Report: U.S. Intercepts Iranian Order for Attack on U.S. Interests in Iraq (if Strike on Syria)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

U.S. intercepts Iranian order for attack on U.S. interests in Iraq -report

Fri Sep 6, 2013 12:17am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has intercepted an order from an Iranian official instructing militants in Iraq to attack U.S. interests in Baghdad in the event the Obama administration launches a military strike in Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The American embassy in Baghdad was a likely target, according to unnamed U.S. officials quoted by the newspaper. The Journal said the officials did not describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence.

In addition, the State Department issued a warning on Thursday telling U.S. citizens to avoid all but "essential" travel to Iraq.

President Barack Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians that the United States blames on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98504120130906

[azurnoir]

1. oooh what color bow did that package come with?

[Veilex]

3. Indeed...

"according to unnamed U.S. officials"... riiiiight. In related news, I can see russia from my bedroom window, and I just found a buyer for the tacoma narrows bridge...

This stinks of more fixing the "report" to fit an agenda

[Maedhros]

8. I'm sure Obama will investigate the "unnamed official" who leaked this information that is vital

to our national security and prosecute the official to the full extent of the law. He should easily get 15-20 years, for tipping off the Iranians that we are on to their plan, right?

[Celefin]

20. Yup, that would be 'treason' after Manning/Snowden standards

But in this case it's treason that furthers the approved agenda so it's A-OK.

Unknown leakers with known leaks are much preferable to known leakers with unknown leaks.
Or something like that, it's difficult these days.

[Maedhros]

26. Leaks that glorify the Administration or further its objectives: CLEARED

Leaks that criticize the Administration or hinder its objectives: TREASON

Note that "national security" isn't a criterion.

[tsuki]

21. I don't know about the bow, but it sounds

like it was baked in a yellow cake.

[doc03]

2. Obama really put himself in a no win position with this. I think

Congress will vote down it down and Obama will go ahead and do it anyway. Why doesn't
the Administration go to the UN?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. "Why doesn't the Administration go to the UN?"

Perhaps the UN might come back with a report that doesn't scream for war?


I'm not sure why PBO is so willing to do the same foolish thing that his predecessor had.


A good waste of $$ we don't have and the potential for a wider war with many dead.

[Ghost Dog]

18. Insignificant $$$ cost, or so we are briefed...

... The Pentagon has notified congressional appropriators that it won’t seek added funds to pay for a strike, said a Defense Department official and a Republican aide on the House Appropriations Committee. Both requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Defense budget analysts say weapon systems like Tomahawk cruise missiles are already in the Pentagon’s inventory, and personnel costs are on the books. The added expenses of any limited operation probably will be small enough that the Pentagon can absorb it from existing funds, which include a wartime contingency budget of $93 billion this fiscal year.

Two defense analysts estimated the total cost of the limited strike envisioned by Obama as between $300 million and $1 billion, depending on how many cruise missiles are launched and how long the attack lasts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week that the immediate costs of any operation would have little effect on the federal budget...

/... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-06/obama-likely-to-avoid-congress-on-cost-of-strike-on-syria.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. I really hope that you don't believe that.

[fujiyama]

9. The reality is, there's no hope at the UN Security Council

It's impotent at best, with each of the big five vetoing any resolution perceived as violating their own interests. The Russians won't be interested in any action against Syria and at this point the US seems pretty much intent on some show of force.

It seems like a farce.

[HardTimes99]

25. A farce with thermo-nuclear weapons. Why, what could possibly go wrong? :sarcasm: - nt

[joshcryer]

16. Russia has vetoed or blocked every UN resolution.

They have arms to sell.

[frylock]

24. and we have arms to burn and backfill

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. This shizzle is just all too convenient.

[harun]

30. +1

[Snake Plissken]

5. US intercepts Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq

They could at least change the wording a bit

[DeSwiss]

7. What?

They're just supposed to bend over and take it?

- This what you do when you escalate, assholes!!!!

K&R

[malthaussen]

10. NSA, NSA!!!! USA, USA!!!!

See, this is why we need that all-encompassing surveillance. Who could have imagined that the bad guys might retaliate if we hit them?

-- Mal

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. This could get interesting. More interesting than we'd like.

Obama should reconsider.

[felix_numinous]

12. This will get very bad very fast

these war hawks are bloody crazy.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. It is interesting that shortly after a "moderate"

was elected in Iran, the previous Iranian war wannabes starting hyping Syria's evils - even more so than otherwise in the past two years. How often have we heard the phrases "red line" and "use of chemical weapons" since the Iranian election?

Now the same warmongering interests are apparently aiming for a two-fer. Since our President, SOS and top Democratic leaders appear to have been taken over by pod people, sounding almost more hawkish than the hawks, we are going to have to use every peaceful means at our disposal to dissuade them.

I have written emails opposing any military intervention in Syria to my Senators and Congressman every day this week. Had it not been for matters attendant to the funeral of a family member, I would have been calling as well.

Please don't let me be alone in this.

[grahamhgreen]

14. HAHAHAHA! It's just a little bombing, nothing serious! HEHEHE, the warpigs laugh in glee.

[Unknown Beatle]

15. Why isn't this

classified material? Because they want the US populace to believe their propaganda, that's why.

Ask them to release material that shows incontrovertible proof that Assad used gas on Syrian people, and it's classified; but they cherry pick material to release?

ALL BULLSHIT LIES!

Iraq redux.

[jakeXT]

17. They said it last year and they signed a defense pact in 2006.

Even the US used NATO's article 5 after that 9/11 thingy.

Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense pact in 2006, but little is known of its details, or whether there are any other signatories.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE88007120120901

[raouldukelives]

19. Is it real or is it Memorex? nt

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. Wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be "surgical" - just get Osama?

.
.
.

Just noticed - Obama - Osama

They rhyme and the only difference in their names?

B

S

And Barack's middle name? - Hussein! - hmmmm.

Back to Afghanistan - 12 years later - USA still has 60,000 troops there.

It's anyone's guess as to how many mercenaries -(oops - contractors) the have along with them.

And Syria has powerful allies - Iraq doesn't, neither does Afghanistan.

WHAT THE FUCK IS OBAMA UP TO?

And who is he really?

CC

[Blue_Tires]

27. Zimmermann note?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

[darkangel218]

28. wtf?

[iamthebandfanman]

29. Yes, because they arent already

influencing and affecting Iraq :p

riiiiiight.

you know, Syria isn't their country either last time I checked.. anyone gonna threaten them if they don't stop meddling ? or is it only okay when its the united states ?

[ellenrr]

31. hmm... this obviously justifies armed intervention in Iran! nt

[4bucksagallon]

32. Good luck with that..........LOL!

"The complex is heavily fortified, even by the standards of the Green Zone. The details are largely secret, but it is likely to include a significant US Marine Security Guard detachment. Fortifications include deep security perimeters, buildings reinforced beyond the usual standard, and five highly guarded entrances. It is also the largest most expensive embassy in the world.
From wikipedia.
If they do attack this should help thin out the terrorist crowd in Iraq at least.

[nikto]

33. Any attack on the USA...

...Is the Neocons' wet dream.