Filed under: Afghanistan, airstrikes, Centcom, Congress, Coup, Dick Cheney, False Flag, George Bush, Iran, Iraq, Israel, military strike, Musharraf, neocons, Pakistan, Pentagon, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shock and Awe, Taliban, Tehran, William Fallon, WW3, ww4 | Tags: Leonid Ivashov, Saudi Shura Council, William K. Polk
Saudi Newspaper: Prepare for Nuclear Strike on Iran
OpEd News
March 29, 2008
According to Chris Floyd at the Empire Burlesque web site:
The Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with “any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards” that may arise from an attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, DPA — one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians — but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.
Floyd points out that nothing in Saudi Arabia becomes the top news story without government approval. That such a story should be released the day after Cheney’s visit, sends a message to everyone about what’s on Cheney’s mind.
This, combined with the dismissal of Centcom chief, Admiral Fallon, Petreus’ claim to have evidence (which he doesn’t produce) that Iran was responsible for the recent shelling of the Green Zone,
. . and the Egyptian report that a nuclear sub has been ordered by Bush into the Gulf, the bleak picture in both Pakistan and Afghanistan (accelerating collapse of Musharraf’s power and strategy, the coming spring offensive in the Taliban’s announced drive for Kabu),
. . plus the oft-stated desire of Bush and Cheney to attack Iran, and, as noted by former mideast policy official William K. Polk at Juan Cole’s site just a few days ago, the last time Cheney visited the nations he visited this time was right before the Iraq attack,
. . then only a moron would deny that Bush and Dick have nothing but contempt for the will of the people, congress and the courts, and that they crave war like a junkie craves his fix.
Cheney Visits them, and Saudis then Prepare for “Sudden Nuclear Hazards”
One Tick Closer to Midnight . . .
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council — the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle — is preparing “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts’ warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactors,” one of the kingdom’s leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based DPA news service relayed the paper’s story.
Simple prudence — or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz — which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top — is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid on the scales, pointing toward a new, horrendous conflict.
We don’t know what the Saudis told Cheney in private — or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that they are actively preparing for it.
And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran will come suddenly, and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities — a “threat” being talked up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately — it has the potential for unimaginable consequences.
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
RIA Novosti
March 29, 2008
Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran’s borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
“The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,” the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran “that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost.”
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure in the near future.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.
The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.
The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
US Declaration of War on Iran
Intel Daily
March 25, 2008
March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it’s not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.
No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. In fact on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran’s native language) that their government has “declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people.” But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be “firm.”
Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran “threat” was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon’s website (on March 20) was: “Bush Lauds Military’s Performance in Terror War,” a feel-good piece about the president’s appearance on the US military’s TV channel to praise “the performance and courage of U.S. troops engaged in the global war on terrorism.” Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa but not Iran.
But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.
So who made it official?
Read Full Article Here
Recent News:
http://www.democraticunderg..rd.php?az=view_all&address=389×501857
Intensive Airforce night exercises. War on Iran imminent?
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6217
Empire strikes back – US draws on its dominion to wreak havoc in Iran
http://www.smh.com.au/news/worl..n/2008/03/28/1206207408596.html
The War with Iran that We Could Have Stopped
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/..n-that-we-could-have-stopped/
Israel hell-bent on sending US to war
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49183§ionid=351020104
Curious case of the dead scientist and the bomb experiment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/24/defence
US deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf’
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4439
Saudi Shura council to discuss plan for sudden radioactive hazards
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=96940
Iran slams US for supporting terror
White House back pedals on Bush comments on Iran bomb
Petraeus: Iran backs Iraqi insurgents
Bush Insists Iran is a Threat, Experts Say President is Escalating Tensions
Arab media warns Bush wants Iran war
Netanyahu: Remove Iran threat
Dick Cheney tour sparks Iran war rumors
Conyers: “If Bush Goes to Iran, He Should Be Impeached”
Russian FM warns military action on Iran ’disastrous’
Israel Raises The Ante Against Iran
US slams Iran electoral process
McCain: It’s “Common Knowledge” That Iran Is Training Al Qaeda
Filed under: Abu Laith al-Libi, Afghanistan, airstrikes, al-qaeda, B-52, CIA, civilian casualties, False Flag, FBI, George Bush, michael hayden, Military, military strike, Musharraf, neocons, Pakistan, Taliban, Troops, uav, War On Terror, Washington D.C., White House, William Fallon | Tags: Mike McConnell, Mike Mullen, PPP, South Waziristan
Musharraf Approves US Military Strike in Pakistan
The Times of India
March 24, 2008
The Musharraf regime has indirectly approved the US Drone (pilotless plane) attacks on al-Qaida targets in tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
Since January, missiles have been fired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operated Predator drones and have hit at least three suspected hideouts of Islamic militants, including a strike on March 16 in Toog village in South Waziristan that left 20 dead.
