Wednesday, April 30, 2008

We Must Not Bomb Iran!

[At the end of these articles is an entry I posted over six months ago. At that point, the idea of a US attack on Iran was still considered by many to be a distant nightmare.]

METAFUTURE: Iraq, Iran and Permanent War
by Troutfishing
Sunday, April 27, 2008

The appointment of David Petreus to be head of CENTCOM is part of an ongoing, quiet purge by the Bush Administration of anyone in the US military leadership with more than a shred of moral conscience, and I am utterly convinced that if the Bush Adminstration can attack Iran it will.

I am not the only one concerned:
Petraeus' rise lets Cheney loose on Iran

WASHINGTON - The nomination of General David Petraeus to be the new head of the US Central Command ensures that he will be available to defend the George W Bush administration's policies on Iran and Iraq at least to the end of Bush's term and possibly even beyond.

It also gives Vice President Dick Cheney greater freedom of action to exploit the option of an air attack against Iran during the administration's final months.
Gareth Porter

Questions Linger on Scope of Iran’s Threat in Iraq
New York Times, April 26, 2008

" For weeks, Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the top American officials in Iraq have portrayed Iran as a significant and growing threat to the American war effort in Iraq.
In particular, they have cited an intensified barrage of Iranian-made rockets hitting the Green Zone in Baghdad — including attacks during a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — that have killed Americans and Iraqis. recent weeks the administration has sought to emphasize the threat by citing new evidence. The interrogations of four Iraqi Shiite militia commanders, for example, have provided new details about the extent of training conducted by the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, officials said."

Here's Jim Lobe, for IPS News:
POLITICS-US: Hawks Resurgent?

Add the promotion of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who has overseen the past year's "surge" of U.S. troops, to take over the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) this summer, as well as the increasingly harsh charges against Iran's alleged interference in Iraq that have been coming out of the Pentagon in recent days.

All these developments are seen by some as an answer to the prayers of neo-conservatives, in particular, who had largely given up hopes that Bush could be persuaded to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

In his testimony about the surge earlier this month, Petraeus had repeatedly blamed allegedly Iranian-sponsored and directed Shi'a "Special Groups" for attacking Iraqi government and U.S. forces in Basra and Baghdad, describing them as "the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq"...

...there appears little question that the rhetoric here has become considerably harsher in recent weeks. The shift became particularly evident in February, when the former Centcom commander and the man whom Petraeus will replace, Adm. William 'Fox' Fallon, abruptly announced his resignation following the publication of a profile in Esquire magazine that depicted him as opposing key administration policies and as the one man standing between Bush and war with Iran.

Petraeus promotion an ominous sign of possible war with Iran
Salt Lake City Tribune, April 26, 2008
Farrah Hassan

The promotion of Gen. David Petraeus is another ominous sign that the Bush administration may attack Iran. President Bush is nominating Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, to replace Adm. William Fallon as head of Centcom: U.S. Central Command, which oversees the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fallon was forced to resign last month after his outspoken opposition to an attack on Iran. Petraeus, by contrast, has been heating up the rhetoric against Iran. "Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups," Petraeus testified to Congress in early April. Those special groups (meaning, the militias) pose the biggest threat to the United States, he added. He blamed Iran for the rocket attacks on the Green Zone, and he warned, "We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead." Petraeus' boss issued a warning of his own. "The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make," Bush said April 10. "If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners."

Here's what I wrote over three years ago, January 2005, on the Daily Kos:
What the Bush Adm. may actually be aiming at - as a politically serendipitious blowback from strikes on Iran - would be another major terrorist attack on US interests or US soil.

Al Qaeda now exists more as an ideological franchise than an organization. But Hezzbollah on the other hand.... Hezzbollah is an actual organization, more like a ministate, which has both military and terrorist capabilities and which has close ties to, and receives funds from, Iran: The organization has missiles and drones, and demonstrated considerable military capability in driving Israeli forces from Lebannon. One cannot assume, for that matter, that the organization does not possess one or two portable nuclear devices.

