Bush's Five-Point Plan to Invade Iran
By Tom Ball 04/27/2006 09:11:35 PM EST
Curtesy of Political Cortex
"That Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld is defiant. He says he is not backing down and says he will stick around and let people criticize his handling of the Iranian invasion."
-- David Letterman
"On CNN today, a retired Air Force colonel said that US military operations are already under way in Iran. You know what that means. Time to break out the old 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
-- Jay Leno
Over the course of recent years, multiple lots of evidence have surfaced that unambiguously point to an administration bent on invading the nation of Saddam and there establishing an intimidating U.S. presence with or without the aid of a publicly acceptable and legitimate rationale.
So it was written over a decade ago by then future administration officials, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. They explained clearly what was needed in order to Invade Iraq, and when they got it on September 11, 2001, there was no turning back.
That said, favorable public opinion would exponentially improve the ease with which they were able to pursue their objectives of 'Reshaping the Middle East'. So they rationalized an invasion with ever-changing rationales.
Like viewing failure through a kaleidoscope, each of their proposed rationales fell into the dustbin of inadequacy -- switching from 9/11 ties, to WMD, to regime change, to liberating the Iraqi people.
Nevertheless, the motives were sufficiently palpable -- at least enough to ingrain our nation so far as to make immediate withdrawal a dubious option, if not for us than for millions of innocent Iraqi citizens.
Along the way, the administration ignored (or dismissed) warnings from our own intelligence sources that Saddam's contemporary stores of WMD may be little more than a myth. They continued to stiff-arm our sources by using duly noted 'dubious data' to sell the invasion to the American public.
Since then it has become apparent that the administration's focus had nothing to do with WMD. The question that remains is, "Why couldn't anyone outside the progressive political blogs see that this was taking place?"
Now the same course of events are unfolding with Iran.
War was Inevitable
The Downing Street Memo, the CIA, and a host of investigative journalists have since come forward with evidence that War was a done deal even before the search for WMD began.
Then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much when he boasted that the real reason for the Iraq Invasion was for oil and that the use of the WMD justification for that invasion was used simply because "it was something we could all agree on."
But if you thought failures of foreign policy and revelations of executive dishonesty would slow them down, you would be painfully mistaken because despite all this, the administration is back at it again. In fact, they've been working tirelessly on 'Reshaping the Middle East' Stage II even as Stage I was struggling through infancy.
Stage II -- "Operation Iranian Freedom"
It's a simple formula really -- prepping the world for "Operation Iranian Freedom"
Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" -- desensitizing the public to the concept.
Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an 'environment of inevitability'
Step up Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
Keep reading...
Step 1) Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Take the Pre-invasion Quiz:
Let's see what we've learned from the first Bush term. Can you differentiate between administration statements about Iran and past statements about Iraq?
1) Hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about xxxx's nuclear capacities to make the case that xxxx is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or 'regime change.'
2) Bush warned the United Nations that xxxx could have nuclear weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said: "On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that xxxx will acquire such weapons fairly soon.
3) But Britain, France and Germany are urging diplomacy, placing their hopes in a deal they brokered last week in which xxxx agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program in return for discussions about future economic benefits.
4) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that xxxx will have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Cheney acknowledges, and no one outside xxxx really knows how close xxxx is to that point.
5) Secretary of State Colin L. Powell thrust himself into the debate on Wednesday by commenting to reporters that fresh intelligence showed that xxxx was 'actively working' on a program to enable its missiles to carry nuclear bombs, a development he said 'should be of concern to all parties.'
(See answer below.)
Okay, so maybe that wasn't so difficult. Nevertheless, the point is clear. The administration's foreign policy 'template' is alive and well and they find no need to differentiate between Iraq or Iran (or probably Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, North Korea, and France for that matter).
Hey, it worked once... and if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
(Answer key: Iran: 1,3,5 -- Iraq: 2,4)
More Recently, U.N. ambassador John Bolton's Language on Iran has eerily replicated pre-Iraq War rhetoric. ABC News' Nightline reported that in describing the threat from Iran, Bolton is using "precisely the same warnings that the Bush Administration proclaimed about Iraq." Bolton said:
"Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It funds groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad. Imagine what would happen, if the Iranians obtained a nuclear weapon and gave it to Hezbollah. You don't want to contemplate the consequences."
The current UN discussion on Iran is also being compared to the Iraq debate three years ago. According to the Christian Science Monitor:
"As the United Nations Security Council wrestles with how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, discussion at UN headquarters is at times as much about the council's effectiveness and America's role in the international community as it is about Iran. Sound vaguely familiar?" Three years after the Iraq debate, "the UN is witnessing a strikingly similar conversation. Moreover, some experts warn that dallying by the council could prompt the US to eventually act outside the UN."
Following these lines is a report by the Los Angeles Times that US Officials Believe Iran Aiding Al Qaeda.
"US intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country. Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations."
Of course, Iraq was accused of Al Qaeda ties in the administration's effort to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and broader acts of terrorism in general.
Step 2) Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" -- desensitizing the public to the concept.
For those nations and individuals who were somehow able to suppress their gag reflex when Bush announced his horrific "Pre-emptive Doctrine", there was only one logical alternative -- monkey see, monkey do.
As expected, Bush's demonic doctrine inspired others to follow
Russia: Russia assured the world that it's prepared to make 'pre-emptive' strikes on "terrorist bases" across the globe. Russia's Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky said:
"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes."
Nuclear strikes? Is this guy nuts? The clear implication here is that this official -- who has significant influence on the use of the Russian nuclear arsenal -- believes that the global community would consider nuclear strikes as a valid option when responding to terrorist attacks...at least to the extent that he felt compelled to clarify that nuclear strikes will not necessarily be the action taken. And by the way, he didn't say he would not use nuclear strikes -- only that his proclamation is not evidence that they will.
What do you think this guy really wants to do?
And can you blame him. After all, it was our own glorious leader who defined pre-emptive strikes as a valid form of foreign policy. We can hardly hold the rest of the planet to a higher standard.
[In other news, President Bush is considering the use of Nuclear Weapons on Iran]
And besides, Russia is not the first nation to jump on the pre-emptive, 'Bush-doctrine' bandwagon.
North Korea: In February of 2003, North Korean officials argued that they have the right to a pre-emptive attack on the U.S. as the Bush Administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
President Bush should be proud. He's set the standard for our enemies. So much for strategic ambiguity. If you ever wondered what would happen if the US preemptively struck another nation, Pyong Yang has your answer.
India: Back in April of 2003, India, a nuclear power, called on the US to preemptively invade and conquer Pakistan, a neighboring nuclear power. They cited the opinion that given the Administration's own lax criteria for invasion, Pakistan is a far more dangerous and legitimate target than Iraq.
