The Iran invasion MUST happen

[McKenzie]

ok, I'm telling everyone on DU something they already know. Anyway...

 The Iraq debacle is almost certainly a corollary to the aims spelled out in the PNAC document.

 Leaving Iran untouched seriously weakens the overall game plan because the oil won't be under US control and the dollar will then be vulnerable. Remember the implications of the Bourse.

 Leaving Iran untouched means it's highly likely that attention will then turn to the Fitzgerald investigation, the murky dealings of Abramoff et al will unravel and other scandals will come out once attention really focusses on the corruption, lies and so on. Some VERY senior figures would almost certainly be looking at serious jail time as a result.

So an attack on Iran is an absolute must if:

A. The PNAC agenda is to be fully implemented.

B. Those who used lies and corruption to steal elections and get into Iraq are to escape punishment.

I'm no policy analyst but if Iran is not attacked then attention will naturally turn to the domestic front and the lies that shaped the PNAC/neocon agenda. An attack is utter madness but the stakes are now so high there isn't any option. Either they attack or their whole agenda starts to come undone and the end result of that is likely to be the uncovering of the pack of lies, deceit and corruption. To reiterate...they can't afford to let that happen.

If Iran is invaded we are all totally fucked because it will then be necessary to keep dissent seriously under control. And what worries me is that a section of the population would not be prepared to object. On the contrary there are plenty people who would think it's their patriotic duty to help keep us under control. Trying to reason with freepers shows just how easy it would be to get those sort of people to "help".

WTF am I up at 05:25?

[Cleita]

1. Hey, don't forget about Syria. It's on the menu!

eom

[tocqueville]

2. the war is likely even for other reasons

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=199732&mesg_id=199732

[McKenzie]

6. damn tocqueville, I am really worried

this is one of the defining moments in history. I bet the militaries of China, Russia and India are on a high state of alert.

I like your handle...the tyranny of the majority...absolutely

[USA_1]

3. Iran is a "threat", a "threat", a "threat" ...

For the past couple of years the Bush regime has repeatedly insisted that Iran is a "threat".

What that threat is, or how has it manifested itself remains a mystery as the Bush regime has not specified what threat Iran actually represents. Furthermore, none of the media pansies ask the proper questions so that we may ascertain what specific threats have been made.

Obviously, Iran has not made any threats and does not represent any to anyone. But the Bush regime and its treasonous supporters love to foment trouble by spreading lies and planting stories in the news media and internet.

[LaPera]

4. "the dollar will then be vulnerable" to the Euro which Iran wants to

switch to...Bottom line!

Bush and the oil boys won't allow that.

[mikelewis]

5. It's either that or they "allow" another terrorist attack...

or both. But something's coming, you can feel it.

[libhill]

24. Yup -

I predict another manufactured "terrorist attack", to be blamed on Iranians this time. These insane bastards won't be content until World War Three is in progress. And we barely have enough troops to hold Iraq down. Where in the fuck do these ass clowns expect to find the military muscle for a war with Iran? Draft College Republicans? Oh, that's right - they all have "other priorities". Silly me.

[DemInDistress]

7. What I grasp from PNAC

a pro-friendly nations of the West from Lebanon (friendly) through Syria (on deck) Iraq (we own) Iran (on deck)Afghanistan (we own) Pakistan (friendly) India (friendly) to the doorstep of China where the Bush Crime
Family can monitor the progress of the Chinese as well as own the resources of these countries. Hence,Iraq the
"centerpiece of the war on terror"

[McKenzie]

9. Factor in the influence of Russia

It seemed that the break up of the former USSR had removed a major threat and that fitted with the PNAC agenda. However, the Russians seem to have re-emerged as a power with the potential to make it more difficult for the US to get what they want (For "US" read "PNAC/neocon"). The recent price hike of gas by Russia, for example, seems to have been geared towards strengthening their geopolitical clout as much as anything.

The PNAC agenda assumes a neutered Russia but it seems the Russians are still big players with the potential to help derail the PNAC agenda, or at least make it more difficult to exert control.