Sources said that the recent wave of Predator attacks are the result of Musharraf’s understanding with the US officials and other top Pakistanis which gave Washington virtually unrestricted authority to hit targets in the border areas.
The surge began after senior US official’s visit to Pakistan including intelligence czar Mike McConnell, CIA director General Michael Hayden and William Fallon, who recently resigned as Commander of the US forces in the region.
Bruce Riedel, a retired CIA expert on the region, said that a new wave of terrorism inside Pakistan (there were 62 suicide attacks last year, after just six in 2006) has forced Musharraf and the new military chief Ashfaq Kiyani to acknowledge that the extremists threatening Americans now also pose a growing threat to Pakistan’s internal security.
Another US strike inside Pakistan’s border region
WSWS
March 19, 2008
An air strike on Sunday on a compound in the Pakistani tribal area of South Waziristan that borders Afghanistan has left up to 20 people dead. While Washington has not acknowledged responsibility, there is little doubt that the US military or the CIA carried out the attack as part of a widening covert war against anti-American militants entrenched in the Pakistani border areas.
Up to seven missiles or bombs flattened the compound just south of the regional centre of Wana at around 3 p.m. “When I heard the explosions, I rushed to the place where it happened. I saw dead bodies scattered everywhere,” a villager Aziz Ullah Wazir told the Washington Post. Local residents and officials claimed that the house belonged to a Taliban sympathiser, Noorullah Wazir, and was frequented by “Arabs”—the term used to denote foreign supporters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Veteran journalist Sailab Masood told the Guardian, however, that local tribesmen were angry that innocent civilians had been killed.
Details of the attack are scanty. According to the New York Times, villagers said a B-52 bomber carried out the raid. Other reports cite locals who claim to have heard the sound of a US Predator drone—an unmanned surveillance vehicle that has been used in previous attacks inside Pakistan. The Pakistani military acknowledged that the blasts had occurred, but pointedly refused to identify the attackers, saying only that the army had no operations in the area.
Both Washington and Islamabad are deliberately playing down the attack, which will only further fuel anger at Pakistan’s support for the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. President Pervez Musharraf’s involvement in the Bush administration’s bogus “war on terrorism” and tacit approval of US operations inside Pakistan were a major factor in generating opposition to his regime.
The issue remains highly sensitive as the winners of last month’s elections—the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)—prepare to form a government. Whatever their limited criticisms of US militarism during the campaign, both parties have a long record of supporting Pakistan’s alliance with Washington and collaborating with the US military. Significantly, neither party has protested against the latest missile strike, an indication that the new government, like Musharraf, will acquiesce to US strikes in the tribal areas.
There are many signs that the Bush administration has expanded covert operations inside Pakistan since the beginning of the year. In early January, the New York Times reported that a top-level White House meeting, involving Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other senior officials, discussed in detail “far more aggressive covert operations” inside Pakistani border areas.
“The new operations for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Most counter terrorism operations in Pakistan have been conducted by the CIA… [I]f the CIA were given broader authority, it could call for help from the military or deputise some forces of the Special Operations Command to act under the authority of the agency,” the article stated.
While the New York Times claimed that no decisions were taken at the January meeting, another article last month reported that the CIA had established a base inside Pakistan. “Among other things, the new arrangements allowed an increase in the number and scope of patrols and strikes by armed Predator surveillance aircraft launched from a secret base in Pakistan—a far more aggressive strategy to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban than had existed before,” the Times explained.
In its report of Sunday’s strike, the Times noted that Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence and General Michael Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, reached an agreement in January with the new Pakistani army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to allow the US greater freedom to strike targets in the tribal areas without specific permission from the Pakistani Army. The article claimed that the US was receiving “better on-the-ground human intelligence” by providing “large cash payments to tribesmen”.
