[Peace-discuss] FW: Attacking Iran?

[Lisa Chason]

This makes too much sense. Surge the troops so that they happen to be in
place just when they're needed...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: J Nederveen Pieterse [mailto:jnp at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:28 AM
To: mpdaly at uiuc.edu; daugirda at uiuc.edu; guarna at uiuc.edu; gulbinas at uiuc.edu;
chauck2 at uiuc.edu; dnhender at uiuc.edu; bjaros2 at uiuc.edu; mliu23 at uiuc.edu;
kmaiora2 at uiuc.edu; cmathia2 at uiuc.edu; rrahman2 at uiuc.edu
Cc: deanbeck at uiuc.edu; dbiswas2 at uiuc.edu; jbohr2 at uiuc.edu;
restabr2 at uiuc.edu; rghadge2 at uiuc.edu; jkkim1 at uiuc.edu; kim252 at uiuc.edu;
tessema2 at uiuc.edu; yarborou at uiuc.edu; 'Daniel Araya'; 'Sharif Islam';
tanders9 at uiuc.edu; Meltem
Subject: FW: Attacking Iran?



Jan Nederveen Pieterse
Sociology, University of Illinois
http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jnp/www/ 
 

A friend of mine forwarded this story on to me. It concerns the 
possibility of U.S./Israel attack on Iran. With U.S. doing so poorly in 
Iraq, at first reading I dismissed this esay. But after thinking a 
little more about it, it's starting to make sense to me. My guess is 
that Bush would not use the U.S. military, for obvious reasons, to 
attack Iran. But he may give Israel the green light knowing quite well 
that this would put the Democrats in a position to support war with 
Iran. If Bush uses the US military to attack Iran first, he knows there 
will be little support of it. If Israel, on the other hand, does the 
slaying itself, be assured the Democrats will fall in line. I'm going to 
put my neck out on the line again and continue to agree with these 
conspiracy-obsessed people. Bush is a very dangerous wounded animal and 
the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, will soon take 
over the act of destruction, scene II.

K

--------------------------------------

Iran Clock Is Ticking
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/02/0107C.sht,ml Wednesday 31 January 2007

While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in
challenging George W. Bush's war powers, the time may be running out to
stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict 
by attacking Iran.

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that
preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as
early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of 
opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether
Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran's
nuclear facilities.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that 
Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a
second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region - and for a
propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after
consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the
war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial
attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.
Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran
war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had
been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S .
forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy
anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the
source said.

Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand 
the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed,
said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional - and possibly
global - conflagration.

"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, 
citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly
into the United States.

Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking
Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the 
months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London
made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before
the Iraq invasion.

In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran 
and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over
its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is, of course, the possibility that the war preparations are a 
game of chicken to pressure Iran to accept outside controls on its
nuclear program and to trim back its regional ambitions. But sometimes
such high-stakes gambles lead to miscalculations or set in motion
dynamics that can't be controlled.
"You Will Die"

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is seen as another
factor pressing on Bush to act quickly against Iran.

Other sources with first-hand knowledge of conditions in Iraq have told 
me that the U.S. position is even more precarious than generally
understood. Westerners can't even move around Baghdad and many other
Iraqi cities except in armed convoys.

"In some countries, if you want to get out of the car and go to the 
market, they'll tell you that it might be dangerous," one experienced
American cameraman told me. "In Iraq, you will be killed. Not that you
might be killed, but you will be killed. The first Iraqi with a gun will 
shoot you, and if no one has a gun, they'll stone you."

While U.S. war correspondents in most countries travel around in
taxis with "TV" taped to their windows, Western journalists in Iraq move 
only in armed convoys to and from specific destinations. They operate
from heavily guarded Baghdad hotels sometimes with single families
responsible for security since outsiders can't be trusted.

The American cameraman said one European journalist rebelled at the 
confinement, took off on her own in a cab - and was never seen again.

Depression also is spreading among U.S. intelligence officials who
monitor covert operations in Iraq from listening stations sometimes
thousands of miles away. The results of these Special Forces operations
have been so horrendous that morale in the intelligence community has
suffered.

The futility of the Iraq War also is contributing to professional 
cynicism. Some intelligence support personnel are volunteering for Iraq
duty not because they think they can help win the war but because the
hazard pay is high and life in the protected Green Zone is relatively 
safe and easy.

Once getting past the risks of the Baghdad airport and the
dangerous road into the city, U.S. civilian government personnel
ensconce themselves in the Green Zone, which amounts to a bubble of U.S.
creature comforts - from hamburgers to lounging by the pool - separate
from the world of average Iraqis who are mostly barred.