And Russia and China know their interests lie in co-operating with each other more than cosying up to the US which adds another dimension to the debate.

[Emit]

13. Yes. This study I came across today here puts PNAC dead center

Just substitute 'Iran' for 'Iraq.'


Of course, most DUers already are aware of the info contained in this report, but it is interesting to see it in this form. I can't get the Figure 1 to copy, so try the link.

~snip~

...This paper was begun in an attempt to answer the question: How did the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda become the war to depose Saddam Hussein?


The effort to understand this change in U.S. policy led to a picture of a relatively small group of persons associated with certain think tanks and other organizations achieving disproportionate influence over the policy formulation process. The activities of fourteen organizations were coordinated by individuals who comprised a web of interlocking memberships...

~snip~

The main contribution of this paper is the attempt to quantify the inter-linked nature of the 14 organizations by cross-tabulating individuals with memberships in two or more of them. Examples: Richard Perle was associated with 10 of the 14, Jeane Kirkpatrick with 7, James Woolsey with 6, John Bolton with 4. Altogether 223 links were found between the 14 groups, where a link is defined as the association of a single individual with two organizations. Although over 650 individuals associated with the 14 organizations included in the study were analyzed, just 9 individuals formed 121 of the inter-group links, accounting for over half of the total. This concentration of the inter-group linkages suggests that a small number of individuals could effectively influence and coordinate the foreign policy impact of these organizations.

~snip~

A major purpose in creating this diagram was to provide a visual representation of the frequently-referred-to interrelationships of core organizations involved with formulating U.S. policy on Iraq...

~snip~

Web of Organizations Involved in
Formulating U.S. Foreign Policy on Iraq

Figure 1 see page 11 (pdf)

~snip~

Observation 4: PNAC has the largest number of links (71 in all, including links of degrees 1 and 2 which are not shown in Figure 1) with the remaining organizations (See row 16, Table 6), followed by CSP with 50 and CLI with 49. The two other members of the 5-member clique identified above—DPB and JINSA—follow with 43 linkages each. This is further evidence of the centrality of these organizations within the complete network of 14

~snip~

Analysis of the 5-member clique

~snip~

Within the 5-member clique, henceforth referred to merely as the clique, some degree of specialization of roles is discernible, and acknowledged in part by the manner in which at least three of the members describe themselves. While there is still considerable overlap in functions, the major roles played by each of the 5 members of the clique might be described as follows:

PNAC Planning function
CLI Coordination function
CSP Information dissemination function
DPB Policy Action
JINSA Interface with Israel

Each of these organizations will be discussed in turn, with a focus on the specialized function they appear to play within the clique.

Cont'd: http://www.opednews.com/toenjes_IraqPolicyWeb_withTables_July19.doc (pdf)

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:tCe3qbnj7CkJ:www.opednews.com/toenjes_IraqPolicyWeb_withTables_July19.doc+toenjes_IraqPolicyWeb_withTables_July19.doc&hl=en (html)

[McKenzie]

14. d/loaded the pdf for later - good info - thnx

[stevietheman]

8. If Iran is attacked, that should be the people's cue to begin an...

insurrection of sorts. I'm not kidding.

We know for an absolute fact that there's no justification for such an attack.

I myself will support Iran if our forces attack. And this time, uniquely, I will _not_ support the troops. If anyone takes an order to attack Iran, it is illegal and immoral, and they will deserve my full-loogey-spit if I run into any of them.

[NNN0LHI]

10. We'll never be able to steal their oil if they get nukes to protect it with

And we are going to steal their oil for sure. Don't believe me just ask any Iraqi. They know.

Don

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. hmmmm. Ir-radiated oil?

Will it make our SUV's run faster?

[cliss]

11. OK: for the sake of argument, let's say the US drops

bombs on Teheran and destroys the Bushehr nuclear plant. The country is damaged. The US moves in troops conveniently in Iraq.

The plan is to take over the oil fields.

