Iran invasion coming soon

I wrote a diary on Monday about a radio interview I heard with Scott Ritter in which he predicted an invasion of Iran later this summer. It seemed like a little bit of a stretch, but Ritter has been an extremely reliable source of information.

Today we have additional support for the contention that Bush and the neo-crazies are determined to attack Iran. I Know It Sounds Crazy, but ... by Ray McGovern.

So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

More in Extended Entry

I ran across this story at Antiwar.com. Both stories have informative links.

Of course our fearless leader instigated the speculation with this recent Bushism:

"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

"(Short pause)

"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

(The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

McGovern admits that this is just an educated guess:

Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles, accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on Feb. 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

Scott Ritter said his sources indicated this June is the likely time period, but that events would dictate the timeline.

McGovern presents a very persuasive case. When Bush said "all options are on the table" what I heard was, "We are going to invade Iran, but I'm going to lie to the media because it worked out so well last time."

There may not be a damn thing anyone can do to stop Bush and the neo-crazies:

Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

Is Condi getting ready for a visit to the U.N. or will they just skip that part since it didn't work out so well last time?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

19 Comments

Makes sense.
From the McGovern article:

But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Blowing up an operating nukular plant will be a major assault with significant repercussions for the civilian population. That's some really bad press and a major new cause for extremists to rally around.

On the other hand, reducing a construction site to rubble, then saying "they were violating their nukular agreements, and we stopped them before they became a threat," that's something they can sell.

by catastrophile 2005-03-02 02:01PM | 0 recs
shit storm
if we "spread freedom" to Iran we're gonna be in a whole lot of trouble. although i can't verify this, my brother told me that he read an article around the first of the year where China claimed that if we attacked Iran they would "stop us". I don't really know what entails "stopping us", and quite frankly, i don't wanna know.

also, Russia is close allies with Iran.

by ypsilanti 2005-03-02 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: shit storm
it boggles my mind that after four years of being president no one has explained the concept of diplomacy to this man.
by ypsilanti 2005-03-02 03:44PM | 0 recs
Who needs diplomacy
when god sits at your right hand.

Have I got that right?

by viking 2005-03-02 04:24PM | 0 recs
Iran, Iran - so far away.
Yes, Iran is next. Here's why:

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm

Iran wants to sell oil in Euros, not US Dollars. This was the kiss of death for Saddam.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez did the same thing and was rewarded with an obviously U.S. backed coup attempt. (Overt action against Chavez would be difficult considering that he is the democratically elected and rightful President of Venezuela.)

If the world oil market switches to Euros, the U.S. is SOL. To make a long story short, the dollar would plummet, bringing back stagflation. It only gets worse from here, especially considering the massive amounts of debt the U.S. has.

In short we have lots of enemies, lots of debt, and no money for anything except the military.

Thanks a lot, George W. Bush.

by wayward 2005-03-02 05:34PM | 0 recs
The 1,000,000th time: IRAN NOT HAPPENING
I guarantee it.  A full invasion of Iran will not occur, because it is physically impossible for the existing force to do it.

We lack the manpower to even remotely dream about invading Iran.  Iraq's Shi'ites will act as a Fifth Column, constantly harrassing our rear lines.  Our advance would stop just about where the Iraqi advance fell apart.

Iran is simply too large and too forbidding.  It would take at least 1,000,000 soldiers (in addition to 300,00 we need in Iraq) to conduct an effective occupation.

The Joint Chiefs will resign if the WH presses for an invasion of Iraq.

And, I'd place odds against an air stike or command operation a about 9-1.  Why?  Because we canno do anything right now to anger an essentially pro-Iran government in Iraq.

For the 1,000,000th time: drop the Iran fantasies.  It ain't happening.  Even in OJ Land, where the White House dreams this shit up, Iran is beyond reach.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-02 06:16PM | 0 recs
You are being rational
That is a mistake when dealing with the neo-crazies. An invasion  with combat troops is not the only option. Examine the analysis closely. The neo-crazies are putting forward the same fantasy that they pushed in Iraq. /Iran is sick of the Mullahs. The Iranian people are pro-American. Nobody want to be oppressed. All we have to do is set a spark and the Iranians will rise up against the Mullahs. / I heard Limbaugh say this seriously on talk radio. It is the latest neo-crazy theory.

