Iran in June?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Cheers -
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.