According to the External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha:
"I genuinely believe that if possession of weapons of mass destruction, absence of democracy and export of terrorism are the criteria, then no country deserves more than Pakistan to be tackled."
Japan: In May of 2003, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi claimed that:
"Japan has the right to make a preemptive strike on any country preparing to attack it."
He took the additional step of calling for Japan to "revise its Constitution to give its Self-Defense Forces the status of a conventional military organization."
Japan has maintained a pacifist security policy since their defeat in WWII. Koizumi went to outrageous lengths to propose changes to the Japanese Constitution, attempting to turn that policy on its head and spark an aggressive military buildup in the region and around the world.
The idea of a renewed Japanese military operating outside its own territory would likely alarm many sovereignties in the region that were victims of Japanese aggression in the Second World War.
Koizumi, using fashionable "Bush-speak", cited justification for pre-emptive action because "We could not just let the Japanese people be harmed by doing nothing."
You can imagine the historic consequences of using such logic as every paranoid, trigger-happy, nutcase would have launched wars of aggression in the "defense" of their nation.
And that underscores the catastrophic precedent set by this Administration when it preemptively attacked Iraq. Bush's example has forever altered the global perception of 'acceptable' foreign policy tactics and he has offered an arsenal of rationalizations available for other nations in pursuit of dubious global actions.
Clearly, the "First Strike" precedent opens doors for devastation in situations surrounding China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, Russia-Georgia, Japan-North Korea and others. They say, "Hey! If the US can do it, why not us?"
More recently, the Administration released its national security strategy to Congress which underscored the administration's commitment to the first-strike policy. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, insisted that the pre-emption doctrine is not aimed at Iran.
And by that, he means that it IS aimed at Iran.
In fact, the New York Times follows up reporting that Bush's document "gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003," and adds that it "identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States." The strategy document "declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel 'must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'" And the Wall Street Journal reports the Iran language "could heighten nervousness that the Bush administration will ultimately resort to force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
Imagine: You believe your neighbor wants to do you harm so you break into his house in the dark of night and smother him as he sleeps. You feel vindicated as you are now assured that the threat no longer exists. Unfortunately, your other neighbors know what you did. Now they think you want to do the same to them.
Have a nice sleep.
Step 3) Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an environment of inevitability
Alternate Title: "Top 21 Pieces of Evidence that Iran is Next on Bush's Hit List"
1) Clearly, the Bush administration never made it a secret that further invasions beyond Iraq would be heavy on their list of future options.
The Bush administration [told] Congress in open hearings... that the threat of weapons of mass destruction remains so real the U.S. may have to use military force again to stop their proliferation.
In the strongest policy statement yet made, [then] Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton [revealed] to the House's Committee on International Relations the administration's "roll back" doctrine in dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
[...]
Though Bolton will stress the U.S. will seek peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, he [added], ominously, "we rule out no options."
Among those options, Bolton [said], is pre-emptive military force, "as the case of Iraq demonstrates.
2) Bush was drooling over the release of the 911 Commission Report, for although it dismissed any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (we already invaded that country anyway), the Commission did neoconservatives a tremendous favor by mentioning ties between Iran and al Qaeda, and in particular the 911 hijackers.
Now, never mind that these connections were 'Murky' and that there was no evidence of a 'close working relationship' between Iran and the terrorist group. Such nuances are easily downplayed and ignored by an apathetic media and a fear-stricken electorate.
Indeed, this single reference alone could serve as the fuel for the long-awaited execution of the neoconservative foreign policy initiative...'reshaping' the Middle East.
3) Nevertheless, we would be grossly mistaken if we were to assume that such cues were a recent phenomenon. An invasion of Iran and the surrounding region has been a mainstay neoconservative objective since the founding of that movement.
The invasion of Iraq was merely a stepping stone toward this greater objective. In fact, the plan is described in some detail by a neoconservative think tank whose membership at one time included Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, just to name a few.
And it all began long, long ago in a land not so far away...
4) Flashback to spring of 2003. John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:
"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."
He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people." No, he wasn't referring to the US... and no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".
And so a methodic course of foreshadowing an unending future of preemptive strikes was set in motion. Unambiguously implied, Iran (and Syria) are next on the administration's hit list.
5) To some this comes as no surprise. Certainly in beltway circles, plans for further invasions are no secret. in March of 2003 George McGovern claimed that Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq.
"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration... I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions."
6) And don't think for a minute that the premonition of invasion comes only from the left. While progressives cite with outrage the probability of future preemptive invasions, Administration hawks and the influential right-wing media have boastfully warned of their desire for Middle East conquest.
In March of 2003, at a meeting of the hawkish, right-wing American Enterprise Institute, the focus was squarely on their "bold vision of the postwar agenda: radical reform of the UN, regime change in Iran and Syria, and 'containment' of France and Germany."
Speaker Bill Kristol, editor of the US magazine, the Weekly Standard asserted that:
"The failure of the first Bush Administration to finish the job in 1991 had resulted in 'a lack of awe for the US' in the Middle East, an absence of respect that fostered contempt of the US among Arabs and encouraged the rise of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. This war would redress those mistakes. The fall of Mr. Hussein would be an 'inspiration' for Iranians seeking to be free of their dictatorial mullahs."
Frankly, the only thing surprising about Kristol's message was that he blamed Bush Sr. and not Bill Clinton.
7) Next... Pat Buchanan, an isolationist and rare conservative dove outed the neocons:
"On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, Bush was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, 'will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.'"
8) In a separate article, Buchanan singles out influential conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz:
"Podhoretz... claims that Bush's mission is 'to fight World War IV - the war against militant Islam.' Podhoretz' enemies... 'are not confined to ... the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority'... Podhoretz believes... that Bush 'must find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated' Islamic world, just as we did on Germany and Japan..."
9) That February, during a visit to Israel (Scroll down to story below the EU article), U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said...
...that he has "no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."
Part of Bolton's visit included a meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who expressed his concern about the security threat posed by Iran:
"It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq."
10) The Boston Globe brought it all together when it revealed the truth about the Administration's vision for the future:
"As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region's transformation.
The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Middle East has been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. [It has also been] considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration - from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby (see ya!) on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department...
Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the US will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil."
11) But even this wasn't the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that this Middle-East conquest began long ago with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle. It involved a basic restructuring of the entire Middle East, not because of the terrorist threat to the United States, but rather to secure Middle-Eastern oil for the US and ultimate security for Israel.
"A 1996 paper for the Israeli right wing by a group including Richard Perle argued that Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's dynamics."
This paper, of which Perle was the architect, was titled...