How is this going to happen? Iran has 68 million people. They're tough; they're going to put up a hell of a fight against the Yankees. In the unlikely event we WIN the battle against Iran, what happens next?

What will Russia say? What will China say? How about India, not to mention the entire muslim world of 1 1/2 billion people.

So now the US now controls most of the world's oil, besides Venezuela and other places. Lucky us! Now we can kick back and relax.....not. We don't have enough troops to occupy Iran, let alone Iraq.

The world will start rebelling against us. Russia will send in weapons, China will demand for us to repay our debts PRONTO....which we can't do. The rest of the world will drop everything and do everything within its power to DESTROY US at that point. Mind you, we're weak. We're not strong in many areas. We're vulnerable. And this would be the death blow.

[McKenzie]

12. your arguments are rational

but the stakes are just so high I don't think rationality will apply in this case.

Yes, what you say would be the same things any sane person would say in response to the issues. However, I don't think the PNAC/neocon crowd can step back for the reasons I cited in my OP; the stakes are now so high that backing down is not an option. Doing so would mean derailing the PNAC/neocon agenda and it would also have an important psychological effect...the US would be seen to back down after having talked tough on the "real" threat. Next time another " real threat" emerges the precedent of having seen the US talk tough and not take action would send a message of "well they didn't do anything about Iran". That's another reason why backing down is (probably) not on the agenda.

Your comments are perfectly logical but this is a scenario where logic is unlikely to apply imho.

Thanks for your coments - appreciated.

[cliss]

23. You bring up a good point,

and I agree with you. I've read several articles on another news web site where they list all the times the U.S. has "gone for broke" meaning, US negotiators have taken enormous risks for whatever it is they wanted.

Amazingly, we've lost almost all of those negotiations for one reason or another. Even the author couldn't figure it out: he thought it was strange that the U.S. would continue in the same manner; risking everything, being extremely unwilling to negotiate even small points, and then the other party picks up its things and goes home. We lose.

You could very well be right.

[libhill]

25. At any rate

the filthy rich neo con pricks have nothing to fear from an attack on Iran. They'll be sitting safe and pretty in their multi - million dollar homes, with Buffy and Duffy safely tucked away in college. As usual, it'll be poor whites and minorities, or their children, who do the fighting, and come home maimed or in body bags. All the neo cons and repukes need do is plant another yellow ribbon on their suv's, and pay lip service to "supporting the troops". Business as usual, in other words. Besides, we have an obligation to the religious fanatics to bring on Armageddon, so Jaysus will come back and take us all to Never Never Land in the sky.

[Polemonium]

27. Won't happen IMHO

Much will be done to try and distract the average joe over the next year, and I think we will continue to put pressure on Iran. The pressure leads hopefully (in Neocon think) to halting any nuclear program (most people want this) and to give reasons to patrol the Iraqi / Iranian border probably from the air. If you can maintain fear of Iran then bombing the occasional border crosser will scarcely raise an eyebrow, and it helps keep Iraq separate from Iran politically.

The primary reasons we won't go in aside from a lack of support, is Russia. A few months ago Russia was supplying arms to Iran, and Russia has huge oil reserves. Alas Russia is not the placated child the PNAC expected, and we will not be getting Russia's support.

Neocons will be working diligently to keep people's eye off the ball, but let's not forget that finance reform spoke person McCain is waiting in the wings, so they don't need to distract the public for too long.

The Democrats counter should be focusing on the issues that republicans have been attacking, and will continue to attack. A majority of Americans want single payer health, a higher minimum wage, a clean environment etc. If we can't make head way on issues the American people support, and all republicans don't support (have for 5 years eroded), then the size of the distraction will not need to be anywhere near as big as an invasion of Iran. (the average American is too tied up in sports, the TV, family, church, community groups etc etc. to be easily awoken from their slumber). Sad to say, I just don't think they need that big a distraction, and the proof I offer is the last 5 years. The government can continue to do unsavory things as long as I feel my duck-tape buying fear is being put somewhat to rest, and I can still watch the game on Saturday.