Don't assume the neo-crazies give a shit about stability. They think America and Israel will benefit from chaos in the Middle East. Cheney is actually suggesting that we will have to bomb Iran's nuclear plants before Israel does to avoid a religious explosion.

An attack can take many forms if you don't give a shit about stability. They are just talking about stability in Iraq.

(1) Dismissing the Iraqi Army was not a mistake, it was a plan to lock Iraq and America together for security purposes.

(2) The Bushies were forced into allowing a vote by Sistani. They didn't want an early vote.

(3) The rules the U.S. put into place for the interim assembly requires a majority vote for a new President be reached by a date certain. (I forget the date) If they do not reach a compromise that constitutes a majority by that date, the assembly dissolves and they start the election all over from scratch. The system is designed to fail.

(4) Do you think they stopped lying when they got caught on WMDs? Don't believe anything they say about Iraq policy. They have not stopped lying about their real goals or their methods of achieving their real goals.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-02 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: You are being rational
What is the status of the new mini-nukes
that bush and clan wanted, or is that a black
budget project. We know we tested a daisy
cutter X 2 in florida. Supposedly Iran has
all its assets spread out to prevent an Iraq
Osiraq reactor type bombing.

We are sending spy drones over sites. I think
bush could not put together an invasion package
without telegraphing it to the Iranians..plus
the american people feel a little burned from
the last invasion package that bush rolled out
and turned out to be false.

I think he bombs and takes the risk of blowback
from the shites in Iraq. If he does bomb look
for car bombings in Basra.

I seems whatever Israel wants, Israel gets when it comes to the bush administration.

I put Scott Ritter into the pragmatic category..he
let into bill clinton and he lets george have it
as well..he has credibility with me.

by Aslanspal 2005-03-02 10:07PM | 0 recs
Ray McGovern is also credible
Ray McGovern is no slouch either.  Here's a Truth Out article he wrote about how well Negroponte will fit right in to the Bush Administration and a story from last year about McGovern on WMD and how the Bush administration was using CIA intelligence professionals as scapegoats for the Bush administration's political manipulation of intelligence.

When you have Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern and Seymore Hersh all on the same page, there is plenty of reason to take it seriously.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-03 03:29AM | 0 recs
Bush can't risk it
Going into 2006, he can't run the risk of piling Democratic opposition to an Iran invasion on top of Democratic opposition to Social Security reform.

The GOP's best chance in 2006 is that Iraq heals up, SocSec blows over, and America can get back to hating queers.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-03 06:20AM | 0 recs
In order
  1. Dismissing the Iraqi Army was not a mistake. Sometimes you take a hit in the short term for long term benefits. Better to have a completely fresh start. Their "Army" wasn't worth retaining anyway.

  2. True, Rumsfeld said we didn't go all that way to put the shiites in power, we went there for "democracy". That's like saying we didn't go to Utah  to put the Mormons in power, we went there to put the people in power. What angers me is that the Democrats were the ones leading the charge for the elections as a prelude to withdrawal, and yet they fumbled it away at the goalline with knee-jerk BS.

  3. The system won't fail. The shiites are taking over. They suffered too much to be denied now.

  4. They are lying on Syria and Harriri, but there is a catch. Syria should get out of lebanon,  syria should democratize. Two out of three aint bad.

As for your prior comments: Iran is sick of the mullahs. Iranians are not anti-American. Nobody wants to be oppressed. All we have to do is light a spark and the regime will collapse. All true. However, we live in a world of probabilities and every action takes with it a risk. The American right is unwilling to jeopardize their ascendency in domestic affairs by failing in distant foriegn ones. Once we pull out of Iraq and rest the troops we will have even more bluffing power when it comes to these house of card regimes.
by Paul Goodman 2005-03-03 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: In order
"All we have to do is light a spark and the regime will collapse."

This argument was had in 1989.  It was about China.  people got run over by tanks.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-03 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You are being rational
Well, then let's examine who to attack Iran short of a full ground invasion:

1. Air Strikes.  Likely useless in light of the size of Iran.  It would take incredibly specific human intelligence to even draw up a target list.  Looking at recent history, this intelligence does not exist.