"'A Clean Break, a New Strategy for the Realm' and it argued that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's since been expanded to include Iran."
And...
12) Back in 1992, Perle joined forces with his buddies Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney and formed a group called the Project for the New American Century. In a document authored three years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was...
"... some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
The document noted that, while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification for intervention...
"... the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
13) Former CIA Director James Woolsey, said:
"... the US is engaged in World War IV (WWIII having been the Cold War), and that it could continue for years... He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda... that all three enemies have waged war against the US for several years but the US has just 'finally noticed.'"
Despite Bush Administration rhetoric, their intentions are clear. Iraq is but the first step in a long list of conquests. Indeed, they've already begun laying the groundwork for the next phase of "Operation Iran and Syria Freedom". As with the Iraq invasion, the Administration will rely on a complex web of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies in order to sell the need for invasion to the American public. (The rest of the world will never bite. Fool me once...)
Admittedly, there are many nations whose government holds legitimate ties to terrorist groups. The U.S. is a member of this group. Of course only in extremist fantasyland do any of these connections warrant an outright invasion and occupation of the country (Taliban-led Afghanistan perhaps the lone exception).
Ironically, part of the rationale to be used in convincing Americans to drive further into the Middle East will be derived from evidence that was at first pushed as false proof of a Saddam-terrorism connection.
14) For example, in one of the many bogus attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, Colin Powell asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, extensive information obtained from individuals close to al-Zarqawi, showed no links to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran. To illustrate, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but not Iraq. Also, Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany.
15) Of course the ties between Iran and Syria to the terrorist group Hezbollah are well known, but from here on, the line between fact and speculation becomes increasingly blurred.
For instance, Ariel Sharon shared the following with NY Times columnist William Safire in October of 2002:
"The Syrians, together with the Iranians, are playing a double game, escalating tension on our northern border....the Iranians have supplied those terrorists with 9,000 to 10,000 rockets, maybe including a new one with a 200-mile range. If war [with Iraq] comes, we'll see what Syria-Iran-Hezbollah are preparing: they'll be surrogates for Saddam, opening a second front to help him.'"
Is this believable? Iran working for Saddam? Well, it certainly hasn't happened to date. Tellingly, when Sharon includes such telling words as "maybe" and "we'll see" and then speculates that they are "surrogates" for the enemy, you can bet that he's setting-up someone else as future targets.
Even then, the outright fabrications, speculation, exaggerations, and distortions were hastily rolling forward. They would serve as the basis for the Iraq invasion.
Of course any fabrication has but a limited lifetime... in most worlds. With the Bush administration, any fabrications disproved or otherwise clarified to reflect reality merely offer another opportunity to assert the original, faulty claim with even greater force. This was the strategy used when administration officials continued to cite an alleged meeting between an Iraqi agent and September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta in Prague in April 2001 after Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
16) Recall that Donald Rumsfeld was quick to chime in with the first blatant lie, hastily attempting to tie Iran to Saddam, much the same as he attempted to tie Saddam to Osama. Rumsfeld made completely unsubstantiated charges that "hundreds" of armed Iraqi Shiite Muslim from Iran were entering Iraq and would be viewed as "combatants."
17) To summarize the coming fabrication/propaganda campaign, veteran defense issues commentator John Stanton predicted:
"Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to Americans a country beset by internal strife and dissension. Corporate media will revisit the Iranian Hostage Crisis and display for war-hungry Americans footage from the 1978-80 timeframe. That will include images of Khomeini's henchmen hanging and executing the Shah's secret police. Movies such as Sally Field's Not Without My Child portraying many Iranians as 'evil doers' will be broadcast by all the networks."
18) Of course the Administration is clever in it's invasion campaigns. They know it will take more than lies and speculation to sell a takeover of the Middle-East. Even though the US and allies put Saddam in power (way back when he was only an aspiring 26-year-old despot), sold him biochemical weapons, and then supported him even as he used them, the US government has cited all these things as evidence of the necessity of an Iraq invasion.
It seems that the Administration is following the same path in the rest of the Middle East. In its effort to buy the loyalty of various Middle-Eastern nations, the White House lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Administration will cite those weapons that Syria and Iran have attained as a result of this "lift" in sanctions as "evidence" of wrongdoing. It's the old "Bush set 'em up and knock 'em down" technique. Recall that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. who built the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even as they was selling weapons illegally to Iran in order to support South American terrorists. Is there any surprise that the world under Bush Jr. is heading in the direction that it is?
19) To understand the mindset of these people, the American Prospect notes the arrogance with which the neocon hawks flaunt US military power as their personal agenda enforcer:
"In the Middle East, impending 'regime change' in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives - who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a 'cabal.' Like dominoes, the regimes in the region - first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia - are slated to capitulate, collapse or face US military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, 'We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'"
Nevertheless, don't expect any of the Administration members to stand up and say, "Yes, we're going into Iran and Syria [and others]."
20) Indeed, Powell was already hard at work constructing a feeble facade of denial:
"Iraq should be ruled by its own people and American forces will not invade Syria and Iran after liberating Baghdad... Nobody in the American administration (has) talked about invading Iran or Syria... It seems that there is a constant desire by everybody to accuse us of invasion operations. That didn't, and won't, take place."
Wrong! As sourced above, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others have been talking about invading Iran and Syria for years.
As always, it is the Administration's actions that must be watched like... well... like a hawk. Their words have proven worthless a thousand times.
21) It must be noted that one of Bush's appeals-du-jour for an Iraq invasion was to "liberate the Iraqi people" from the brutal dictator. Iran, however is a democracy (Including a rather moderate, pro-west faction among its people), so it will be interesting to see what nonsense he cooks up in support of an invasion of this country. Fear of nuclear weapons is the clear focal point for the moment. But even Iran-Contra criminal Richard Armitage admits that the strategy will have to take a different PR slant:
"... I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently."
Then we saw increased rhetoric from the administration regarding Iran, Increased diplomacy between Iran and our allies, warnings from Iran, global outcry, and covert US operations.
And now we see the cycle of provocation continued...
Step 4) Continue Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
The Provocation began years ago as 'Coalition' troops were still storming through blistering sands toward Baghdad.
The first episode was conspicuous at best. Three missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the border in southwestern Iran. U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic Republic's airspace several times [over a two day period] during operations against targets in southern Iraq. In two cases, rockets from American planes hit the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq. Another rocket hit an oil refinery depot in the city of Abadan, about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
For perspective, accidentally hitting an oil refinery in Iran with a missile is about as likely as hitting a hole in one on a par 5.
