Tag: Iran

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.

Poll: D.C. Insiders Don’t Believe Bush on Iran

Buck Banks

More lies: For this week’s Insider Poll, National Journal asked inside-the-Beltway types their views on whether George Bush is gearing up to lead from behind in an invasion of Iran:

‘For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran.’
— Defense Secretary Robert Gates

The new insiders poll asked 40 congressional Democrats and 35 congressional Republicans to grade the administration’s handling of Iran. Bush received an average C-plus grade from his fellow party members and a D-minus from the opposition. The perception that Bush has already decided to act against Iran was commonly cited.

“I would have given him an F, but he has not invaded yet,” a Democratic insider who gave Bush a D grumbled. A colleague echoed that reasoning, adding that a military strike “would be an utter disaster with enormously negative consequences.”

Indeed, Democrats’ skepticism of the administration’s stated intentions for dealing with Iran led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to tell reporters this week, “For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday suggested she would try to nip Bush’s alleged Iran ambitions in the bud with a binding resolution requiring congressional approval for military invasion.

Predictably, Democrats were all but evenly split on whether Bush should receive a D or an F (not one gave him an A). Republicans were more forgiving: Forty-six percent gave him a B, 29 percent gave him a C and just 3 percent gave him an F. One of the 9 percent who gave him an A laid blame for the diplomatic crisis with Iran squarely on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “It is difficult to work with a person who seeks world destruction.”

There are two popular lines of thought when it comes to the Bush administration and Iran. One is that a military strike would more likely be considered justified because of Tehran’s nuclear program, and a fresh war would entice the American public to rally behind the troops. The other is that the Bush administration is chastened by the Iraq war and is sincere in seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran.

But even if the latter is the case, insiders have more criticism to add to the pile. Groused a GOP insider who gave Bush a D: Bush “should not rely on the weak-kneed lefties at the State Department to manage our interests in Iran.”

Sen. Mel Martinez Still Claiming Iraq is About 9/11

Trish

Looks like someone missed the memo. In his floor statement last week, as Republicans in the Senate filibustered their way out of the debate on Iraq that the country has been clamoring for, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) did it again. He repeated that old chestnut about how we’re fighting in Iraq because these are the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

I’m quoting the entire passage from his very own web site, so as not to be accused of taking what he said out of context or making this shit up.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?”

But, getting beyond the procedural debate and the tit for tat that so often signifies what Washington is about, what is it that, fundamentally, this debate is about? It’s about the Global War on Terror. It is about the events that unfolded in our country on the morning of September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores. And, as we have sought to carry out this difficult war, but one in which we must not waiver, which is this War on Terror. And as a result of this War on Terror, our troops are in Iraq today where they have removed a dictator from power, and where they have confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 9/11.

It is known that in al-Anbar province, it is fundamentally an al-Qaeda operation. So to send additional reinforcements to al-Anbar province to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq is in the best interest of this nation; it is in our national interest. To pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and security of that nation—of that budding democracy—that is attempting to put itself on its feet and to bring some stability to that capital city, by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan, I think is reasonable.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? That is just so, like, last month!

Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?” Come on, get with the party line already.

For those of you don’t know, Martinez has been tapped to lead the GOP in the next election cycle. I hope for their sake he’s better at fund-raising than making speeches.

Former Bush Official Says Admininstration Is Deliberately Provoking Iran

Jon Ponder

This one is on the record:

“They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, former Bush national security official.

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi’s kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous.

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test.

With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

Whispering Campaign Against Iran Grows

Trish

The mainstream media has reached a new low in failing their sole mission to give us information we need to make good decisions. Instead, they are reporting the carefully assembled “facts” about Iran’s involvement in Iraq without questioning — or even naming — the source. Here’s the lead to an ABC story:

“The officer briefed reporters on condition he not be further identified…” Huh?

High-tech roadside bombs that have proved particularly deadly to American soldiers are manufactured in Iran and delivered to Iraq on orders from the “highest levels” of the Iranian government, a senior intelligence officer said Sunday.

The officer, briefing reporters on condition he not be further identified, said that between June 2004 and last week, more than 170 Americans had been killed by the bombs, which the military calls “explosively formed projectiles.”

Those weapons are capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officer said American intelligence analysts believe the EFPs are manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on orders from the top of the Iranian government. He did not elaborate.

Who is this mystery “senior intelligence officer” and why on earth would we accept his information without demanding his identity? What possible reason is there to keep his identity secret? And who has the greater need? Mr. X, to get out his information? Or the press, to reveal it to us? I’d wager their need to put this out is much greater than ours to get it, especially since they are making sure we can’t judge its accuracy.

Have we not learned any lessons about the miserable mistake of letting the Bush administration spoon-feed us their version of the facts, and what happens when the press rolls over and becomes mere transcribers? Can you say, “Here we go again?”

Rice Refused to Take Iran’s Call in 2003

Trish

Nobody home Iran reached out to the incompetent Bush diplomatic team in 2003 but its calls went unreturned by the worst president ever’s worst diplomats.

Conjuring deja vu all over again in congressional testimony this week, Secretary of Narcolepsy State Condo Rice said the Iranians just didn’t make it clear enough for her or her predecessor, Colin Powell.

“We had people who said the Iranians went to talk to you, lots of people who said the Iranians want to talk to you,” Rice said

Rice told Congress she does not remember seeing the 2003 Iranian proposal, which suggested Iran was ready to discuss its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel…

The document, faxed to the State Department in the early days of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, proposed direct talks, perhaps in Paris. Iraq was at the top of the proposed agenda, with Tehran proposing “active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization.”

Like the infamous “Terrorists are Going to Hijack Passenger Jets and Fly Them into Skyscrapers” memo that Rice’s National Security Council couldn’t quite parse out the meaning of, the Iranian fax will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities since Capt. Smith said, “Icebergs? Who cares about icebergs? This ship is unsinkable!”

“We had people who said the Iranians went to talk to you, lots of people who said the Iranians want to talk to you,” Rice said during an exchange with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla.

“But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, ‘We’re ready to recognize Israel,'” Rice said. “I just don’t remember ever seeing any such thing.”

Well of course you don’t, Condo, and therein lies the problem. The Bush team’s idea of diplomacy is sitting back and waiting for the other side to wave a white flag and say, “O.K., we’re giving you everything you want and a few things you haven’t thought of yet! And would you like that gift-wrapped?”

To them, it’s a zero-sum game. Gone are the days of give and take, back and forth, and agreements all parties can live with long-term that win Nobel Peace prizes. Now it’s just threaten sanctions, impose sanctions, and send Cheney off to the bunker to await the explosion.

“This administration, out of some combination of ideological blindness and incompetence, couldn’t be bothered to explore whether this opportunity was as serious as it looked on paper,” [Rice’s former National Security Council Aide Flynt] Leverett said Wednesday…

The Bush administration has resisted suggestions, including from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, that it should engage Iran to try to improve security in next-door Iraq.

And these idiots want us to take their word for it when they tell us now that we might possibly need to go to war with Iran? Don’t!

Disaster: Bush Says He’ll Continue Meddling in Middle East After His Presidency

Jon Ponder

George Bush has informed his inner circle that after he leaves office he plans to invite Middle East leaders to his think tank in Texas, where he will school them in the finer points of democratic governance.

If Bush really is allowed to continue meddling in the Middle East after he leaves office, there could soon be nuclear bomb craters dotting the landscape from Tel Aviv to Teheran.

Too bad no one in his inner circle has the cojones to tell him that the rest of the world views his efforts in the region to date as having done more harm than good. His approach — bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age and then installing a weak-as-treacle democracy among the ruins — has supplanted the Vietnam War as the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history.

Meanwhile, here at home, not since the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration has a gang in government done more to assault the U.S. Constitution. Through his actions — from wiretapping U.S. citizens to creating “signing statements” that abrogate the bills he signs into law — Bush has demonstrated an aristocrat’s disdain for the institutions of democracy.

The president’s sad bluster about staying involved in Middle East politics would be funny if it weren’t so fraught with danger. Allowing him to meddle in the Middle East could easily result in nuclear-bomb craters dotting the landscape from Tel Aviv to Teheran.