Probability of Attacking Iran:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern08312007.html

By RAY McGOVERN
Former CIA Analyst

Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry; but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is likely to be at war with Iran-and with the thousands of real terrorists Iran can field around the globe.

It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take action to prevent a wider war-while we still can.

President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction"-not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S. reverses in Iraq, and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation-eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities.

Bush's Aug. 28 speech to the American Legion comes five years after a very similar presentation by Vice President Dick Cheney. Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war on Iraq.

Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.


The Telegraph UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran102.xml


Will President Bush bomb Iran?
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 12:17am BST 02/09/2007


In a nondescript room, two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran.

President Bush dramatically stepped up his war of words with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The United States, no longer prepared to tolerate the risk that Iranian nuclear weapons will be used against Israel, or passed to terrorists, has already launched a bombing campaign to destroy known Iranian nuclear sites, air bases and air defence sites. Iran has retaliated by cutting off oil to America and its allies, blockading the Straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck, and sanctioned an uprising by Shia militias in southern Iraq that has shut down 60 per cent of Iraq's oil exports.

The job of the officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, who have gathered in an office just off Massachusetts Avenue, behind the rail terminus, Union Station, is to prevent a spike in oil prices that will pitch the world's economy into a catastrophic spin.

The good news is that this was a war game; for those who fear war with Iran, the less happy news is that the officials were real. The simulation, which took four months, was run by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with close links to the White House. Its conclusions, drawn up last month and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, have been passed on to military and civilian planners charged with drawing up plans for confronting Iran.

News that elements of the American government are working in earnest on how to deal with the fallout of an attack on Iran come at a tense moment.

At DU we've been reading prophecies of an attack on Iran for over 2 years, yet we're not any closer to seeing one happen than we were 2 years ago.

Given the number of serious issues we face where there are no "ifs" involved (e.g. Iraq, global warming, povery), it's baffling why so many folks here prefer to fantasize about unlikely worst-case scenarios.

george is a self centered nut case he can be hard to read-at times.

If it ever happens, then your statement is false.

It's on my journal, and the delay even has me wondering about it.

In fact, Bush and Blair had the perfect opportunity to invade when Iran took those British sailors. They blinked. Maybe they didn't have their ducks in a row yet, but now I wonder if he can. God, I hope he can't.

See how the drums beat through the 11th or slightly after--my thoughts anyway.

We know the Cheney/Lieberman wing wants it, that's for sure. Provocative stuff timed to compete with Iraq report has to be coming. (And if not Iran, what?) Now on top of resignations, corruption, resignations from corruption, investigation of corruption, torture, spying on us, habeas at the Supremes (in Oct), etc., etc., we've got the massive mortgage fallout. Could we be at a lower low? Not by much. They can ride this lamest of lame ducks out, accomplishing nothing 'cept some profiteering and various planet wide rape like usual, or go the totally stupid-psycho route and basically launch a world war to ensure that they really leave their mark on history. Domestically maybe requiring some sort of martial law, quarantines, Patriot 2, and the end of our republic as we know it. You've watched these guys, which option you think they will pick?

Is anyone stooping them?

I'm going with the stupid-psycho option but hoping they screw it up like everything else.

that described the situation aptly.

It showed chimpy as a small boy who, having busted up his "Army" toys, was turning his attention to two boxes marked "New in Box ... Air Force*" and "New in Box ... Navy". (These would be the primary means for attacking Iran, and neither has seen the sort of grinding service the Marines and Army have.)

...

It would be a mistake to assume that rationality, reason and some sense of reality will play a big part in commander cero's future military decisions... Because these things obviously haven't played a big part in the past.

And I suppose that chucklehead's pretensions to some great historical role (as a heroic leader in time of war, a visionary, like Churchill) seem laughable to many. But my guess is that chimpolini takes this very seriously -- and that he doesn't care what disasters befall us, since "history" will eventually "vindicate" him. In short, he's dangerous and delusional, filled to the very brim with fantasies of righteousness, personal heroism -- and boundless executive power.

(And the "Oh, they'd never do that!" mentality is one reason we're in this mess.)

Imo, if an attack on Iran** is averted, it'll only be because it was well and stoutly resisted.

*: Which is infested with strategic-bombing blowhards, rapture-ready radicals and assorted fellow-travelers.

**: My guess is that such an attack will have disastrous results -- and that we'll be lucky if only a limited nuclear action takes place.

Nothing is impossible with this lot; but I think it's unlikely. Not that they wouldn't like to; but I don't think they have the resources, either in terms of political support, or in terms of the troops and military resources. Realistically, they would have to get out of Iraq first, and I don't think this will happen while Bush is president. Also I don't think the UK would go in under Brown (even Blair showed restraint about Iran) and there wouldn't be a 'coalition of the willing'.

Of course, in any situation that involves the possible actions of not one but two evil and insane leaders (Bush and Ahmadejinad), one can never predict *anything* firmly. But I think it's unlikely.

but it looks like there's congressional support from across the aisle. I bumped up my prediction to 50-50.

At this point it just seems like fear-mongering.

The arguments for why the 'imminent' and 'done-deal' attack on Iran have never made sense to me. Clearly, many people around here disagree though.

By constantly threatening to attack Iran it might be forcing the Iranian Govt. to spend tons of money to prepare for an attack & ruin their economy.

Clearly there has been some Bush sabre-rattling. I just don't buy the done-deal and 'imminent' aspect of a lot of this.