Provocation in Syria? You bet. US cluster bombs annihilated a passenger bus entering Syria from Iraq. Sure, maybe coalition forces speculated that enemy forces were on board. Regardless, the bus was an official civilian target and the bombing was in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions related to the protection of civilians during wartime. In any event, an unmistakable message was sent.
And, since acts of hostility are more accurately interpreted with accompanying acts of idiocy, the threats started rolling right from the top. The NY Times reports:
"Shortly after Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week (April 2003), declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work. It was a small but telling moment on the sidelines of the war. For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament. It is also the first war conducted under a new national security strategy, which explicitly calls for intervening before a potential enemy can strike."
In the same article, Administration political mastermind Karl Rove was quoted as saying:
"Iraq is not just about Iraq."
In a series of speeches to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John Bolton said U.S. officials hope that a decisive toppling of Saddam may give pause to other nations with secret weapons programs and "that some of these states will back off."
More recently, the cycle continues and is summarized beautify by Dave Lindoff at Counterpunch (with some paraphrasing).
the U.S. continues to leave open the possibility, raised by President Bush himself, of attacking Iran over its alleged efforts to produce enriched uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
[...]
Arguably, the reason Iran is working at providing itself with a nuclear capability is precisely because it feels threatened by the U.S., and has noticed that those countries that have nuclear weapons-Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea-seem to get treated a lot better by the U.S. than countries like Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, which don't.
[...]
If the goal of the U.S. were to enhance the security of the Middle East region, to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, and to enhance the safety of Americans and of American interests, one would think it would be trying to reach some kind of modus vivendi with Iran, as it has done with China and Russia, so as to lesson the perceived need of the Iranians to enhance their military capabilities and screw with Iraq.
That, however, is not what the U.S. is doing. Instead it is blustering, making threats, and acting outraged at efforts made by Iran to protect itself, all of which can only have the effect of making the Iranians even more nervous and anxious to prepare for the worst.
One would almost think that the U.S. was trying to provoke Iran.
In response, An Iranian official threatened the US with "harm and pain" for seeking to prevent the development of its nuclear program at the United Nations. They warned that UN sanctions would escalate the ongoing crisis "beyond Europe's control". They also rebutted a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions by warning that they would begin hiding their nuclear program and transferring their nuclear know-how to other regional countries if the West takes any "harsh measures" against it.
"Military action against Iran will not end our program," [Tehran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani said at a conference on the energy program. "If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately shot back, saying Iran's statements were further isolating it from the international community.
"Iranians can threaten, but they are deepening their own isolation," she said in Athens.
The United States has not threatened military action and has said it is pursuing diplomatic option. But President Bush has said all options, including military force, remain on the table.
[Iran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani's comments came a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly predicted the Security Council would not impose sanctions and warned he was thinking about dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
On Tuesday, Larijani said flatly that Iran would not abide by Friday's deadline to suspend enrichment, and would halt all cooperation with the IAEA and pull out of the treaty if sanctions were imposed.
"If you take the first step wrong, the wrong trend will continue. We welcome any logical proposal to resolve the issue. They just need to say why should we suspend," Larijani said.
And regarding the transfer of nuclear technology...
"Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists," Khamenei told al-Bashir.
Such a transfer of technology would be legal as long as it is between signatory-states to the nonproliferation treaty, and as long as the IAEA was informed.
And then the administration refusess any attempt at genuine diplomacy.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, yesterday offered to open talks with the US over establishing a stable government in Iraq, an offer taken up by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
ABC World News Tonight reported that on "the same day that the US is essentially calling Iran public enemy number one, US officials are also saying they're willing to accept Iran's offer to talk." However, the White House "stresses these talks would be limited to improvised explosive devices and others involving Iraq. In other words, no direct talks about Iran's nuclear program."
The CBS Evening News reported the contacts "would be the first direct contact since the Iranian hostage crisis more than a quarter century ago. Whether a straight attempt at dialogue or a diversion from a mounting confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, the Administration responded coolly."
The evidence suggests that the administration doesn't seriously desire a resolution. That would only serve to inhibit the pursuit of their long-stated goals.
Putting it All Together
It's important to note that Tony Blair has already unambiguously stated that Britain will have no part in such further conquests. Supporting that assertion, Blair made a point of distancing himself from the radical claims of Bush, instead blandly stating the obvious -- that Iran is a sponsor of terror and that they should comply with set obligations on their nuclear ambitions.
So let's assume that Blair is out of the picture, essentially canceling any ghost of a coalition that existed for "Operation Iraqi Oil". This along with the exposed truth about Iraq's AWOL WMD and fictional ties to al Qaeda (along with Nixonian approval ratings http://www.cnn.com/2006/POL
ITICS/04/24/bush.poll/ hitting 32%. Ouch!) puts Bush in a far less politically tenable position for preemptive invasion. At this stage of Bush's presidency, the administration might not care about the surrounding public opinion -- but Republican congressmen certainly will.
Almost there...
As predicted, Bush claimed victory in Baghdad, boasted of the liberation of the Iraqi people, denied that either Iran or Syria were on the Administration's radar, overruled domestic issues by distracting America's attention with a perpetual 'war on terror', claimed the economy is the best in a century -- and all due to his tax cuts, blah, blah, blah.
Bush will now declare Iran's refusal to accept UN demands as a belligerent act of aggression and will proceed to exaggerate the potential of Iran's Nuclear weapons program. In addition, North Korea will serve as an ongoing reminder that nuclear weapons programs (which have found new life since Bush began his saber-rattling and ABM treaty abandonment) are a reality -- keeping the focus squarely on Iran rather than other, less 'nukular' Mid-East nations.
Remember, however, that Iran is just the next step in a long line of 'reshaping' to come.
In fact, Washington lists 13 countries with allegedly active biological weapons programs, including Cuba, Libya and Syria, and 16 currently producing chemical weapons, including Pakistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.
Also remember that, as we steamroll through Iran, we will simultaneously be engaged in occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need for troops will increase on and around the Korean peninsula. And of course we'll always have need for some troops to stay at home to protect our borders.
Bottom Line
So when people wonder, "Why does the Administration seem so unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq after the toppling of Saddam?" -- The answer is, "Because we won't be leaving the region."
Having conquered Iraq, the US has already created three U.S. Super Bases from which to proceed with the 'reshaping' of the Middle East.
The absolute bottom line: Can you say...
Step 5) "Reinstate the Draft?"
Related Articles
The Iran quagmire - Elmira Star-Gazette
Europeans Not Ready To Support Iran War - The Moderate Voice
US can't count on European support in Iran war - World Peace Herald
Bob Burnett: What Can We Do About Iraq and Iran? - Yahoo! News
Stakes high in battle between Rumsfeld, generals - GovExec.com
Curtesy of Political Cortex
"That Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld is defiant. He says he is not backing down and says he will stick around and let people criticize his handling of the Iranian invasion."
