Tag: Iran

Oops! Michele Bachmann Promises to Close U.S. Embassy in Iran When She Is President

Jon Ponder

ABC News:

In light of the British Foreign Ministry pulling all U.K. nationals out of the British embassy in Tehran after students stormed the building in protest, GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann told a crowd in Waverly, Iowa, today that she would close the U.S. embassy in Iran.

One small, tiny note: The U.S. hasn’t had an embassy in Tehran since 1980. Following the Iranian Hostage Crisis, where 52 Americans were held for 444 days, the United States cut all diplomatic ties.

According to reports, Bachmann applauded the U.K.’s move, adding, “That’s exactly what I would do [if I were president]. We wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn’t allow that to be there.”

Recall just a few weeks ago when Bachmann bragged to Fox News that she had a squeaky clean record.

“I haven’t had a gaffe or something that I’ve done that has caused me to fall in the polls,” she said.

Now — wait for it! — the walk-back:

[…]

Evolution of a Rightwing Tweet

Trish
Rubio’s twitter profile pic

Love twitter, hate twitter, or just wish people understood the difference between status updates on facebook and tweets, and didn’t post the identical thing in both places. But. Whatever you feel about twitter, you have to admit that something very brief can provide huge insight.

Take Marco Rubio for example, or should I say marcorubio? The only guy not scared of running against Charlie Crist in a Republican primary in Florida for U.S. Senate is exploring his inner Iranian freedom meme on twitter. In successive posts on Father’s Day, you can watch him home in on how best to slam Obama, strike the proper note of patriotism and far rightwing zealotry, and applaud fatherhood. It’s not an easy job, but I think he’s done it.

First, there was this.

#May God bless those fathers in Iran who are speaking out in order to protect their childrens future. #iranelection #tcot #sayfie44 minutes ago from TwitterFon

A good start, but we’re missing the “terrorists have won” sentiment that Republicans so enjoy.

#An American govt afraid to speak out for freedom is exactly what the terrorists wanted to accomplish. #sayfie #tcot #iranelection #tehran36 minutes ago from TwitterFon

That’s better, but not overtly insulting to Obama and the Democrats.

#American govt may be afraid to speak out in support of Iranian freedom but the American people are not! #sayfie #iranelection #tehran #tcot32 minutes ago from TwitterFon

Almost perfect. Let’s just think about it a little more…Hey! Guns!

# I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours. #sayfie #tcot #nra20 minutes ago from TwitterFon

Now you’re tweeting, Marco! Way to make that Charlie Crist guy look like a wuss!

Iran Designates CIA, U.S. Army As Terrorist Organizations

Jon Ponder

Last week, the Democratically controlled U.S. Congress was caught red-handed aiding and abetting the Cheney-Bush drumbeat for war in Iran — just as they helped the administration in its run-up to the war in Iraq when Republicans controlled both houses.

On Tuesday, the House voted 397 to 16 to endorse the Cheney cabal’s assertion that the Iranian military’s Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. In a 76-22 vote on Wednesday, the Senate agreed to similar language.

On Saturday, the Iranian parliament countered with an in-kind declaration that elite U.S. institutions to be terrorist organizations, a move that was backed by Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Sunday:

Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in his weekly brief that he agreed with the symbolic resolution passed by Iran’s hardline parliament Saturday, which condemned the two American institutions for its actions in Japan in World War II, as well as more recently in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

“The label of terrorist is suitable for the military and security forces of the United States,” he said.

Seymour Hersh reported last week in the New Yorker that the administration has shifted the rationale for war because the public was not buying an earlier assertion it floated that Iran’s deployment of nuclear weapons was imminent.

Now Bush and Cheney are trying to convince Americans that Iran is responsible for the violence in Iraq because Iranian Shias are supplying weapons to Iraqi Shia insurgents in their civil war against Sunnis. This is ironic, of course, because it is the United States who invaded and is occupying Iraq — and because U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is also supplying weapons to Sunni insurgents in the sectarian civil war.