In going to war against Iran, the Bush Administration will be inviting Hezzbollah retaliation. That might not come immediately, but it would be an underestimation, I feel, to discount the possibility that some of the most outrageous of the many Bush Administration generated US PR debacles surrounding the Iraqi invasion and occupation were wholly unintentional. The gratuitiously offensive nature of the sexual humiliation tactics used at Abu Ghraib, while disastrous at one level, also serve the interests of some in the Bush Administration who need a more significant Causus Bellum now that the sting of 9-11 has ebbed somewhat.

The overall effect of US behavior since the invasion of Iraq has been to polarize Islamic attitudes - this is surely happening within such subcultures as Hezzbollah, and so I have to wonder - when will the Bush Administration's Trotskyite rolling "permanent war" in the Mideast cause the voices of hotheads to prevail, against the voices of caution, in the call for strikes against US interests ? And, would the Bush NeoCons be blindsided, or would they have been expecting such an attack ? It would be a mistake to assume that the growing world hatred of the US was unanticipated or undesired by the Bush Neocons and their Dominionist and Rapturist Christian allies - such world hatred, and subsequent terrorist attacks on the US, would, indeed, serve to advance both the domestic and geopolitical aims of the NeoCons.

Of course, such attacks would provide a pretext for US actions against Syria and Iran. Domestically, however, they would be at least as useful for the Bush NeoCons and the new US Right (AKA the religious right ).

Another strike of magnitude comparable to or larger than the September 11, 2001 attack - "9-11 redux" - or even several much smaller attacks, would provide George W. Bush, the NeoCons, and the Christian right - especially with the likely escalation of conflict and mayhem in the Mideast - with sufficient pretext for substantial crackdown - under the rubric of "national unity -quashing domestic dissent. Frenzied demonization of Islamic-American groups with a subsequent widespread outbreak of hate crimes and perhaps the interment of Muslims and certain ethnicities of Mideastern origin may proliferate. Also, expect a crackdown on political and cultural dissident groups - outspoken voices on the left, gays, and so on. Some on the US right have long planned and yearned for something like this, the transformation of US government into an authoritarian security state.

Beyond harshly repressive domestic political measures, further terrorist attacks within the US would enable the "toughening up America", and full mobilization of America's war-fighting capability - by way of a reinstituted draft, privatized military services, or both. In fact, this has been underway in a low grade way since September 11, 2001, and it should be noted that one of the side effects of the Iraq conflict has been a dramatic expansion in the number of battle hardened US Army and National Guard units. This may have been unintentional, but it lays groundwork for future war and is congruent with an overall Spartanization of an American that has come to be viewed by some as grown dangerously soft.

The upshot of this train of events will be a "Spartanization" of America, under a new, embattled and combatitive mentality, and - meanwhile a rolling, graduated blitz through the Mideast which, conveniently, could have the effect of destabilizing Saudi Arabia - and that, in turn, would demand US led "stabilization" measures. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia - one down, two to go, and the US will achieve direct control of something on the order of 1/2 of the World's oil. That control can be, in turn, used to exert pressure on nations opposed to the new US hegemonic order.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

NO War with Iran!!!
Faye Hadley

Rumors of war abound, and nothing could be more frightening than the thought of this derelict, incompetent administration launching yet another unnecessary war against a country that is at least three times the size of Iraq with nearly three times the population. Having learned absolutely nothing from the fiasco that is Iraq, the Bush administration is planning on attacking Iran. Or that is the buzz in the blogosphere anyway - I hope against hope that this prediction is wrong, but at this point, I've become so cynical and disillusioned that I wouldn't put any devious dastardly action past Darth Cheney or any of his minions (and I include Georgie Bush in that group).

Here are a few blog posts that have me worried:
Home Alone, Dick and George Desperately Scheme for War
Post Labor Day Roll Out - War with Iran
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
THE NEXT WAR? by Arnaud de Borchgrav, Benador Associates
Staging Nukes for Iran?

Here is a web site that gives me hope:

Here is an essay that explains much about why we are where we, as a people, are in time and war: Iraq, Iran and the Moral Rot Infecting the Soul of America

No comments: