[Peace-discuss] Announcement of Main Event/Iran focus

[Stuart Levy]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:52:09PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Here's a draft of the publicity for tonight's meeting that we discussed 
> Sunday. A minimally formatted copy is attached. Comments welcome. --CGE

What would you think of mentioning (even with a link) the Robert Baer
article in Time, the one that you and JFP have each mentioned recently?
      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html
You point out below that both political parties are explicitly
"leaving all options on the table", and that's very good --
just pushing to get more D-labeled people in power isn't sufficient.
But "options", even immoral and illegal ones, could be raised as just
a way to intimidate an opponent.  It worries me much more to hear 
from Baer, who as an ex-CIA officer is in a position to know,
that people now in government who'd be carrying them out
think that those options are liable to be taken.
His article closes with:

    Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran,
    there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle
    to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were
    to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years
    war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it
    informs White House thinking.

    And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran
    unifies Iranians behind the regime?  An Administration official told me
    it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this
    Administration. There will be an attack on Iran." 

*That* worries me.  Maybe it will worry other readers too.
Is there room to work some of this in?

   Stuart

> ===========================================
>
> DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN -- NO ATTACK ON IRAN
> JOIN AWARE (THE ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT) ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1:
> DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S THREATENED ATTACK ON IRAN
>
> "Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because 
> the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a 
> country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants? But 
> ... Washington's objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central 
> purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of 
> Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not 
> necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military 
> capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United 
> States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment 
> ... In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But 
> the sacrifice of additional ... soldiers in Baghdad is not something that 
> is going to stop the ... the Bush-Cheney duo ... [and] the American people 
> ... will be faced with a fait accompli." --Alenjandro Nadal, “Blitzkrieg 
> Against Iran: Bush and Cheney’s Twisted Logic,” La Jornada, Mexico, 
> April 4, 2007
>
> 	--In mid-July the Senate voted 97-0 for an amendment written by Senator 
> Joseph Lieberman that states that "the murder [by Iran] of members of the 
> United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an 
> intolerable act against the United States."
> 	--Vice President Cheney's national security advisor John Hanna considers 
> 2007 "the year of Iran" -- a U.S. assault on Iran is "a real possibility" 
> this year; asked about the opposition of the Congress and the American 
> people to escalation in and beyond Iraq, Cheney replied, “It won’t stop 
> us.”
> 	--Iran "is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear 
> weapon," said President Bush; in fact, Iran has repeatedly said that its 
> nuclear program is for civilian purposes.
> 	--"All options are on the table," said Bush, when asked about the use of 
> force against Iran on Israeli TV.
> 	--"No option can be taken off the table" in regard to attacking Iran, said 
> Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
> 	--"We need to keep all options on the table," said Democratic presidential 
> candidate John Edwards.
> 	--"No option, including military action, is off the table ... having a 
> radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than] 
> launching some missile strikes into Iran," said Democratic presidential 
> candidate Barack Obama, who has introduced a bill on divestment from Iran 
> that even the Bush administration has tried to stop.
> 	--“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and 
> over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the 
> propaganda,” said Bush.
>
> THE DEMONSTRATION WILL TAKE PLACE ON SATURDAY FROM 2:00 TO 4:00PM
> AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND NEIL STREETS IN CHAMPAIGN.
>
> SIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED -- OR BRING YOUR OWN -- ABOUT
> PREVENTING A U.S. ATTACK ON IRAN, AS WELL AS
> 	--Ending the war in Afghanistan
> 	--Complete withdrawal from Iraq
> 	--Impeachment of Bush and Cheney
> 	--Ending repression of the Palestinians, etc.
>
> <http://anti-war.net/>