-- David Letterman
"On CNN today, a retired Air Force colonel said that US military operations are already under way in Iran. You know what that means. Time to break out the old 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
-- Jay Leno
Over the course of recent years, multiple lots of evidence have surfaced that unambiguously point to an administration bent on invading the nation of Saddam and there establishing an intimidating U.S. presence with or without the aid of a publicly acceptable and legitimate rationale.
So it was written over a decade ago by then future administration officials, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. They explained clearly what was needed in order to Invade Iraq, and when they got it on September 11, 2001, there was no turning back.
That said, favorable public opinion would exponentially improve the ease with which they were able to pursue their objectives of 'Reshaping the Middle East'. So they rationalized an invasion with ever-changing rationales.
Like viewing failure through a kaleidoscope, each of their proposed rationales fell into the dustbin of inadequacy -- switching from 9/11 ties, to WMD, to regime change, to liberating the Iraqi people.
Nevertheless, the motives were sufficiently palpable -- at least enough to ingrain our nation so far as to make immediate withdrawal a dubious option, if not for us than for millions of innocent Iraqi citizens.
Along the way, the administration ignored (or dismissed) warnings from our own intelligence sources that Saddam's contemporary stores of WMD may be little more than a myth. They continued to stiff-arm our sources by using duly noted 'dubious data' to sell the invasion to the American public.
Since then it has become apparent that the administration's focus had nothing to do with WMD. The question that remains is, "Why couldn't anyone outside the progressive political blogs see that this was taking place?"
Now the same course of events are unfolding with Iran.
War was Inevitable
The Downing Street Memo, the CIA, and a host of investigative journalists have since come forward with evidence that War was a done deal even before the search for WMD began.
Then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much when he boasted that the real reason for the Iraq Invasion was for oil and that the use of the WMD justification for that invasion was used simply because "it was something we could all agree on."
But if you thought failures of foreign policy and revelations of executive dishonesty would slow them down, you would be painfully mistaken because despite all this, the administration is back at it again. In fact, they've been working tirelessly on 'Reshaping the Middle East' Stage II even as Stage I was struggling through infancy.
Stage II -- "Operation Iranian Freedom"
It's a simple formula really -- prepping the world for "Operation Iranian Freedom"
Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" -- desensitizing the public to the concept.
Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an 'environment of inevitability'
Step up Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
Keep reading...
Step 1) Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Take the Pre-invasion Quiz:
Let's see what we've learned from the first Bush term. Can you differentiate between administration statements about Iran and past statements about Iraq?
1) Hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about xxxx's nuclear capacities to make the case that xxxx is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or 'regime change.'
2) Bush warned the United Nations that xxxx could have nuclear weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said: "On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that xxxx will acquire such weapons fairly soon.
3) But Britain, France and Germany are urging diplomacy, placing their hopes in a deal they brokered last week in which xxxx agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program in return for discussions about future economic benefits.
4) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that xxxx will have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Cheney acknowledges, and no one outside xxxx really knows how close xxxx is to that point.
5) Secretary of State Colin L. Powell thrust himself into the debate on Wednesday by commenting to reporters that fresh intelligence showed that xxxx was 'actively working' on a program to enable its missiles to carry nuclear bombs, a development he said 'should be of concern to all parties.'
(See answer below.)
Okay, so maybe that wasn't so difficult. Nevertheless, the point is clear. The administration's foreign policy 'template' is alive and well and they find no need to differentiate between Iraq or Iran (or probably Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, North Korea, and France for that matter).
Hey, it worked once... and if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
(Answer key: Iran: 1,3,5 -- Iraq: 2,4)
More Recently, U.N. ambassador John Bolton's Language on Iran has eerily replicated pre-Iraq War rhetoric. ABC News' Nightline reported that in describing the threat from Iran, Bolton is using "precisely the same warnings that the Bush Administration proclaimed about Iraq." Bolton said:
"Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It funds groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad. Imagine what would happen, if the Iranians obtained a nuclear weapon and gave it to Hezbollah. You don't want to contemplate the consequences."
The current UN discussion on Iran is also being compared to the Iraq debate three years ago. According to the Christian Science Monitor:
"As the United Nations Security Council wrestles with how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, discussion at UN headquarters is at times as much about the council's effectiveness and America's role in the international community as it is about Iran. Sound vaguely familiar?" Three years after the Iraq debate, "the UN is witnessing a strikingly similar conversation. Moreover, some experts warn that dallying by the council could prompt the US to eventually act outside the UN."
Following these lines is a report by the Los Angeles Times that US Officials Believe Iran Aiding Al Qaeda.
"US intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country. Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations."
Of course, Iraq was accused of Al Qaeda ties in the administration's effort to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and broader acts of terrorism in general.
Step 2) Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" -- desensitizing the public to the concept.
For those nations and individuals who were somehow able to suppress their gag reflex when Bush announced his horrific "Pre-emptive Doctrine", there was only one logical alternative -- monkey see, monkey do.
As expected, Bush's demonic doctrine inspired others to follow
Russia: Russia assured the world that it's prepared to make 'pre-emptive' strikes on "terrorist bases" across the globe. Russia's Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky said:
"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes."
Nuclear strikes? Is this guy nuts? The clear implication here is that this official -- who has significant influence on the use of the Russian nuclear arsenal -- believes that the global community would consider nuclear strikes as a valid option when responding to terrorist attacks...at least to the extent that he felt compelled to clarify that nuclear strikes will not necessarily be the action taken. And by the way, he didn't say he would not use nuclear strikes -- only that his proclamation is not evidence that they will.
What do you think this guy really wants to do?
And can you blame him. After all, it was our own glorious leader who defined pre-emptive strikes as a valid form of foreign policy. We can hardly hold the rest of the planet to a higher standard.
[In other news, President Bush is considering the use of Nuclear Weapons on Iran]
And besides, Russia is not the first nation to jump on the pre-emptive, 'Bush-doctrine' bandwagon.
North Korea: In February of 2003, North Korean officials argued that they have the right to a pre-emptive attack on the U.S. as the Bush Administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
President Bush should be proud. He's set the standard for our enemies. So much for strategic ambiguity. If you ever wondered what would happen if the US preemptively struck another nation, Pyong Yang has your answer.
India: Back in April of 2003, India, a nuclear power, called on the US to preemptively invade and conquer Pakistan, a neighboring nuclear power. They cited the opinion that given the Administration's own lax criteria for invasion, Pakistan is a far more dangerous and legitimate target than Iraq.