Distractions will be coming, I guess we'll stay tuned to see who is right on their size.

[Emit]

15. In addition to bombs, maybe this is part of their plan

Iran Policy Committee:
Pentagon Mouthpiece, Israeli Ally, MEK Supporter
by John Stanton
www.dissidentvoice.org
May 19, 2005

The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) has a website up and running at iranpolicycommittee.org. <1> The IPC made the news in February of 2005 when it released a report titled “US Options for Iran.” In that report, the IPC recommended that a terrorist group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) be removed from the US government’s hit list. The authors of the IPC report equate the terrorist MEK with the African National Congress that fought long and hard against the despicable all-white South African regime and its US supporters so many years ago. Of course, the implication here is that the MEK will somehow produce a Nelson Mandela, or at least is on the same playing field as Mandela’s group was.

Those two wacky thoughts should be enough to dismiss the eleven IPC principals, their mission and their clumsy report as nonsense. But here inside the Washington, DC Beltway, it’s never wise to dismiss ignorance until performing background checks on the individuals and their affiliations. The record shows that the IPC operates in very close proximity to the US intelligence community, has the support of 150 members in the US Congress, and is linked to individuals/groups who successfully lied and led the US into another Vietnam-like war, and whose primary purpose is the creation of a US empire that controls the world’s resources and protects a greater Israel. Crazy is selling these days and the loonies are in charge.

The IPC is supported by the neocon all-stars that we’ve come to know and love such as Doug Feith, Frank Gaffney, Mike Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al. But these first benchers are running out of political muscle as their war in Iraq continues to drain the resources of the American people on all political, economic and military fronts. What’s worse, perhaps, is their “with us or against us” mentality that has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and that has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many fronts, they recognize that to get the US into Iran, some new faces are needed and that’s where the IPC back benchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.

The IPC is linked through its purpose and people to the Coalition for a Democratic Iran and the MEK, the Washington PAC, JINSA, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the DOD, the Center for Security Policy, and all the major US intelligence agencies. IPC members are primarily defense & security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with Iran.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:FzehjF8Eu_oJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Stanton0519.htm+Ledeen+Iran+Policy+Committee+&hl=en

Or this:

There is a pact emerging between hawks in the administration, Jewish groups and Iranian supporters of Reza Pahlavi to push for regime change,' says Pooya Dayanim, president of the Iranian-Jewish Public Affairs Committee in Los Angeles and himself a hawk on Iran.
Already, this emerging coalition is reminiscent of the build up to the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, with Pahlavi possibly assuming the role of Iraqi exile opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi or Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, all favourites of the neo-conservatives.

~snip~

One key Pahlavi supporter is former Reagan administration official Ledeen, now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
''Iran is ready to blow sky-high,'' wrote Ledeen as far back as November 2001. ''The Iranian people need only a bright spark of courage from the United States to ignite the flames of democratic revolution.''
Ledeen has joined with Amitay; ex-CIA head James Woolsey; former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney; former senator Paul Simon and oil consultant Rob Sobhani to set up a group called the Coalition for Democracy in Iran.

http://www.sundayherald.com/34272

Ledeen on the subject:

...FP: Let us suppose that tomorrow you are brought into Bush's inner circle regarding Iraq and the War on Terror. The President asks you what concrete steps he should take next. What do you say?

Ledeen: Support the democratic revolutionaries in Iran and the Iranian-American broadcasters in California. Now, not tomorrow. That is the key to the entire war, in my opinion. There will never be peace in Iraq so long as the mullahs are in power in Tehran, and their favorite Assad reigns in Damascus.

Then tell the Saudis that they have to shut down the global network of radical schools and mosques, or we will make great trouble for them in the Shi'ite regions of the Kingdom (which happen to be the major oil producing regions as
well).