By voting for the Cheney-Bush designation of the Iranian military’s elite guard as a terrorist organization, Democrats in Congress have given the administration their tacit approval to escalate the U.S. war in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad: ‘We Don’t Have Homosexuals’ in Iran – Same Country That Executed Two Gay Teens in 2005

Jon Ponder


Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking today at Columbia University:

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it.”

July 2005:

Three weeks ago, two Iranian teenagers who had been imprisoned and mercilessly beaten, were finally executed by hanging in Iran for the crime of sex with another male, indeed, apparently it now seems within the context of a committed relationship. At that time, … The young guys, one of whom was under the age of 18 at the time of the execution and both of whom were under 18 at the time of their arrest, underwent more than a year in prison and were subjected to 228 lashes of a whip, before Iran robbed them of their young lives on Tuesday, July 19, 2005.

The teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni (yes, these two human beings had names), still call to me from their graves. I can hear their plaintive cries that we shall forget them and their deaths will be for naught.

Report: Iran War Is Set to Start Now, But Resistance Has Given Bush ‘Weak Knees’

Jon Ponder

Apocalypse now: New reporting by Robert Parry on the behind-the-scenes battle between Pres. Bush and the U.S. military’s top generals picks up where the Seymour Hersh’s story in the New Yorker leaves off — painting a picture of a what amounts to a quiet military coup at the very top ranks of the Pentagon against the neocon cabal at the White House.

Resistance from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. He had planned to launch an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

The nation’s top brass are convinced that attacking Iran would yield calamitous results, and yet the White House — under the sway of the neocons and Vice Pres. Cheney — is determined at any cost to escalate the sectarian war it has started in Iraq into a full-scale regional war between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Iran.

In an elaborate contest of wills, the generals, apparently including Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have leaked the broad strokes of Cheney’s secret war planning to the media. They have also let it be known that many of them would resign if Cheney and Bush take the country to war.

To counter this threat, Cheney has instructed the Pentagon to be ready to start bombing Iran within 24 hours after a signal from the White House — relying on the military’s “do or die” ethos to force the generals to stay at their posts until after the damage is done:

By creating such a tight time frame for action, Bush would negate the possibility for the Pentagon brass and Congress to mount any serious opposition to a presidential order on Iran, even if they are convinced Bush’s actions will be catastrophic.

The tradition of the U.S. military is to implement presidential orders regardless of doubts. Perhaps months later, a dissenting commander might quietly resign.

That practice and the 24-hour window may help explain why several U.S. generals are pondering now how to stop Bush from blindsiding them with a new war. One of their tactics appears to be leaking indications of their strong opposition to the press.

It was the order to set up the 24 hour trigger that prompted several top generals to signal to the Sunday Times of London this week that they would resign if the order to start the war is given. And, as unlikely as it may seem, it appears that the generals’ resistance may have been worked, at least in the short term:

[One] source told me that the resistance — from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress — appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. This source said he believed Bush had planned to launch an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

Nonetheless, based on the way Cheney and Bush drove the country to war against Iraq in 2002, the best assumption is that the new war against Iran could begin at any moment. It will come, according to Parry’s sources, with an attack by Israel on Iran, probably on its nuclear facilities. When Iran retaliates, the U.S. will come in full force to defend Israel, launching a bombardment of Iran’s infrastructure similar to the “shock and awe” bombing at the start of the war in Iraq.

What the generals want the American people to know is that this nightmare scenario is real, the planning is complete and ready to go — and that an attack could begin at any moment that would likely trigger a full-scale war in the Middle East.

Did Cheney Use Iran-Contra ‘Lessons Learned’ to Keep Iran War Plans Secret?

Jon Ponder

One revelation in Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker article about Vice Pres. Cheney’s not-so-secret plan to attack Iran bears more scrutiny. It involves Elliott Abrams — a Reagan Administration official who got caught in the Iran-Contra scandal, pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress and was later pardoned by the first Pres. George Bush.

“One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office.”

