that 16 agencies came to these conclusions, post-Iraq, because they wanted to see another war in the ME?”
Given the history, who knows how these conclusions were gathered. Certainly damn convinient for the powerful factions who are pushing for an idealogically driven war in the ME, don’t you think.
“Saddam was peaceful (and secular!) so no problem. Same with Ahmadinejad, I suppose.”
Do you? I certainly don’t. I am not at all suspicious of claims that Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq, or that it has put a lot of operatives into the country in one way or another. I am more suspicious of claims that they are actively attacking US forces, more suspicious of the idea that they are arming the enemies of their Iranian friendly government in the Green Zone and find the idea tht they are backing a bunch of Salafi Jihadists who think of them as the worst kind of apostates as absurd.
Same for Saddam. Claims that he was rearming seemed likely, that he was holding old stocks of WMD likely, Was building new stocks less likely but still very plausible, was cooperating with Salafi Jihadists who wanted him dead very unlikely, was planning an attack on the US downright absurd.
I don’t assume that anyone in politics is completely white hat, but I do make the basc assumption that they act in what they perceive as their best interests.
But none of this matters. The new NIE is out, it sets up the case for war with Iran, and along with the recent vote in the Senate accusing Iran of killing US troops, I imagine that we will only read about the ways in which this war was faked up in the slew of books released a couple of years after the attack.
Just like last time.
3:06 am
Chris,
do you know SIIC and Badr Corps (SIIC’s strong militia)?
They are one of the big Iraqi Shiite parties, backbone of the government there, and so also backbone of US hopes to get a viable government in Baghdad – and at the same time they are close to Iran, very close – close to the Mullah regime there, and do not hide it. Iran supports SIIC and Badr Corps with weapons, with training.
So, I dare say: USA support Iran. Somehow. And Iran supports USA. Somehow.
Weird thing!
There is more truth (although it is not the complete truth) to a claim like “USA supports Ahmadinejad” than to a claim “Ahmadinejad supports AlQaida”.
As for binLaden Jr in Iran:
Seems to be quite an obscure thing. Does the NIC mention it and infer anything from it? Please quote!
As far as I know: There are plenty of members of this family in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world. In itself it has little significance to say that this or that member of the binLadens is here or there. Osama is the terrorist, but some of his many-membered family are part of the Saudi establishment.
For example: do you mean THIS son of binLaden, Chris?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467599&in_page_id=1770
= Omar binLaden, 27, son of Osama binLaden, has married in Berlin, Germany, recently …
Osama binLaden has 17 children … Give us some hints about the Iranian one!
3:51 am
“It’s much easier to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that the bad guys are in the US government and not in the ME.”
As for this sort of attitude, have you really not cottoned onto the fact that just about everyone thinks that they are the good guys? Hitler, Stalin and Mao (about as gruesome a trimverate of evil as you could imagine) all thought of themselves as the good guys. Hitler saw himself as both protecting civilization against communism and other Jewish consipiracies, Stalin saw himself as protecting Russia from Hitler and then as trying to make Russia into the power that it should be in order to become an advanced state. Mao was even more messianic, trying to remould an old and decaying culture into something fair and equitable for the Chinese people. Of course, they were all monsters, but they didn’t see themselves that way.
So when you say “pretend that the bad guys are in the US government” I reject the whole notion of worrying about who thinks that are the good guys and who they think are the bad guys and look at intentions and capabilities. It should be clear to anyone what the Bush admins intentions are at this point, and it should be equally clear what their capabilities are. They want the creation of as many pro-US regimes in the ME as possible, but they are only capable of creating vast death and destruction. The result of allowing them to have their way will be death and destruction whatever their intentions, and whether you want to consider that to be good or bad is purely up to you.
4:57 am
I think that I may have found the source for the “AlQ in Iran” stuff (because it certainly isn’t in the released portions of the NIE);
http://www.nysun.com/article/58507
While I have no evidence against any of this, nor evidence in favour of it, I would note that the author has been a relentless supporter of both action against Iran and the Iraq war, so can hardly be called unbiased.
So, what we seem to actually have is a claim to have access to a classified document that confirms what both the author and certain factions in the Bush administration want to see.
The released portions of the NIE are completely silent on this matter as far as I can tell.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
So it seems that, rather than arguing on the basis of what the NIE says, you are in fact arguing on the basis of what a reporter sympathetic to an attack on Iran says an unnamed source says that the classified portions of the NIE says.
Now that’s more like it.
9:34 am
I’ve seen so many stories over the last few years that this war was “next week” that it has become laughable.
12:20 pm
I’ve seen so many stories over the last few years that this war was “next week†that it has become laughable.
A good sign that a strike on Iran is actually coming will be the resignation/replacement of Gates as SecDef. As long as we dont see this on the news it is at least a little ways off.
9:38 pm
I believe the first nuclear target of Iran is Israel, or Tel Aviv more specifically. I am certain that that would not be last target, either. It is in no one’s best interests to allow Iran to go nuclear.
If you examine history, you have to ask yourself how things will look a year from now… two years from now… five years from now. Wisdom lies in taking the right action at the right time. Think carefully before you advocate acting too soon; or acting too late; or in closing your eyes and wishing like a child for a different reality.
Every one of us should ask ourselves now: What are the events and conditions that need to happen, for me to at that time say, “Go, Bomb Iran, now. Attack.” For some of the commenters above, such a day when they would agree to attack Iran will NEVER arrive, not for them, not for any provocation.
3:56 am
DevX,
why do you think the Iranian Mullah regime wants to commit suicide?
Your assumption that they intend or will nuke Tel Aviv is – paranoid.
As well as your idea that this would not be the last target.
Any nuclear strike coming from Iran would lead to a nuclear answer – and finish the nation’s capability to go on striking.
For a nation like Iran nuclear weapons can only be meaningful as a defense: deter others to nuke them.
As Israel has nukes, Iran needs nukes to deter Israel.
The only nation that might use nuclear weapons in an offense are the USA - provided they can manage to rule out a nuclear counter-strike. The USA is working on that project, as we know.