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EFJlLGYsXdEJ:www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp%3FID%3D11512+American%2Bbroadcasters%2Bin%2BCalifornia%2BMichael%2BLedeen&hl=en

[oblivious]

17. The pipelines will be destroyed. No oil will move.

[Jamison]

16. The ultimate goal of the PNAC can never come to fruition.

Their ultimate goal is the same goal the Romans, Napoleon, and Hitler had in mind...to rule the world.

China, Russia, and a few other nations stand in their way unfortunately.

[libhill]

26. Unfortunately

megalomaniacs never look at things that way. Many nations also stood in the way of Napoleon, and Hitler. And they got taken down eventually, as will we.

[Marr]

18. Look at it like a neocon for a moment.

Put on your best pair of rose colored glasses and think about dollar signs. Here's the picture that emerges, in my humble opinion:

We bomb Iran, removing their potential to develope nuclear technology in the immediate future. The Iranian people (overwhelmingly pro-US and young) are so inspired that they revolt en masse, deposing their present government and leaving a power vacuum. The new Iranian government is pro-US, and they're anxious to play ball with US business. Their cooperation also has the effect of easing the violence in Iraq.

Yes, I know it doesn't make sense.

I know that in reality, air strikes on Iranian targets are likely to provoke more violence, perhaps even an overt military reaction from Iran.

I know that if there ever was a significant political movement against the present regime inside of Iran to begin with, it would surely have been crushed in the last few years in the face of an external threat (US forces occupying two neighboring countries).

And even if all that did not happen and the ludicrous neocon idea of a pro-US Iranian revolution actually came to pass, it would have no effect on the violence within Iraq.

All this is obvious. But you know what? The same could be said of Iraq. Three years ago, everyone with half a brain was predicting *exactly* the Iraq we have today. But all those sane voices were ignored, in favor of the rose colored glasses and dollar signs.

Are they really that stupid? Of course they are. Stupid and greedy.

[McKenzie]

20. a good maxim Marr is "follow the money"

The PNAC/neocon agenda is underpinned by greed so I wouldn't dismiss anything as too wild. Profiteering is the name of the game.

Besides, we only see part of the picture. There is a lot going on that we can't see.

[AntiFascist]

21. That is a good anaysis and summary of what the neocons are doing...

Look at what they are saying. Michael Ledeen is very quick to point out the advantages of democracy and that a revolution inside of Iran would bring to power those who would cooperate with the US and those who are inspired by the message of democratic freedom which is broadcast to them. Where he fails is when he claims that the only way to spark such a revolution is through the use of intense force to bring down the mullahcracy.

As history should have taught us, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, in the first place, was a direct result of US interference in the Middle East. What we have witnessed in Iraq is an unprecedented alliance between moderate secular Islam and fundamentalists in opposition to US occupation. It really is stupid (and greedy) not to realize that the very same reaction will occur within Iran at the first use of violent force on the part of the US. Once again, do we need find out the hard way that they won't be greeting us with sweets and flowers?

[Peter Frank]

22. We'll probably nuke iran...

We can't invade & we can't let Israel do it.

Our PNAC cabinet has no compunctions about nuking; anymore than it has reservations about preemptive war.

[confludemocrat]

28. Truth-telling by a real opposition could forestall disaster

the Repubs have tossed aside everything that wasn't fiercely partisan and a power grab, while the Demos have continued to play by the old rules. That's gotta stop. Frankly exposing the dimensions of the massively fucked up foreign "policies" of Bush, how his "axis of evil" act caused them to accelerate their quest for a bomb, how the military is broken, how any invasion would open a pandora box of negative economic and social consequences and cause the US to be defeated on the field of battle and the Iranian Army to march to the gates of Israel needs to acknowledged.

And I don't agree with the analysis above that this is anything like Iraq. You had many Dems (in addition to neocons) and a whole Dem admin set a policy of "regime change" and you had assertions by Kerrys and Levins way back in 1998 that Iraq had WMDs. The course of an Iraq invasion was set by both parties, sorry to say, it just needed a corrupt lying cabal to get it to happen. No such prior determination for the need to invade or attack Iran has been out there for years and agreed to by both parties as with Iraq. That would need to be made out of whole cloth.