Skip to comments.Bush Setting America up for War with Iran
Posted on 09/18/2007 1:16:48 AM PDT by sierrascrapper
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
advertisement A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".
He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."
Possible flash points: Click to enlarge Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".
Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.
"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."
2,000 is a good start.
Don’t buy this one. Alot of inuendo by Bush haters.
>>>Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran,
In the last week I’ve read that line a dozen times, but this time it occurs to me that somewhere a bunch of Iranian staff officers are working night and day to answer the question WHICH 2000 targets would that be. The first hundred or so are simple, the nuke sites, airbases, SAM sites, etc. But rounding out the list in a nation as large as Iran has to be a job.
Well, there is the little thing called Congressional approval which given Democratic control is going to be unlikely to obtain.
I would put an attack on Iraq as a very low probability right now. I think the only thing that might change that would be an Iranian attack on US interests in the ME or elsewhere or on Israel.
I concur. At most this is just a bit of saber-rattling by the US administration. More likely their contingency plans have been compromised.
The libs would be sending "I'm sorry for offending notes" instead of retaliation!
So that’s the word from London (posted article from the Telegraph)! Things are getting very interesting, indeed! We’ll see what happens.
France’s Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes
ON COLLISION PATH : FRANCE’S SARKOZY RAISES PROSPECTS OF STRIKES AGAINST IRAN
French FM Kouchner: ‘We must prepare for war against Iran’
Germany backs French minister on Iranian nuclear weapons warning
I ask you, what's not to like about that guy?
Which should have been done by the CARTER administration...
You can lance a pustule when it's the size of a booger, or you can wait until it's the size of a grapefruit and you have to take off an arm to be quit of it.
Bush 2 will be no different.
Hillary (Bush 3) will cowtow as well.
Until Iranian proxies (Iraq Lebanon Syria Palestine) attack Israel unleashing the prophesy.
You could have saved that until after breakfast!
If they didn’t at least plan for this contingency, I wouldn’t have voted for them in the first place. However, I’m not going to believe the Telegraph reporting, either. Besides, isn’t Iran already at war withus? How many of OUR soldiers have been killed by Qud forces in Iraq or by Iranian supplied weapons?
You could have saved that until after breakfast!
Pustules, boogers, grapefruits...what's your point? (grin)
“An Iranian attack on U.S. interests?”
You’ve got to be kidding.
First if this does happen, several dems will be informed just before it happens. There will not be time for the dems to stop it. It will be over too soon.(the original 2000 targets)
Second, just what the hell have the Iranians been doing for two or three years? Killing Americans in Iraq. To me that seems like targeting American interests.
It’s a bunch of bull. He may be preparing, but he’s not going to pull the trigger. He’s going to leave it for his successor to decide.
Let's see how it all shakes out.
Most reasonable people:- Freepers, Conservatives and, let us not forget, the President of France (!) - think there is a realistic chance of war with Iran. It wouldn't take a Bush Hater to say so. Genocidal realists like Ahmadinejad have a way of concentrating the mind.
A storm is coming.
All of his poor decisions while SecDef for starters.
This has been coming for 28 years and is another punch in the turmoil released by Jimah Cartar. My wish is a quick, destructive strike that pushes Iran over the edge and forces “moderates” in the country to throw off the Mullahs.
Having said that, our troops in Iraq must be ready for missles to rain on them from Iran. Certainly Iran will counterattack American forces and the Israelies too. Israel must sit it out again too, let us handle it. Iranian attacks on sites in Iraq will only make the Iraqis madder than they already are at Iran and serve our purposes as well.
Under no circumstances can we commit ground troops to Iran. Because the President and Rumsfeld refused to enlarge the military after 9/11, there are no large bodies of troops not already nearly burnt out from repeated Iraqi service. We could perhaps take Kargh Island and shut off their oil flow. That would be a relatively easy operation.
At any rate, I support attacking Iran becaue they are attacking us now in Iraq, they are the chief world sponsor of Islamic terror and have never paid any price for attacking us in 1979. God speed to our forces as they do the work that must be done.
The Germans just declined to agree to embargoes or boycotts, preferring that the USA bombs the crap out of Iran’s nuke facilities. If we can’t embargo, bombing is all we have.
An easy place to start would be to arrest “Ahmadidajob” when he speechifies before the UN this month.
Preferably prior to.
Gee, Joe, I don’t think that’s the way our system works. I think arming the enemy who kills you is aggressive behavior but Congress didn’t declare war on the Soviets or Chinese in Korea or Vietnam.
It’s even more cute than that.
Merkel said that they would oppose any new embargoes or boycotts, that they would take no part in military strikes, but that they would privately support military strikes while publically condemning them,
Heres what Ive been pushing for:
We should withdraw from Iraq through Tehran. Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say real, I mean real the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didnt get this months bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, hed still be in power, pulling Bushs chain.
You are so right about Iran. They are the leading sponsor of terrorism and they have attacked “our interests” when they attack our soldiers in Iraq. We should be dropping fliers to get the innocents out and then turn that area into a sea of GLASS!
I honestly don’t see Bush having the guts to do it, but I know of one candidate that would.