Cooks are brought in from other countries out of the unstated
concern that Iraqis might poison the food.
That American officials have come to view a posting in Iraq as a
pleasant career enhancer - rather than a vital national security mission
for the United States - is another sign that the war is almost certainly 
beyond recovery.

Another experienced observer of conflicts around the world told me
that Bush's new idea of putting small numbers of U.S. troops among Iraqi
government forces inside police stations represents an act of idiocy 
that is sure to get Americans killed.

Conditions in Iraq have so deteriorated - and animosity toward
Americans has so metastasized - that traditional counterinsurgency
strategies are hard to envision, too.
Normally, winning the hearts and minds of a target population
requires a commitment to move among the people and work on public action
projects, from building roads to improving the judicial system. But all
that requires some measure of political goodwill and personal trust.

Given the nearly four years of U.S. occupation and the devastation
that Iraq has suffered, not even the most talented American
counterinsurgency specialists can expect to overcome the hatred swelling 
among large segments of Iraqi society.

Bush's "surge" strategy of conducting more military sweeps through
more Iraqi neighborhoods - knocking down doors, gunning down hostile
Iraqis and dragging off others to detention camps - is not likely to 
assuage hard feelings.

Wider War

So, facing slim odds in Iraq, Bush is tempted by the allure of
escalation, a chance to blame the Iranians for his Iraq failure and to
punish them with air strikes. He might see that as a way to buy time, a 
chance to rally his pro-war supporters and a strategy for enhancing his
presidential legacy.

***But the consequences both internationally and domestically - from
***possible disruption of oil supplies to potential retaliation from 
***Islamic terrorists - could be devastating.

Yet, there is a sense of futility among many in Washington who
doubt they can do anything to stop Bush. So far, the
Democratic-controlled Congress has lagged behind the curve, debating how 
to phrase a non-binding resolution of disapproval about Bush's "surge"
of 21,500 troops in Iraq, while Bush may be opening an entirely new
front in Iran.

According to intelligence sources, Bush's Iran strategy is expected to 
let the Israelis take a lead role in attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities in order to defuse Democratic opposition and let the U.S.
intervention be SOLD AS DFENSEIVE, a case of a vulnerable ally
protecting itself from a future nuclear threat.
***Once American air and naval forces are committed to a new conflict,
***the Democrats will find it politically difficult to interfere at
***least in the near future, the thinking goes. A violent reaction from 
the Islamic world would further polarize the American population and let
Bush paint war critics as cowardly, disloyal or pro-terrorist.

As risky as a wider war might be, Bush's end game would dominate
the final two years of his presidency as he forces both Republican and
Democratic candidates to address issues of war and peace on his terms.

On Jan. 10, the night of Bush's national address on the Iraq War, NBC 
Washington bureau chief Tim Russert made a striking observation
about a pre-speech briefing that Bush and other senior administration
officials gave to news executives.

"There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that 
Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue in the
country and the world in a very acute way - and a prediction that in
2008 candidates of both parties will have as a fundamental campaign
promise or premise a policy to deal with Iran and not let it go
nuclear," Russert said. "That's how significant Iran was today."

So, Bush and his top advisers not only signaled their expectation of a 
"very acute" development with Iran but that the Iranian issue would
come to dominate Campaign 2008 with candidates forced to spell out plans
for containing this enemy state.

What to Do?

The immediate question, however, is what, if anything, can Congress
and the American people do to head off Bush's expanded war strategy.

Some in Congress have called on Bush to seek prior congressional
approval before entering a war with Iran. Others, such as Sen. Arlen
Specter, R-Pennsylvania, have asked Bush to spell out how expansive he
thinks his war powers are.

***"I would suggest respectfully to the President that he is not the 
***sole decider," Specter said during a Senate hearing on war powers on
***Jan. 30. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

But Bush and his neoconservative legal advisers have made clear that 
they see virtually no limits to Bush's "plenary" powers as
Commander in Chief at a time of war. In their view, Bush is free to take
military actions abroad and to waive legal and constitutional 
constraints at home because the United States has been deemed part of
the "battlefield."

NOTHING SHORT OF A DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION ON A WAR WITH
IRAN AND A SERIOUS THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD SEEMS LIKELY TO GIVE BUSH 
MOER THAN A MOEMENT'S PAUSE. But congressional Republicans would surely
obstruct such measures and Bush might well veto any law that was passed.

Still, unless Congress escalates the confrontation with the President - 
and does so quickly - it may be too late to stop what could
become a very dangerous escalation.

---------

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for
the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: 
Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his
1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Logic of a Wider 
Mideast War."]