According to the External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha:
"I genuinely believe that if possession of weapons of mass destruction, absence of democracy and export of terrorism are the criteria, then no country deserves more than Pakistan to be tackled."
Japan: In May of 2003, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi claimed that:
"Japan has the right to make a preemptive strike on any country preparing to attack it."
He took the additional step of calling for Japan to "revise its Constitution to give its Self-Defense Forces the status of a conventional military organization."
Japan has maintained a pacifist security policy since their defeat in WWII. Koizumi went to outrageous lengths to propose changes to the Japanese Constitution, attempting to turn that policy on its head and spark an aggressive military buildup in the region and around the world.
The idea of a renewed Japanese military operating outside its own territory would likely alarm many sovereignties in the region that were victims of Japanese aggression in the Second World War.
Koizumi, using fashionable "Bush-speak", cited justification for pre-emptive action because "We could not just let the Japanese people be harmed by doing nothing."
You can imagine the historic consequences of using such logic as every paranoid, trigger-happy, nutcase would have launched wars of aggression in the "defense" of their nation.
And that underscores the catastrophic precedent set by this Administration when it preemptively attacked Iraq. Bush's example has forever altered the global perception of 'acceptable' foreign policy tactics and he has offered an arsenal of rationalizations available for other nations in pursuit of dubious global actions.
Clearly, the "First Strike" precedent opens doors for devastation in situations surrounding China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, Russia-Georgia, Japan-North Korea and others. They say, "Hey! If the US can do it, why not us?"
More recently, the Administration released its national security strategy to Congress which underscored the administration's commitment to the first-strike policy. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, insisted that the pre-emption doctrine is not aimed at Iran.
And by that, he means that it IS aimed at Iran.
In fact, the New York Times follows up reporting that Bush's document "gives no ground on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003," and adds that it "identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge to the United States." The strategy document "declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel 'must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'" And the Wall Street Journal reports the Iran language "could heighten nervousness that the Bush administration will ultimately resort to force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
Imagine: You believe your neighbor wants to do you harm so you break into his house in the dark of night and smother him as he sleeps. You feel vindicated as you are now assured that the threat no longer exists. Unfortunately, your other neighbors know what you did. Now they think you want to do the same to them.
Have a nice sleep.
Step 3) Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an environment of inevitability
Alternate Title: "Top 21 Pieces of Evidence that Iran is Next on Bush's Hit List"
1) Clearly, the Bush administration never made it a secret that further invasions beyond Iraq would be heavy on their list of future options.
The Bush administration [told] Congress in open hearings... that the threat of weapons of mass destruction remains so real the U.S. may have to use military force again to stop their proliferation.
In the strongest policy statement yet made, [then] Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton [revealed] to the House's Committee on International Relations the administration's "roll back" doctrine in dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
[...]
Though Bolton will stress the U.S. will seek peaceful and diplomatic solutions to the proliferation threat, he [added], ominously, "we rule out no options."
Among those options, Bolton [said], is pre-emptive military force, "as the case of Iraq demonstrates.
2) Bush was drooling over the release of the 911 Commission Report, for although it dismissed any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (we already invaded that country anyway), the Commission did neoconservatives a tremendous favor by mentioning ties between Iran and al Qaeda, and in particular the 911 hijackers.
Now, never mind that these connections were 'Murky' and that there was no evidence of a 'close working relationship' between Iran and the terrorist group. Such nuances are easily downplayed and ignored by an apathetic media and a fear-stricken electorate.
Indeed, this single reference alone could serve as the fuel for the long-awaited execution of the neoconservative foreign policy initiative...'reshaping' the Middle East.
3) Nevertheless, we would be grossly mistaken if we were to assume that such cues were a recent phenomenon. An invasion of Iran and the surrounding region has been a mainstay neoconservative objective since the founding of that movement.
The invasion of Iraq was merely a stepping stone toward this greater objective. In fact, the plan is described in some detail by a neoconservative think tank whose membership at one time included Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, just to name a few.
And it all began long, long ago in a land not so far away...
4) Flashback to spring of 2003. John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:
"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."
He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people." No, he wasn't referring to the US... and no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".
And so a methodic course of foreshadowing an unending future of preemptive strikes was set in motion. Unambiguously implied, Iran (and Syria) are next on the administration's hit list.
5) To some this comes as no surprise. Certainly in beltway circles, plans for further invasions are no secret. in March of 2003 George McGovern claimed that Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq.
"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration... I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions."
6) And don't think for a minute that the premonition of invasion comes only from the left. While progressives cite with outrage the probability of future preemptive invasions, Administration hawks and the influential right-wing media have boastfully warned of their desire for Middle East conquest.
In March of 2003, at a meeting of the hawkish, right-wing American Enterprise Institute, the focus was squarely on their "bold vision of the postwar agenda: radical reform of the UN, regime change in Iran and Syria, and 'containment' of France and Germany."
Speaker Bill Kristol, editor of the US magazine, the Weekly Standard asserted that:
"The failure of the first Bush Administration to finish the job in 1991 had resulted in 'a lack of awe for the US' in the Middle East, an absence of respect that fostered contempt of the US among Arabs and encouraged the rise of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. This war would redress those mistakes. The fall of Mr. Hussein would be an 'inspiration' for Iranians seeking to be free of their dictatorial mullahs."
Frankly, the only thing surprising about Kristol's message was that he blamed Bush Sr. and not Bill Clinton.
7) Next... Pat Buchanan, an isolationist and rare conservative dove outed the neocons:
"On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, Bush was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, 'will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.'"
8) In a separate article, Buchanan singles out influential conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz:
"Podhoretz... claims that Bush's mission is 'to fight World War IV - the war against militant Islam.' Podhoretz' enemies... 'are not confined to ... the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority'... Podhoretz believes... that Bush 'must find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated' Islamic world, just as we did on Germany and Japan..."
9) That February, during a visit to Israel (Scroll down to story below the EU article), U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said...
...that he has "no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."
Part of Bolton's visit included a meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who expressed his concern about the security threat posed by Iran:
"It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq."
10) The Boston Globe brought it all together when it revealed the truth about the Administration's vision for the future:
"As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region's transformation.
The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Middle East has been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. [It has also been] considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration - from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby (see ya!) on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department...
Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the US will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil."
11) But even this wasn't the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that this Middle-East conquest began long ago with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle. It involved a basic restructuring of the entire Middle East, not because of the terrorist threat to the United States, but rather to secure Middle-Eastern oil for the US and ultimate security for Israel.
"A 1996 paper for the Israeli right wing by a group including Richard Perle argued that Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's dynamics."
This paper, of which Perle was the architect, was titled...