There has been a marked increase in visits to Pakistan this year by senior American military officers, including two by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. During his latest visit on March 4, Admiral Mullen discussed US assistance to expand Pakistan’s Frontier Corps to a force of around 85,000 recruited from tribesmen in the border areas. The Pentagon has already spent around $25 million to provide the Frontier Corps with equipment, including vehicles, radios and surveillance devices, and plans to spend another $75 million over the next year.
At least two other US aerial attacks have taken place inside Pakistan this year. On January 29, a missile destroyed a compound in the village of Khushali Torikhel in North Waziristan, killing 13 people. US and Pakistani officials claimed that Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda commander, was among the dead. On February 28, a missile strike destroyed an alleged Taliban safe house in the village of Kaloosha in South Waziristan, killing at least 10 people. A local tribal leader told the Washington Post that women and children were among the dead, and that at least six others were injured.
It is not possible to confirm the identity of the victims of these attacks. In neighbouring Afghanistan, US officials routinely brand the casualties of US operations as “Taliban” and “Al Qaeda” and deny civilian deaths even in cases where locals have provided clear evidence to the contrary. On-the-ground intelligence provided by paid informants is often unreliable and coloured by local rivalries and animosities. Claims about the outcome of US strikes inside Pakistan are undoubtedly just as uncertain.
Other attacks on targets within Pakistan are taking place from US bases inside Afghanistan. Pakistani officials lodged a formal complaint with the US military after artillery fire from Afghanistan hit a house in North Waziristan last Wednesday, killing two women and two children. According to the Pakistani-based News, last Friday four missiles fell on the village of Botraki, just inside the Pakistani border.
The extent of Washington’s covert war inside Pakistan remains unclear, but such operations are fuelling widespread anger and provoking a rising number of suicide bombings and attacks on Pakistani security forces and other targets. Last Saturday, a bomb blast at a restaurant in Islamabad popular with foreigners killed a Turkish woman and wounded at least 10 others, including five American officials, two Japanese journalists and a British police officer. Four of the five Americans were FBI agents operating in Pakistan.
The escalation of US operations can only have a profoundly destabilising impact, not just in the border regions, but throughout Pakistan, which is already wracked by deep political crisis. While the PPP and PML-N won a decisive victory in last month’s election, in part because of their criticism of Musharraf’s collaboration with the US, the mood will quickly turn as the new government seeks to maintain the US alliance amid ongoing American strikes on Pakistani soil.
Filed under: Coup, EFPs, False Flag, gordon brown, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John Bolton, Micah Brose, military strike, Nuke, Pentagon, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolutionary Guards, Saber Rattling, Shiite, Shock and Awe, Tehran, UN, White House, William Fallon, WMD, ww4
Military interrogator in Iraq: ‘The message [from supervisors] is, “Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.” It’s sickening’
The Observer
November 11, 2007
Micah Brose, privately contracted interrogator working for US forces in Iraq.
Photograph: David Smith
US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.
Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.
Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.’
‘It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran’s not involved, it’s a let down.’ He added: ‘I’ve had people say to me, “They’re really pushing the Iran thing. It’s like, shit, you know.” ‘
Brose said that reports about Washington’s increasingly hawkish stance towards Tehran, including possible military action, chimed with his experience. ‘My impression is they’re just trying to get every little bit of ammunition possible. If we get something here it fits the overall picture. The engine needs impetus and they’re looking for us to find the fuel – a particular type of fuel.
‘It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I’d say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course.’
He denied ever being asked to fabricate evidence, adding: ‘We’re not asked to manufacture information, we’re asked to find it. But if a detainee wants to tell me what I want to hear so he can get out of jail… you know what I’m saying.’
Other military intelligence officials in Iraq refused to comment, but one said: ‘The message is, “Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.” It’s sickening.’
Last week in Baghdad the US military showed journalists a recently discovered cache of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making materials it claims are of Iranian origin. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for Multi-National Force Iraq, said it was possible they crossed the border before a recent promise by Iran to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq.
