If you like our IRAQ adventure, you'll love IRAN.

[kansasblue]

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same with Iran. "

from Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine
by
Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi, a partner of Cannistraro Associates and Deep Background analyst for Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative.


http://www.amconmag.com/

[SmokingJacket]

1. Ouch. I've been in denial. But this is a conservative mag?

Could they?

It stills seems so crazy. No provocation, no nothing.

It really stretches the imagination.

Can't put anything past them, I guess.

[spooked911]

3. don't worry, they will create a provocation-- I have no doubt

[Demeter]

15. With What Army?

They shot ours to hell, and nobody in their right mind will lend us their army, not anymore.

[moodforaday]

17. With the army they'll be moving

out of Iraq, starting in early 2006.

[Demeter]

19. There Won't Be Any Left Worth Moving

And if they try, there will be a mutiny. This would be foolishness even beyond the abilities of these wishful thinkers.

[Karenina]

22. They don't NEED an Army

There's LOT'S of aging ordnance they'd like to get rid of.
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[justinsb]

2. But Iran and Iraq just signed a military agreement

The Iranians are helping to train Iraqi troops

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-foes8jul08,1,5904364.story?coll=la-iraq-complete

If the administration does this they will be (de Facto) declaring war on the Iraqi government the just installed.

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Oh, they would in 10-15 years, anyway.

[ovidsen]

5. can't find the link,

but I bet it's an interesting article.

Pat Buchanan ain't your ordinary conservative, and neither is his magazine. For starters, he hates the war in Iraq, hates CAFTA and he isn't too fond of Chimp.

BTW, the US would be idiotic to attack Iran. It has 3 times the population of Iraq, and isn't divided by those pesky Shia-Sunni feuds. They have abundant weapons, and may be on the verge of nukes. Unlike Saddam, Iran's leadership has been linked directly to OBL. Iran would respond to a US incursion with an aggression and viciousness that would make your average war weasel's jaw drop. Iran. You can check in anytime you like, but you can never leave.

[bloom]

7. I think the US is idiotic...

Have you seen this (just Cheney saying this is idiotic):

And from: http://billmon.org/archives/002051.html

Update 4:10 pm ET: I didn't realize when I wrote this
post that the American Conservative (dead tree version)
was reporting this:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice
President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United
States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a
contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The
plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons.

Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the
targets are hardened or are deep underground and could
not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the
nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response
is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in
the act of terrorism directed against the United
States.

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the
planning are reportedly appalled at the implications
of what they are doing -- that Iran is being set up
for an unprovoked nuclear attack -- but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

also:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072105L.shtml

[ovidsen]

10. That's SO dumb!

Not your post! Dick Cheney's alleged plan. The last paragraph, about senior AF officials being appalled at the idea, but staying quiet because of career fears is particularly scary. Talk about priorities! "Promotion... world survival... promotion... world survival... shit, decisions, decisions..."

[bloom]

11. "promotion... world survival...promotion... world survival..."

exactly.

[delen]

14. Runaway Paranoid Moment

The first paragraph in the article isn't exactly comforting coming from an administration that may need a big distraction soon.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi delen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Emendator]

8. AQ link?

I'm curious as to where you heard about an Al Qaeda link to the Iranian government. I hadn't heard that before. I'm rather skeptical. If so, the neocons would be screaming about any tenuous link at the top of their lungs 24 hours a day.

If we attack Iran I think it will be only aerially, as we had done in Kosovo. We do not have the manpower to invade or occupy. Of course any attack is total madness, but why would that stop this bunch.

Iran is probably not as close to possessing nukes as we think they are. Or so Gordan Prather seems to think. He's a nuclear physisist who's writings are often up at antiwar.com. He was right in saying that Iraq wouldn't have them, so I think he's pretty trustworthy.

[ovidsen]

9. Numerous links

Iran's government and its Revolutionary Guard have been associating with Osama and AQ for at least since 9/11, and maybe longer according to numerous reports. As for neocons possibly being up-in-arms over such a connection; at least one of their favorite publications, the Washington Times has commented on it regularly:

Why would Iran, a predominantly Shi'ite Muslim land, work with a predominantly Sunni Muslim terror organization like bin Laden's? The short answer is personal connections, shared goals, and a common enemy. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a bona fide Sunni extremist, has received financial support from Iran since 1988. Bin Laden himself is believed to have met with Iranian intelligence officials at Islamic conferences in Khartoum, Sudan, in the early 1990s. Both bin Laden and the mullahs share an Islamist worldview that calls for the armed overthrow of Arab dictatorships and the restoration of a single caliph who will rule according to Shari'a law.
Finally, they share enemies, including many Arab leaders, the United States, and the rest of the Western world.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041026-090700-5561r.htm

Scary, eh?

I'm not saying this is absolutely true. After all, this is the Moonie paper claiming this. But it sure raises a lot of questions.

I'm not claiming to be a military expert either, but air attacks against Iran would IMO be worthless... just as they were in Kosovo, and Vietnam, for that matter. Airstrikes alone don't win wars.

I'll have to check out antiwar.com again. Forgot about it. Cheers!

[Emendator]

13. Still skeptical

Any article that has the words "Lauri Mylroie" in it is probably not to be trusted. I'm not sure how reliable the Washington Times is. When it comes to filtering good news, I find antiwar.com and Juan Cole's site to be the most reliable.

[Frederik]

18. This is hogwash I think

The neo-cons have been very eager to connect AQ and Iran, just as with Iraq. Serious analysts are very much in doubt if there is or has been any kind of connection. AQ is primarily connected to three countries, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan.

[DIKB]

6. Oh I know

They've been chomping at the bit for it. They simply don't have the political capital to spend. To be honest, they never will, the American Public won't let them (I hope). Too many people are upset b/c we're embroiled in 2 conflicts/occupations. Starting a 3rd would be political suicide for any party that initiates it. I'd like to see the Repukes push this.

[kineneb]

12. Attacking Iran would be a disaster

Having lived there for a year, still having relatives there...please -No!

Chaney is a lunatic if he thinks bombing them will achieve anything.

i would write more, but i have a chicken roosting on my left arm... makes typing difficult

[NJCher]

21. a chicken or a chickenhawk?

There's a difference, you know.


Cher

[joe1991]

20. here's the link to the article

google did the trick:

http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html