"'A Clean Break, a New Strategy for the Realm' and it argued that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's since been expanded to include Iran."
And...
12) Back in 1992, Perle joined forces with his buddies Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney and formed a group called the Project for the New American Century. In a document authored three years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was...
"... some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
The document noted that, while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification for intervention...
"... the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
13) Former CIA Director James Woolsey, said:
"... the US is engaged in World War IV (WWIII having been the Cold War), and that it could continue for years... He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda... that all three enemies have waged war against the US for several years but the US has just 'finally noticed.'"
Despite Bush Administration rhetoric, their intentions are clear. Iraq is but the first step in a long list of conquests. Indeed, they've already begun laying the groundwork for the next phase of "Operation Iran and Syria Freedom". As with the Iraq invasion, the Administration will rely on a complex web of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies in order to sell the need for invasion to the American public. (The rest of the world will never bite. Fool me once...)
Admittedly, there are many nations whose government holds legitimate ties to terrorist groups. The U.S. is a member of this group. Of course only in extremist fantasyland do any of these connections warrant an outright invasion and occupation of the country (Taliban-led Afghanistan perhaps the lone exception).
Ironically, part of the rationale to be used in convincing Americans to drive further into the Middle East will be derived from evidence that was at first pushed as false proof of a Saddam-terrorism connection.
14) For example, in one of the many bogus attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, Colin Powell asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, extensive information obtained from individuals close to al-Zarqawi, showed no links to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran. To illustrate, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but not Iraq. Also, Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany.
15) Of course the ties between Iran and Syria to the terrorist group Hezbollah are well known, but from here on, the line between fact and speculation becomes increasingly blurred.
For instance, Ariel Sharon shared the following with NY Times columnist William Safire in October of 2002:
"The Syrians, together with the Iranians, are playing a double game, escalating tension on our northern border....the Iranians have supplied those terrorists with 9,000 to 10,000 rockets, maybe including a new one with a 200-mile range. If war [with Iraq] comes, we'll see what Syria-Iran-Hezbollah are preparing: they'll be surrogates for Saddam, opening a second front to help him.'"
Is this believable? Iran working for Saddam? Well, it certainly hasn't happened to date. Tellingly, when Sharon includes such telling words as "maybe" and "we'll see" and then speculates that they are "surrogates" for the enemy, you can bet that he's setting-up someone else as future targets.
Even then, the outright fabrications, speculation, exaggerations, and distortions were hastily rolling forward. They would serve as the basis for the Iraq invasion.
Of course any fabrication has but a limited lifetime... in most worlds. With the Bush administration, any fabrications disproved or otherwise clarified to reflect reality merely offer another opportunity to assert the original, faulty claim with even greater force. This was the strategy used when administration officials continued to cite an alleged meeting between an Iraqi agent and September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta in Prague in April 2001 after Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
16) Recall that Donald Rumsfeld was quick to chime in with the first blatant lie, hastily attempting to tie Iran to Saddam, much the same as he attempted to tie Saddam to Osama. Rumsfeld made completely unsubstantiated charges that "hundreds" of armed Iraqi Shiite Muslim from Iran were entering Iraq and would be viewed as "combatants."
17) To summarize the coming fabrication/propaganda campaign, veteran defense issues commentator John Stanton predicted:
"Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to Americans a country beset by internal strife and dissension. Corporate media will revisit the Iranian Hostage Crisis and display for war-hungry Americans footage from the 1978-80 timeframe. That will include images of Khomeini's henchmen hanging and executing the Shah's secret police. Movies such as Sally Field's Not Without My Child portraying many Iranians as 'evil doers' will be broadcast by all the networks."
18) Of course the Administration is clever in it's invasion campaigns. They know it will take more than lies and speculation to sell a takeover of the Middle-East. Even though the US and allies put Saddam in power (way back when he was only an aspiring 26-year-old despot), sold him biochemical weapons, and then supported him even as he used them, the US government has cited all these things as evidence of the necessity of an Iraq invasion.
It seems that the Administration is following the same path in the rest of the Middle East. In its effort to buy the loyalty of various Middle-Eastern nations, the White House lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Administration will cite those weapons that Syria and Iran have attained as a result of this "lift" in sanctions as "evidence" of wrongdoing. It's the old "Bush set 'em up and knock 'em down" technique. Recall that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. who built the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even as they was selling weapons illegally to Iran in order to support South American terrorists. Is there any surprise that the world under Bush Jr. is heading in the direction that it is?
19) To understand the mindset of these people, the American Prospect notes the arrogance with which the neocon hawks flaunt US military power as their personal agenda enforcer:
"In the Middle East, impending 'regime change' in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives - who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a 'cabal.' Like dominoes, the regimes in the region - first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia - are slated to capitulate, collapse or face US military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, 'We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'"
Nevertheless, don't expect any of the Administration members to stand up and say, "Yes, we're going into Iran and Syria [and others]."
20) Indeed, Powell was already hard at work constructing a feeble facade of denial:
"Iraq should be ruled by its own people and American forces will not invade Syria and Iran after liberating Baghdad... Nobody in the American administration (has) talked about invading Iran or Syria... It seems that there is a constant desire by everybody to accuse us of invasion operations. That didn't, and won't, take place."
Wrong! As sourced above, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others have been talking about invading Iran and Syria for years.
As always, it is the Administration's actions that must be watched like... well... like a hawk. Their words have proven worthless a thousand times.
21) It must be noted that one of Bush's appeals-du-jour for an Iraq invasion was to "liberate the Iraqi people" from the brutal dictator. Iran, however is a democracy (Including a rather moderate, pro-west faction among its people), so it will be interesting to see what nonsense he cooks up in support of an invasion of this country. Fear of nuclear weapons is the clear focal point for the moment. But even Iran-Contra criminal Richard Armitage admits that the strategy will have to take a different PR slant:
"... I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently."
Then we saw increased rhetoric from the administration regarding Iran, Increased diplomacy between Iran and our allies, warnings from Iran, global outcry, and covert US operations.
And now we see the cycle of provocation continued...
Step 4) Continue Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
The Provocation began years ago as 'Coalition' troops were still storming through blistering sands toward Baghdad.
The first episode was conspicuous at best. Three missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the border in southwestern Iran. U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic Republic's airspace several times [over a two day period] during operations against targets in southern Iraq. In two cases, rockets from American planes hit the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq. Another rocket hit an oil refinery depot in the city of Abadan, about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
For perspective, accidentally hitting an oil refinery in Iran with a missile is about as likely as hitting a hole in one on a par 5.