He said: ‘Iran has had a historic malign influence here in Iraq. They have financed many of the activities of Shia extremist groups. In many cases they have done training, they have actually deployed some of their personnel here in theatre. The Qods Force (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) have come here – we know that, we’ve got some in detention. They have said in many cases they were not here and intend to support a more peaceful outcome in Iraq and we look for their excellence in achieving that.’
Among the weapons Washington has accused Iran of supplying to Iraqi insurgents are EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, which fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating even the most heavily armoured military vehicle. The number two US commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Ray Odierno, said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months.
Fallon: Iran strike ‘strategic mistake’
Press TV
November 12, 2007
Head of the US Central Command Admiral William Fallon has said the Pentagon is not preparing for a pre-emptive attack against Iran.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Adm. William Fallon said while resolving the Iranian issue is a ‘challenge’ for Washington, a military strike is not ‘in the offing’.
“Another war is just not where we want to go,” said Adm. Fallon, who oversees military operations in the Middle East.
He added that attacking Iran as a means to force Tehran to alter its nuclear policies is not ‘the first choice in [his] book’.
According to several senior active and retired military officers, the Pentagon believes striking Iran would be ‘a strategic mistake’.
The US and its allies have accused the Islamic Republic of pursuing nuclear weaponry, while Iran and UN nuclear watchdog have repeatedly rejected the allegations as ‘baseless’.
Amid Washington’s increasing bellicose rhetoric against Tehran, analysts have raised the question whether Washington plans to wage a war against Iran.
Related News:
British PM open to military role in Iran
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_…in_iran/6248/
US strike on Iran ‘not being prepared’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-9…tml?nclick_check=1
Brown warns Iran of investment sanctions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne.w..1/13/nmansion113.xml
Report: Israel, US teaming up to take on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/..nuclearpolitics_071109163226
Israel training intensively for nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear plants
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12333.htm
In the Hands of the Military: We’re in Trouble
http://www.truthdig.com/report/…_of_our_military/
Experts: Danger of nuclear-armed Iran may be hyped
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21341.html
Bolton Smears ElBaradei As Iran Apologist, Says ‘Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/11/bolton-baradei-apologist/
White House frustrated with Brown over Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/n…1/11/wiran111.xml
Lieberman: ‘Paranoid, Hyper-Partisan’ ‘Left-Wing Blogs’ Wrote ‘Conspiracy Theories’ On Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/lieberman-iran-blogs-conspiracy/
FOX Anchor Calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH3BTaWrQ3I
US: Iran attack plans ready if needed
http://www.rawstory.com/new….ede_11082007.html
Spooks refuse to toe Cheney’s line on Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html
US okays $155m arms package for Israel
Washington worried Israel gearing up to attack Iran
PGCC ‘ready for Iran-US confrontation’
‘Apocalyptic’ if Egypt, Saudi go nuclear: Israel minister
Two Iranian diplomats freed in Iraq
Bush defends World War Three comments on Iran
US generals planning revolt over Iran
U.S. Fifth Fleet in Gulf exercise for possible war in Iran
U.S. establishment’s acceptance of a possible war with Iran shows that the folly that led to Iraq still rules Washington
Italy’s Prodi opposed to military action against Iran
Iran’s nuclear programme irreversible
Giuliani: U.S. can’t afford to rule out war with Iran
What kind of nut wants war with Iran? : Joseph Galloway
Poll: Americans split on Iran
Bush Plan Envisioned Nuking Iran, Syria, Libya
Rod Dreher: Launching a war on Iran would be demented
War with Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?: Frank Rich
Lecture by Naomi Wolf – ‘End of America’
Bolton: U.S. should pursue “regime change” in Iran
Cheney : Military action still an option with Iran
B-2s drop dummy bombs on Big Island
Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive
Filed under: army, Centcom, Condoleezza Rice, Coup, Dick Cheney, Dissent, George Bush, Iran, Iraq, JCS, Lieberman, Military, military resistance, military strike, nation building, Nuke, occupation, Pentagon, Propaganda, Revolutionary Guards, Saber Rattling, Seymour Hersh, staged provocation, Syria, troop surge, Troops, UN, White House, William Fallon, WMD, ww4
Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike
Gareth Porter
IPS
October 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (IPS) – The George W. Bush administration’s shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran’s role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation’s top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The reorientation of the military threat was first signaled by passages on Iran in Bush’s Jan. 10 speech and followed by only a few weeks a decisive rejection by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Although scarcely mentioned in press reports of the speech, which was devoted almost entirely to announcing the troop “surge” in Iraq, Bush accused both Iran and Syria of “allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq”. Bush also alleged that Iran was “providing material support for attacks on American troops”.
