US accused of drawing up plan to bomb Iran

[mawilson 2,133]

President George Bush has charged the Pentagon with devising an expanded bombing

plan for Iran that can be carried out at 24 hours' notice, it was reported yesterday.

An extensive article in the New Yorker magazine by the investigative journalist

Seymour Hersh describes the contingency bombing plan as part of a general overhaul

by the Bush administration of its policy towards Iran.

It said a special planning group at the highest levels of the US military had expanded

its mission from selecting potential targets connected to Iranian nuclear facilities, and

had been directed to add sites that may be involved in aiding Shia militant forces in Iraq

to its list.

That new strategy, intended to reverse the rise in Iranian power that has been an

unintended consequence of the war in Iraq, could bring the countries much closer to

open confrontation and risks igniting a regional sectarian war between Shia and Sunni

Muslims, the New Yorker says.

Elements of the tough new approach towards Tehran outlined by Hersh include:

• Clandestine operations against Iran and Syria, as well as the Hizbullah movement
  in Lebanon - even to the extent of bolstering Sunni extremist groups that are
  sympathetic to al-Qaida
  
• Sending US special forces into Iranian territory in pursuit of Iranian operatives,
  as well as to gather intelligence
  
• Secret operations are being funded by Saudi Arabia to avoid scrutiny by Congress.
  "There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all
  over the world on a variety of missions," Hersh quotes a Pentagon consultant as saying.
  

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the vice-president, ####### Cheney, has bypassed other

administration officials to take charge of the aggressive new policy, working along with

the deputy national security adviser, Elliott Abrams, and the former ambassador to

Kabul and Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Mr Cheney is also relying heavily on Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security

adviser, who spent 22 years as ambassador to the US, and who has been offering his

advice on foreign policy to Mr Bush since he first contemplated running for president.

The New Yorker revelations, arriving soon after Mr Cheney reaffirmed that war with Iran

remained an option if it did not dismantle its nuclear programme, further ratcheted up

fears of a military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

Such concerns deepened further with the warning from the Iranian president, Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, that there could be no stopping or rolling back of his country's nuclear

programme. "The train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear," Iranian

radio reported Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

Hersh, who made his reputation by breaking the story of the My Lai massacre during the

Vietnam war, was among the first US journalists to report on the prison abuse scandal

at Abu Ghraib. Although the most explosive material was supplied by unnamed sources,

his status in US journalism made his latest report an immediate talking point on yesterday's

TV chatshows.

His assertion that the Bush administration was actively preparing for an attack on Iran

was denied by the Pentagon. "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.

To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous," the

Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, told reporters.

Hersh was just as adamant. "This president is not going to leave office without doing

something about Iran," he told CNN. Hersh claims that the former director of national

intelligence, John Negroponte, resigned his post to take a parallel job as the deputy director

of the state department because of his discomfort with an approach that so closely echoed

the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s.

In seeking to contain Iranian influence - and that of its most powerful protege, the Hizbullah

leader, Hassan Nasrallah - the US has worked with the governments of Saudi Arabia and

Israel. Both countries see a powerful Iran as an existential threat, and the Saudis suspect

Tehran's hand behind rising sectarian tensions in its eastern province, as well as a spate

of bombing attacks inside the kingdom.

One prime arena for the new strategy is Lebanon where the administration has been trying

to prop up the government of Fouad Siniora, which faces a resurgent Hizbullah movement

in the aftermath of last summer's war with Israel.

Some of the billions of aid to the Beirut government has ended up in the hands of radical

Sunnis in the Beka'a Valley, Hersh writes. Syrian extremist groups have also benefited from

the new policy. "These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hizbullah; at the same

time, their ideological ties are with al-Qaida," Hersh writes.

Source

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It's good to be prepared.

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

Everyone knows if we are yaking about it to the news..It's just a bluff.... It's not going to happen..

[mawilson 2,133]

This is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war.

The propaganda campaign of fear-mongering has begun. Only last night (right after "24"),

Fox News reported that Iran was allegedly planning an attack on New York City. Tunnels,

bridges and Wall Street were all mentioned as potential targets.

Déjà vu, anyone?

[mawilson 2,133]

Everyone knows if we are yaking about it to the news..It's just a bluff.... It's not going to happen..

When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan (shortly after 9/11), the media started theorizing

about a possible Iraq connection. "How long do you think before the U.S. attacks Iraq,"

I asked an American friend back in 2002, and he dismissed it as an impossibility.

"Iraq? What do they have to do with it? Never gonna happen."

Remember, it takes time to build up fear in the citizenry. If they are planning

to attack Iran in 2009, now is a good time to start the fear-mongering campaign.

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

Everyone knows if we are yaking about it to the news..It's just a bluff.... It's not going to happen..

When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan (shortly after 9/11), the media started theorizing

about a possible Iraq connection. "How long do you think before the U.S. attacks Iraq,"

I asked an American friend back in 2002, and he dismissed it as an impossibility.

"Iraq? What do they have to do with it? Never gonna happen."

Remember, it takes time to build up fear in the citizenry. If they are planning

to attack Iran in 2009, now is a good time to start the fear-mongering campaign.

Maybe....but with Bush being opposed so strongly with troop build up...His short time left in the office and England Leaving... I don't see it happening..

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe....but with Bush being opposed so strongly with troop build up...His short time left in the office and England Leaving... I don't see it happening..

They should just move the troops across the border to Iran

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

Maybe....but with Bush being opposed so strongly with troop build up...His short time left in the office and England Leaving... I don't see it happening..

They should just move the troops across the border to Iran

Maybe this is why Blair pulled the troops he saw Bush doing the build up... Who knows with these Monkeys...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

This is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war.

The propaganda campaign of fear-mongering has begun. Only last night (right after "24"),

Fox News reported that Iran was allegedly planning an attack on New York City. Tunnels,

bridges and Wall Street were all mentioned as potential targets.

Déjà vu, anyone?

Dude. Fox 5 news? That's the national enquirer of TV news. I lived down there for the past 3 years.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war.

The propaganda campaign of fear-mongering has begun. Only last night (right after "24"),

Fox News reported that Iran was allegedly planning an attack on New York City. Tunnels,

bridges and Wall Street were all mentioned as potential targets.

Déjà vu, anyone?

Dude. Fox 5 news? That's the national enquirer of TV news. I lived down there for the past 3 years.

I know that, and you know that, but we're not their target audience.

[Nikita2Charles 33]

Deja Vu????

It's amazing, you will start to see how the Media is being manipulated to report what the administration wants people to hear. What's the difference between this country having a CONTROLLED MEDIA, and a communist, or dictator regine where the news is screened prior to being released.

The same media manipulation tactics went against Iraq to get the people on the Bandwagon to support the war. Lost credibility even when the UN found out that some files showing weapon graded uranium being transfered to Saddam were all FABRICATED. AS such being caught red handed in so many lies, hard to have credibility.

So now let's see what's the new story line is going to be for IRAN, and watch the media>?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everyone knows if we are yaking about it to the news..It's just a bluff.... It's not going to happen..

When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan (shortly after 9/11), the media started theorizing

about a possible Iraq connection. "How long do you think before the U.S. attacks Iraq,"

I asked an American friend back in 2002, and he dismissed it as an impossibility.

"Iraq? What do they have to do with it? Never gonna happen."

Remember, it takes time to build up fear in the citizenry. If they are planning

to attack Iran in 2009, now is a good time to start the fear-mongering campaign.

Hmmmm.... does the US even have the resources left to commit to that kind of thing? Aside from the US army is stretched almost to breaking point dealing with the last 2 conflicts, going to war with a much better armed and equipped Iran is going to cost a shitload of money - which will surely put the country on the road to an economic recession.

6 years of conflict without end or apparent resolution is the main reason that Bush's popularity has sunk to an all time low - I can't see any prospective presidential candidate even hinting at expanding the war into another middle-east theater. It would be political suicide.

[bgreed 0]

Nothing really astounding here. We have had unsettled accounts with Tehran since the Carter administration. When people would ask me the question why we were in Iraq my reply has always been the question is not Iraq but rather when we will be in Iran. Iraq will make a very good staging ground for our move into Iran I have also been saying this for a long time. Without Iraq we would not have a good fairly secure staging ground for the invasion of Iran. We have known and they have made no secret about wanting to be part of the nuclear club for years. Guess what ain't gonna happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nothing really astounding here. We have had unsettled accounts with Tehran since the Carter administration. When people would ask me the question why we were in Iraq my reply has always been the question is not Iraq but rather when we will be in Iran. Iraq will make a very good staging ground for our move into Iran I have also been saying this for a long time. Without Iraq we would not have a good fairly secure staging ground for the invasion of Iran. We have known and they have made no secret about wanting to be part of the nuclear club for years. Guess what ain't gonna happen.

Not a very good staging ground considering the forces on the ground don't really have control over it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hmmmm.... does the US even have the resources left to commit to that kind of thing? Aside from the US army is stretched almost to breaking point dealing with the last 2 conflicts, going to war with a much better armed and equipped Iran is going to cost a shitload of money - which will surely put the country on the road to an economic recession.

The U.S. doesn't have the mlitary resources for a full-scale invasion of Iran (without a draft),

but we can definitely bomb the ####### out of their nuclear facilities and military installations.