Provocation in Syria? You bet. US cluster bombs annihilated a passenger bus entering Syria from Iraq. Sure, maybe coalition forces speculated that enemy forces were on board. Regardless, the bus was an official civilian target and the bombing was in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions related to the protection of civilians during wartime. In any event, an unmistakable message was sent.
And, since acts of hostility are more accurately interpreted with accompanying acts of idiocy, the threats started rolling right from the top. The NY Times reports:
"Shortly after Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week (April 2003), declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work. It was a small but telling moment on the sidelines of the war. For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament. It is also the first war conducted under a new national security strategy, which explicitly calls for intervening before a potential enemy can strike."
In the same article, Administration political mastermind Karl Rove was quoted as saying:
"Iraq is not just about Iraq."
In a series of speeches to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John Bolton said U.S. officials hope that a decisive toppling of Saddam may give pause to other nations with secret weapons programs and "that some of these states will back off."
More recently, the cycle continues and is summarized beautify by Dave Lindoff at Counterpunch (with some paraphrasing).
the U.S. continues to leave open the possibility, raised by President Bush himself, of attacking Iran over its alleged efforts to produce enriched uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
[...]
Arguably, the reason Iran is working at providing itself with a nuclear capability is precisely because it feels threatened by the U.S., and has noticed that those countries that have nuclear weapons-Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea-seem to get treated a lot better by the U.S. than countries like Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, which don't.
[...]
If the goal of the U.S. were to enhance the security of the Middle East region, to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, and to enhance the safety of Americans and of American interests, one would think it would be trying to reach some kind of modus vivendi with Iran, as it has done with China and Russia, so as to lesson the perceived need of the Iranians to enhance their military capabilities and screw with Iraq.
That, however, is not what the U.S. is doing. Instead it is blustering, making threats, and acting outraged at efforts made by Iran to protect itself, all of which can only have the effect of making the Iranians even more nervous and anxious to prepare for the worst.
One would almost think that the U.S. was trying to provoke Iran.
In response, An Iranian official threatened the US with "harm and pain" for seeking to prevent the development of its nuclear program at the United Nations. They warned that UN sanctions would escalate the ongoing crisis "beyond Europe's control". They also rebutted a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions by warning that they would begin hiding their nuclear program and transferring their nuclear know-how to other regional countries if the West takes any "harsh measures" against it.
"Military action against Iran will not end our program," [Tehran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani said at a conference on the energy program. "If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately shot back, saying Iran's statements were further isolating it from the international community.
"Iranians can threaten, but they are deepening their own isolation," she said in Athens.
The United States has not threatened military action and has said it is pursuing diplomatic option. But President Bush has said all options, including military force, remain on the table.
[Iran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani's comments came a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly predicted the Security Council would not impose sanctions and warned he was thinking about dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
On Tuesday, Larijani said flatly that Iran would not abide by Friday's deadline to suspend enrichment, and would halt all cooperation with the IAEA and pull out of the treaty if sanctions were imposed.
"If you take the first step wrong, the wrong trend will continue. We welcome any logical proposal to resolve the issue. They just need to say why should we suspend," Larijani said.
And regarding the transfer of nuclear technology...
"Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists," Khamenei told al-Bashir.
Such a transfer of technology would be legal as long as it is between signatory-states to the nonproliferation treaty, and as long as the IAEA was informed.
And then the administration refusess any attempt at genuine diplomacy.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, yesterday offered to open talks with the US over establishing a stable government in Iraq, an offer taken up by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
ABC World News Tonight reported that on "the same day that the US is essentially calling Iran public enemy number one, US officials are also saying they're willing to accept Iran's offer to talk." However, the White House "stresses these talks would be limited to improvised explosive devices and others involving Iraq. In other words, no direct talks about Iran's nuclear program."
The CBS Evening News reported the contacts "would be the first direct contact since the Iranian hostage crisis more than a quarter century ago. Whether a straight attempt at dialogue or a diversion from a mounting confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, the Administration responded coolly."
The evidence suggests that the administration doesn't seriously desire a resolution. That would only serve to inhibit the pursuit of their long-stated goals.
Putting it All Together
It's important to note that Tony Blair has already unambiguously stated that Britain will have no part in such further conquests. Supporting that assertion, Blair made a point of distancing himself from the radical claims of Bush, instead blandly stating the obvious -- that Iran is a sponsor of terror and that they should comply with set obligations on their nuclear ambitions.
So let's assume that Blair is out of the picture, essentially canceling any ghost of a coalition that existed for "Operation Iraqi Oil". This along with the exposed truth about Iraq's AWOL WMD and fictional ties to al Qaeda (along with Nixonian approval ratings http://www.cnn.com/2006/POL
ITICS/04/24/bush.poll/ hitting 32%. Ouch!) puts Bush in a far less politically tenable position for preemptive invasion. At this stage of Bush's presidency, the administration might not care about the surrounding public opinion -- but Republican congressmen certainly will.
Almost there...
As predicted, Bush claimed victory in Baghdad, boasted of the liberation of the Iraqi people, denied that either Iran or Syria were on the Administration's radar, overruled domestic issues by distracting America's attention with a perpetual 'war on terror', claimed the economy is the best in a century -- and all due to his tax cuts, blah, blah, blah.
Bush will now declare Iran's refusal to accept UN demands as a belligerent act of aggression and will proceed to exaggerate the potential of Iran's Nuclear weapons program. In addition, North Korea will serve as an ongoing reminder that nuclear weapons programs (which have found new life since Bush began his saber-rattling and ABM treaty abandonment) are a reality -- keeping the focus squarely on Iran rather than other, less 'nukular' Mid-East nations.
Remember, however, that Iran is just the next step in a long line of 'reshaping' to come.
In fact, Washington lists 13 countries with allegedly active biological weapons programs, including Cuba, Libya and Syria, and 16 currently producing chemical weapons, including Pakistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.
Also remember that, as we steamroll through Iran, we will simultaneously be engaged in occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need for troops will increase on and around the Korean peninsula. And of course we'll always have need for some troops to stay at home to protect our borders.
Bottom Line
So when people wonder, "Why does the Administration seem so unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq after the toppling of Saddam?" -- The answer is, "Because we won't be leaving the region."
Having conquered Iraq, the US has already created three U.S. Super Bases from which to proceed with the 'reshaping' of the Middle East.
The absolute bottom line: Can you say...
Step 5) "Reinstate the Draft?"
Related Articles
The Iran quagmire - Elmira Star-Gazette
Europeans Not Ready To Support Iran War - The Moderate Voice
US can't count on European support in Iran war - World Peace Herald
Bob Burnett: What Can We Do About Iraq and Iran? - Yahoo! News
Stakes high in battle between Rumsfeld, generals - GovExec.com
posted by IPF (UK) at 4:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home