Those passages were intended in part to put pressure on Iran, and were accompanied by an intensification of a campaign begun the previous month to seize Iranian officials inside Iraq. But according to Hillary Mann, who was director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003, they also provided a legal basis for a possible attack on Iran.
“I believe the president chose his words very carefully,” says Mann, “and laid down a legal predicate that could be used to justify later military action against Iran.”
Mann says her interpretation of the language is based on the claim by the White House of a right to attack another country in “anticipatory self-defence” based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That had been the legal basis cited by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had in September 2002 in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
The introduction of a new reason for striking Iran, which also implied a much more limited set of targets related to Iraq, followed a meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Dec. 13, 2006 in which the uniformed military leaders rejected a strike against Iran’s nuclear programme. Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein, reported last May that military and intelligence sources told him that Bush had asked the Joint Chiefs at the meeting about a possible strike against the Iranian nuclear programme, and that they had unanimously opposed such an attack.
Mann says that she was also told by her own contacts in the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs had expressed opposition to a strike against Iran.
The Joint Chiefs were soon joined in opposition to a strike on Iran by Admiral William Fallon, who was nominated to become CENTCOM commander in January. Mann says Pentagon contacts have also told her that Fallon made his opposition to war against Iran clear to the White House.
IPS reported last May that Fallon had indicated privately that he was determined to prevent an attack on Iran and even prepared to resign to do so. A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be “no war with Iran” while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack.
Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, “There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box,” according to the same source.
Fallon’s opposition to a strike against Iranian nuclear, military and economic targets would make it very difficult, if not impossible for the White House to carry out such an operation, according to military experts. As CENTCOM commander, Fallon has complete control over all military access to the region, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on military strategy who has taught at the National War College.
Douglas McGregor, a retired Army Lt. Col. who was a tank commander in the 1991 Gulf War and has taught at the National Defense University, agrees. “I find it hard to imagine that anything can happen in the area without the involvement of the Central Command,” says McGregor.
The possibility that Fallon might object to an unprovoked attack on Iran or even resign over the issue represents a significant deterrent to such an attack.
Former NSC adviser Mann believes the Iraq-focused strategy is now aimed at averting any resignation threat by Fallon or other military leaders by carrying out a very limited strike that would be presented as a response to a specific incident in Iraq in which the deaths of U.S. soldiers could be attributed to Iranian policy. She says she doubts Fallon and other military leaders would “fall on their swords” over such a strike.
Gardiner agrees that Fallon is unlikely to refuse to carry out such a limited strike under those circumstances.
Mann believes the Bush-Cheney purpose in advancing the strategy is to provoke Iranian retaliation. “The concern I have is that it would be just enough so Iranians would retaliation against U.S. allies,” she says.
But the issue of what evidence of Iranian complicity would be adequate to justify such a strike evidently remains a matter of debate within the administration. A story published by McClatchy newspapers Aug. 9 reported that Vice President Dick Cheney had argued some weeks earlier for a strike against camps in Iran allegedly used to train Iraqi Shiite militiamen fighting U.S. troops if “hard new evidence” could be obtained of Iran’s complicity in supporting anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
But Cheney and his allies have been frustrated in the search for such evidence. Mann notes that British forces in southern Iraq patrolled the border very aggressively for six months last year to find evidence of Iranian involvement in supplying weapons to Iraqi guerrillas but found nothing.
After several months of trying to establish specific links between Iraqis suspected of trafficking in weapons to a specific Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard contact, the U.S. command has not claimed a single case of such a link. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a Jul. 6 briefing that his troops had not captured “anybody that we can tie to Iran”.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is known to be closely allied with Cheney on Iran policy, has betrayed impatience with a policy that depends on obtaining proof of Iranian complicity in attacks. On Jun. 11 he called for “strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”
Lieberman repeated that position on Jul. 2, but thus far it has not prevailed.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in June 2005.
Bush Admin. Gearing up for a War with Iran for years
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107