Iran -- the reads

[Political Waves]

Keep Light on this little project, dearhearts!

Jude


U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran
Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post
Saturday, April 26, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480_pf.html

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for
"potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran,
criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign
influence" in Iraq.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with
Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to
reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.

"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a
Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer
to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the
regional power."

Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent
action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in
the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal
new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say
is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups
that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He
said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on
the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in
a future Iranian nuclear threat."

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this
week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on
increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for
example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in
Iran, he said.

"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's
plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of
Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear
previously.

But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of
Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that
the highest leadership is involved."

In an incident early local time Thursday, a cargo ship contracted by the U.S.
military fired "several bursts" of warning shots at two fast boats that approached
in international waters off the Iranian coast, defense officials said yesterday.
 

The unidentified small boats approached the Westward Venture, a ship carrying U.S.
military hardware, as it headed north through the central Persian Gulf, said Cmdr.
Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for the Navy's 5th Fleet.

The U.S. ship initiated communications, and after receiving no response, it fired a
flare. The speedboats continued to approach, so the ship fired warning shots. The
boats then left the area, Robertson said.

In January, five Iranian patrol boats sped toward a U.S. warship in the Gulf and
dropped small, boxlike objects in the water, an incident that President Bush called
"a provocative act." The objects turned out to pose no threat to U.S. vessels. ++


Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim'
ABC
Fri Apr 25, 2008
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/25/2227483.htm

US Government allegations that North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear reactor have
been greeted with scepticism because of their timing.

Israeli jets bombed the alleged site in Syria's eastern desert last September.

Today, after months of whispers, the White House publicly claimed that the target of
the strike was a nuclear reactor.

It said the reactor was being built with North Korean help and was not intended for
peaceful purposes.

US intelligence officials said the reactor had been close to becoming operational
when it was destroyed.

But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy, says the claim
needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's denuclearisation
reaches a critical stage.

"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now
is a kind of push back by Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and his office and other
hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.

"[They are] hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it
will torpedo the diplomatic process."

Earlier White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the US would be continuing its
six-country talks with North Korea. ++


Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
Glenn Greenwald
Friday April 25, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/25/syria/index.html

Can Bush attack again?
Though the balance of reason weighs against the US waging war on Iran, since
when has the Bush administration appeared reasonable
Galal Nassar, Ahram
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/894/focus.htm

The Clock is Ticking for an Attack on Iran
Dave Lindorff, Smirking Chimp
April 27, 2008
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14278

I admit to feeling a little like the weatherman who keeps saying it's going to rain,
and who eventually is proven correct. I feel certain that the Bush/Cheney regime is
going to launch a disastrous attack on Iran, but have made several calls, which have
been proved wrong, beginning back in October 2006, when I wrote that it looked like
several aircraft carrier battle groups were being put in position for the assault,
but then it was called off.

Now it looks like the attack is coming soon.

The Washington Post's Ann Scott Tyson is today reporting in an article headlined,
Joint Chiefs Chairman Says US Preparing Military Options Against Iran, that Admiral
Michael Mullen, the nation's top military officer, thinks the US military is not
stretched too thin to take on Iran, and that Iran is becoming an "increasingly
lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

This article comes only a day after a US civilian ship under contract to the US
military to deliver supplies to Iraq fired on Iranian boats in the Persian
Gulf--just the kind of aggressive action that could lead to an Iranian reaction and
trigger a full-blown US response.

The Persian Gulf is now crammed full of US attack ships, ranging from a
missile-armed nuclear sub to aircraft carriers packed with tomahawk cruise missiles
and fleets of attack aircraft larger than most nation's entire air forces (and also
with nuclear weapons).

Other things also point to an attack, most significantly the pushing out of Adm.
William Fallon as Central Command chief, and now his replacement by Gen. David
Petraeus, who is widely seen as a "political" general who is essentially a yes-man
for Bush and Cheney.

I would say the die is cast, and that it awaits only the pretext.

There would be no melodramatic Congressional debate over the reasons for going to
war against yet a third nation this time around. Thanks to the 2001 Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in October 2001 to authorize the
attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq, which Bush and Cheney have illegally and
outrageously interpreted as a declaration of a global and unending "War on Terror,"
the administration is claiming it has the right to attack any nation it defines as
"terrorist" at any time, without authorization. Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton helped promote war against Iran a few months ago by backing a Senate
resolution authored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyle that defined the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard as a "global terrorist" organization. That was all Bush and
Cheney needed, as Clinton, Lieberman and Kyle clearly knew.

In what has to be one of the understatements of the century, Adm. Mullen said he
knew that conflict would be "extremely stressing" and "distrous on a number of
levels."

Indeed it would. Troops in Iraq are already on their fourth and even fifth rotation,
and the "surge" troops in Iraq for the past year are being sent home, not because
their job of "stabilizing" Baghdad is done (hardly! violence is increasing!), but
because there's nobody left to replace them, and they've been there for 15 brutal
months.

Worse yet, oil prices have hit a record $122/barrel and are causing a US and even a
global recession--but that figure will be doubled the minute any US attack on Iran
begins. This is because war with Iran would immediately bring all oil shipments
through the Persian Gulf, which supplies 20-25 percent of the world's oil, to a
halt. Even if not one tanker were sunk, no insurer would cover a tanker in that
region.

Moreover, Iranian sappers, and their allies in Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, could
be expected to take out vulnerable pipelines, refineries and even well-heads in
retaliation to any attack.

So an attack on Iran would mean global economic collapse.

Hold on to your hats. I hope I'm proved wrong yet again, but I'm afraid we're in for
a bumpy ride. Even if there is no attack, the level of threats against Iran now
emanating from the White House and the Pentagon are sufficient to keep driving oil
prices skyward.

Americans should look at those pump prices and see Bush's and Cheney's faces in the
digital display.

They should also think of the gas they pump as blood, because it is going to be
spilled in prodigious quantities if the US goes through with an attack. Not only
would countless innocent Iranians be killed by US bombs and rockets and by any
radiation released by attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities (the more so if the US or
its Israeli ally use nuclear bombs in that attack), but the toll of US military
casualties could be expected to soar, as Iran's Shia allies in Iraq predictably turn
on American forces in support of Iran.

Clearly this is all madness, but it is also predictable madness. The Bush/Cheney
regime is finishing out its last year as the most disastrous, most unpopular, most
loathed presidency in the nation's history, and may even be facing criminal
prosecution once out of office. It has approached each election since taking office
by upping the military jingoism. I see no reason to see their political strategy
changing. It is critical to them that John McCain and the Republican Party hang onto
the White House, and in their view, getting the US into an all-out war with Iran is
just the way to do that.

They may be right. ++

http://www.politicalwaves.net

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have
fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the
fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get
through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell
those who come after how much fun it was."
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.