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.'
"'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?