Nation-Building >> Iran in June? | return to front page

"America has two great dominant strands of political thought - conservatism, which, at its very best, draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which, at its very best, breaks down barriers that should never have been erected." -- Bill Clinton, Dedication of the Clinton Presidential Library, November 2004

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes

website stats

Previous Posts
Netflix, Inc.
ThinkGeek T-Shirts will make you cool!
illy coffee - 2 cans, 2 mugs for just $26.

Monday, February 21, 2005

 

Iran in June? http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=293393206

posted by Aziz P. at Monday, February 21, 2005 permalink View blog reactions
Scott Ritter is alleged to have claimed that the Bish Administration is allegedly planning to attack Iran in June 2005. Ritters comments have not yet been confirmed. So treat this as rumor.

But it is an interesting speculation. Remember, Scott Ritter was right about Iraq's WMD. But would he be right about this? The excerpt below the fold suggest that the President has already approved strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, as early as this summer. The motivation, supposedly argues Ritter, is the neocons' desire to trigger a "chain of events" which will facilitate regime change. Also remember, the neocons were wrong about post-war Iraq. But would they be wrong about that?

I think that the assumption that an American strike on Iran would set off a chain of events is accurate. But where such a chain would lead seems an enormous gamble. Much more so than Iraq. I'm highly skeptical, but if you'd asked me if we would have invaded Iraq before the WMD inspectors were allowed to finish their job, I'd have been skeptical too, and look how wrong I was about that.

I am treating this as hearsay unless it gets verified. Sy Hersh is a better source, and he has also been hinting about Iran and Syria. I think that major developments in Bush's second term are likely, but what form they will take is uncertain. However, the discussion we shoudl be having about what the consequences of an Iran attack is one we should be having more vigorously, given how Iraq's post-war planning has turned out.

 
Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
[...]
The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them.
[...]
On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.


I don't think its prudent to discuss the other point Ritter alleges, that teh outcome of the Iraqi elections were manipulated to give the United Iraqi Alliance less than 50% of the vote. It is kind of a moot issue. Lets focus on the Iran angle.


Discussion

My take is that the US is engaging in psychological warfare to scare Iran to negotiate, but won't actually pull the trigger.

 

heh, that was my take prior to the Iraq war :) would have worked, too, I wager...

 

Let's hope it's bluster. The neocon's track record on predicting "chains of events" is not very good.

Cheers -

 

The other thing is that there are virtually zero signals that such an attack is in the works ... no reports of activity at Azerbaijani airfields, for instance.

 

true, but couldnt stealth bombers be launched from the Great Plains and make a bombing run with mid-air refueling?

You had that military analysis link a while back, prak, of how an attack could conceivably be done, but I couldnt remember where... that might shed some light on what signs to look for.

 

Here's the post you're probably thinking about. And this was your post on the subject.

 

Couldn't the US just strike from Diego Garcia which is much nearer and easier?

In either case I think it is imperative that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and that those weapons they might have be destroyed.
The US has got to track down all the nefarious contacts made by the criminal A.Q. Khan and his network, and eliminate or render inoperable any nuclear facilities they helped setup.

 

Post a Comment

Archives

View blog top tags
The Assault on Reason

Obama 2008 - I want my country back

I want my country back - Obama 2008

About Nation-Building

Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.