With a record like that, it should be no surprise that the current Pres. Bush has every confidence in Abrams, who currently serves as his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. Hersh suggests that Abrams has been helpful, at least indirectly, in providing Cheney and his team with a primer on how to operate secret government operations, as he, Oliver North, John Poindexter and then-Sec. of Defense Caspar Weinberger did during Iran-Contra — but, unlike them, without getting caught:

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office” — a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said…

[A] Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight [over Cheney’s operations], was accounting for covert funds. “There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,” he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.

“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

As is all too obvious, since we know about the secret plan, either Cheney’s war planners did not follow Abrams’ advice, or they consciously chose to leak their plans in order to unnerve their counterparts in Iran.

In any case, it’s worth noting that Our Liberal Media is completely untroubled by the fact that the U.S. government is set to foment a full-scale sectarian war in the Middle East between between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

“Lessons learned,” indeed.

Hersh: Cheney Has Secret Plan to Start War with Iran

Jon Ponder

Iran-Contra redux: New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh has learned that Vice Pres. Cheney has a secret plan to set up an “open confrontation” with Iran. As part of the plan, the Pentagon is now ready to start bombing within 24 hours of a signal from the White House.

The core of the problem is an unintended consequence of another failed Cheney gambit, the invasion of Iraq.

While Pres. Bush is undoutedly aware of Cheney’s plan, which is referred to internally as a “redirection,” according to Hersh, Cheney is firmly in charge:

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney…

The fact that Cheney’s activities are being kept secret from the Congress is eerily similar to the Reagan administration’s secret dealings in the Iran-Contra scandal — a fact which may have prompted the recent resignation of John Negroponte, a player in the Contra affair, as National Intelligence Director.

The core of the problem is an unintended consequence of another failed Cheney gambit, the invasion of Iraq. Under Saddam, the Sunni minority controlled Iraq, which made it a stable, if totalitarian, bastion between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran. Democratic elections in Iraq turned control of Iraq over to the Shiite majority, leading to the unintended consequence of an ongoing regional power shift toward Teheran.

This power struggle is being played in the Iraq civil war, where both Shiite and Sunni insurgents are being funded by their respective co-sectarianists in Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively. The Saudis, with their huge oil reserves, are famously risk-averse however, and they are demanding that Cheney fix what he broke.

As a result, Cheney’s team is rattling its sabers at Shiite-controlled Iran, even though the insurgents killing and wounding U.S. troops in Iraq are primarily Sunnis allied with the Saudis:

“This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”
— Flynt Leverett, former Bush administration National Security Council official

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when — if you look at the actual casualty numbers — the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

In the Iran-Contra matter 20 years ago, Congress was kept in the dark about Reagan’s efforts to send weapons and supplies to the Contras. Secrecy was required because Congress had expressly forbidden the administration from dealing with the Contras.

In 2005, a group of Iran-Contra veterans got together in Washington to review “lessons learned.” Elliot Abrams, who was tried, convicted and then pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra, led a session that reached four conclusions about how to run secret government operations without getting caught:

“One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office” — a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

But at least one Iran-Contra figure is opting out, according to Hersh:

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.’ ” (In the case of covert C.I.A. operations, the President must issue a written finding and inform Congress.) Negroponte stayed on as Deputy Secretary of State, he added, because “he believes he can influence the government in a positive way.”

Last Sunday, the Times of London reported that a handful of top U.S. military brass had threatened to resign if the U.S. attacked Iran. It is possible their threats were prompted by learning about Cheney’s plan — which, see number three above, is apparently not so secret anymore.

Assuming Seymour Hersh’s reporting is correct, and his track record is among the best — and based on the record of Cheney and Bush from 2002, we have to assume they will start a war in Irans sometime very soon — even though it is hard to fathom, then as now, why they are hellbent on igniting the cataclysm.

Times of London: U.S. Military Leaders Threaten to Resign if Bush Attacks Iran

Jon Ponder

Finally, a glimmer of hope for our country:

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

Unfortunately, these military officers are now marked men.