Also, it might incite unrest in Iraq, since a Shi'ite gov't might not be too keen to having its airspace used for an attack.

  1. A commando raid.  Same as #1.

  2. An armor raid.  A recon in force.  Something of a limited ground invasion.  Less likely, since any ground force usage increases the likelihood that Iran will counter-attack into Iraq.

  3. Agitation.  Been used for 25 years.  Not working.

Even the Bushies have limits.  If for no other reason than they cannot afford to lose the American military.

Right now, they're saber-rattling.  They're playing the role of crazy mothafucka -- the guy who no one fights because you're afraid he'll bite you and you'll need a shot.

Besides, if the Bushies want a war, Syria is laying out the red carpet.

Invading Syria would in fact kill two birds with one stone: cut of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and cut of Hezbollah.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-03 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The 1,000,000th time: IRAN NOT HAPPENING
Well, hell, if you garuntee it then that's good enough for me.

Who needs to listen to sources from within the pentagon and other agencies that are planning these operations when we have your promise that it won't happen?

If you believe it so fervantly, how about a wager? I'll bet you that they attack Iran, in a limited fashion, before the end of this year.

And what's China going to do about it? Sell off our their dollars and crash our currency? Oh. Well that would suck, but besides that...

by Alex Urevick 2005-03-03 04:13AM | 0 recs
Questioning the Chinese: priceless
"what's China going to do about it?"

An example of Chinese military thinking, for your edification.

In 1979, the Chinese told their proxies in Vietnam to get the hell out of Cambodia.  The Vietnamese didn't, because they figured that the Chinese had no real means of intervening in Cambodia.

Oooops.

The Chinese invaded northern Vietnam long enough to force the Vietnamese to recall their troops from Cambodia to defend Hanoi.  Then they left, once the Vietnamese got the message.

Let's take a look at China's options for defending Iran:

  1. Attack Taiwan.  Force the 5th Fleet out of supporting an Iran invasion and into defending Taiwan.  If the Chinese successfully take Taiwan, this will force a recall of the 101 and 82 Airnorne, plus a division of Marines.

  2. Attack Afghanistan, then provide matieral support overland to Iran.

  3. Use North Korean surrogates to attack South Korea.

  4. Renew the endless historical border war with Russia, trigger an international crisis.

  5. Threaten nuclear force against the United States.

Let me say this clearly: do not ever say something as radically uninformed as, "what's China going to do about it?"

If the Chinese see the need for action, they will pull action out of their bag of tricks.

Do not ever question the willingness of the Chinese to invent ways to conduct wars they see as necessary.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-03 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Questioning the Chinese: priceless
Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my post. China could devistate us in many ways that we typically don't discuss. I pointed to one- their ability to crash our currency- but I assure you, they're working on as many assymetric capabilities as they can, and I am most defnitely aware of the threat.

If you're interested in the types of threats we face, check out my Draft Zinni blog. Most of what I write about has to do with non-traditional security threats. And China is #1 on the list of threats we face, IMHO, right now...

by Alex Urevick 2005-03-10 06:31AM | 0 recs
With what troops though?
Considering the fact that conquering Iran will be virtually impossible without a massive ground force and what we have of a ground force can't handle the Iraqi insurgency at all, how can we possibly hope to invade Iran successfully?
by Teaser 2005-03-03 04:49AM | 0 recs
Syria
Its looking more and more like their going to zero in on syria.  It would a fine diversion from the impotence they feel over Iran.
by descrates 2005-03-03 05:05AM | 0 recs
Plus the Europeans
Are desperate to make Iraq up to us.

A Syria invasion would have international support, thereby requiring few (if any) US troops.  

Although, it would be kind of disgusting, from an historical standpoint, to watch one historical power in Lebanon (Syria) be driven out by another (France).

Plus, the Syria invasion would have a material impact on the war in Iraq, by taking the Sunnis' best, shortest pipeline away from them.

Still, Syria seems to be playing its cards right, and is on target to get out of this with its ass intact.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-03 06:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads