Countdown to Armaggedon
Bush's days are numbered. So he is moving now to execute the grand apocalyptic finale to his brief tenure as the servant of messianic Christianity. His not so-veiled hints about a widening of the Middle East war, the leaks of Israel's planned nuclear attack on Iran, are all part of a last lunatic lunge toward an Armaggedon. Henceforth--and I'm addressing this mainly to my dumbfounded, disbelieiving, in-constant-denial Zionist friends--Israel and America must be looked at as joined-at-the-hip Siamese twins, lost in the same end-of-world fear and fanaticism. They're a diabolical duo, marching in lockstep. Therefore, as long as we don't see Plaestine as a proxy for Iraq and vice versa, as long as we don't see Iran as the middle of this Western-created circumference of terror, I fear we miss the ever-diminishing chance to avert catastrophe. We must address the double disease of American and Israeli foreign policy. They are one and the same. Americans must make the linkage.
Years ago, when Ernie Kovacs was in Philadelphia on CBS holding down the thankless time spot against Milton Berle, his brilliant comedy show got cancelled. On the last night, he went about the studio setting mock fires, muttering, "If I can't have this studio, nobody can." As the blaze grew bigger, it became a mushroom cloud. I always wonder why that sign-off skit comes back to mind at times like this. Now I know: it is comic relief that has spot-on relevance to this murderous moment
THE LAST & GREATEST THREAT: RIGHTEOUSNESS
My friends, ask any of the world's citizenry at random who poses a greater threat to world peace, Israel or North Korea, and most (including me) will say Israel. Ask the same citizenry who poses a greater threat to world peace, America or Iran, and America will win by an even wider margin. The winners both have large, active nuclear arsenals and both openly threaten their use by saying they are deploying this weaponry against potential nuclear adversaries. The irony of this is so great that it gives new definition to insanity.
The last and greatest threat to mankind, my teacher Bawa Muhaiyaddeen says at the end of his book, "The Resonance of Allah," is righteousness. When I get emails from Zionist friends urging me to see the lastest documentary on the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and I realize how these men and women have been manipulated by the same fear factor(y) used to take America to war in Iraq, I grow exasperated and melancholy both at once (no easy psychological feat). For starters, most of my Zionist friends refuse to see Jewish complicity in the rising tide of prejudice against them. So even Jimmy Carter becomes an anti-Semite for using the word 'apartheid' in polite company.
Zionists should take a beginner's course in karma, and see that a lot of what they call 'anti-Semitism' is understandable fury at their actions. I've long said (to no avail) that Jews themselves could do a lot to cure the hatred they bring on themselves. Alas, the leaders in both Israel and America are consumed by an impenetrable psychosis of righteousness. So you'll excuse some frightened, feeble, cowardly crazies from swabbing Swastikas on Jewish graves and grocery stores. At least the tomb stones and stores are left standing (or partially so). Israelis prefer to bulldoze homes into rubble or contaminate wells; their anti-Semitism against Arabs is so much more virulent.
AMERICA & ISRAEL: THE AXIS OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
Friends, I think it advisable to see Iraq-Afghanistan-Palestine as parts of a three-front imperialist Judeo-Christian war where, so far, the only 'victory' has been Palestine. Soon, in return for allowing complete subjugation of that inchoate country, Israel is likely to use our aircraft and shared weapons secrets to drop the first nuclear weapons since August 1945. Will the world then become as incensed as it has been at the firecracker missile launches of North Korea and the unproven nuclear weapons ambitions of Iraq and Iran?
The only hope we have at this late juncture is for impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney that will stop Israel in its tracks. I think it is clear they are speeding up plans for an attack on Iran and we'll join them in attacks against Syria. Conequently, I am going to spend my birthday in Washington, D.C., protesting the the buildup of men and the allocation of extra money for their deployrment in Iraq. I am also going to urge sanctions against Israel and immediate cessation of all arms and arms funding to this deranged country that listens to no one but the hungry-ghost voices in its own head and history. Care to join me?
A BITTER MEMORY
Long ago, I told my father, during a heated political exchange, that I rejected Zionism because it was thinly disguised nationalism and colonialsm, and that Jews had to stop being, what poet Charles Olson called Americans, the last First People. This was during Vietnam some months after I.F. Stone had revealed that the Israeli army was strongly suspected of using napalm against the Arabs in the 1967 War. "We Jews don't do such things," my father screamed at me. "They are in choots with America," I told him. "Like us, they'll do anything they damned well please." "Are you comparing the policies of the Israeli government to those of America?" my father, who was as much against the Vietnam War as I was, asked indignantly. "Is there any difference?" I said. By this time I was just out to hurt him because Israel was the only dream this old Leftist had left after the failure of the Soviet Union--and I wanted him to find a broader, more unifying and nurturing dream. We almost came to blows that day.
Wisely, we never discussed Israel again; or, if we did, we somehow found common ground to tread. By the end of my father's life, when Netanyahu was in power, I think he gave up any hope of paradise on earth. And since he saw no sign of any paradise to come, I think he just wanted off the wheel.
I am so much his son because, like him, I believe the only salvation for humanity is to become its own messiah.
Where my father and I part company is that I believe this is a divine mandate, that God has allowed Himself to become a 'prisoner' of our forgetfulness, so that men must discover an internal means to safeguard themselves. That means is God. And because God is within, His reality is glimpsed as a pre-exisiting, inextinguishable light like that from the glass-enclosed lantern of the Quran whose light is eternal and protected from the elements as it protects us from darkness. The Quran also mentions an eternal mosque within where true worship is done 24/7. As a Sufi, I believe there is no 'outside,' just the inside of shared consciousness where we are all one, and there is no Jew or Gentile, Israelite or Palestinian, that all are "in Islam" [the state of being, mind you, not the religion] if they would just awaken.
THE LAMPLIGHTER'S SERENADE
When I was very, very young. I remember a lamplighter on the streets at evening. God is, by definition and personal experience, that lamplighter. So far, the darkness has never become greater than that of early evening where and when always the lamps along the street are lit. It just seems like they are re-lit because my flirtatious gaze has wandered. But the discontinuity is of my making. Every day, Muslims invoke the mercy and compassion of Allah hundreds and even thousands of times. Now I have added justice to that rahmat. We must, I beg God, save Palestine. No Jew is safe until he provides for the safety of those he wrongfully and unjustly fears most. I pray that lawmakers in my country will 1) prevent any further buildup in Iraq, 2) make it unambiguously clear that Iran must not be harmed, and 3) liberate Palestine from crushing isolation and humiliation.
Here's a good article by Robert Parry on what's brewing war-wise with Iran and Syria.
The U.S.-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War
By Robert Parry
January 12, 2007
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.
“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
Despite the already high cost of the Iraq War, Bush also defended his decision to invade Iraq and to eliminate Saddam Hussein by arguing that otherwise “he and Iran would be in a race to acquire a nuclear bomb and if we didn’t stop him, Iran would be going to Pakistan or to China and things would be much worse,” Russert said.
If Russert’s account is correct, there could be questions raised about whether Bush has lost touch with reality and may be slipping back into the false pre-invasion intelligence claims about Hussein threatening the United States with “a mushroom cloud.”
U.S. weapons inspectors concluded in 2004 that Hussein had long ago abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Many experts agreed that continued international sanctions would have prevented its resumption for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, some observers believe Bush’s invasion of Iraq has proved counterproductive by spurring Iran and other countries to speed up their development of nuclear and other unconventional weapons in hopes of keeping the United States at bay.
The countries on Bush’s “axis of evil” hit list saw that Iraq’s WMD disarmament and acceptance of United Nations inspections didn't stop the U.S.-led invasion.
Not only have possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, but U.S. forces killed Hussein’s two sons and turned the deposed dictator over to his enemies so he could hanged like a common criminal on Dec. 30.
So there can be little incentive for Iranian or North Korean leaders to follow the Iraq model of disarmament and inspections. Further, the explosion of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has increased risks to the pro-U.S. dictatorship in nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Islamic militants with close ties to al-Qaeda are reported to be gaining strength.
While avoiding any overt criticism of Bush’s comments about an imaginary Iraqi-Iranian arms race, Russert suggested that the news executives found the remarks perplexing.
“That’s the way he sees the world,” Russert explained. “His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that was sound.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews then interjected, “And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point.”
Russert paused for a few seconds before responding, “It’s going to be very interesting to watch that issue and we have to cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively.”
Reasons for Alarm
In his prime-time speech, Bush injected other reasons to anticipate a wider war. He used language that suggested U.S. or allied forces might launch attacks inside Iran and Syria to “disrupt the attacks on our forces” in Iraq.
“We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said. “And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
Bush announced other steps that could be interpreted as building a military infrastructure for a regional war or at least for air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
“I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region,” Bush said. “We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.”
Though most news accounts of Bush’s speech focused on his decision to send about 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq – on top of the 132,000 already there – Bush’s comments about his regional strategy could ultimately prove more significant.
Militarily, a second aircraft carrier strike force would do little to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border. Similarly, Patriot anti-missile batteries would be of no use in defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias inside Iraq.
However, both deployments would be useful to deter – or defend against – retaliatory missile strikes from Iran if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or stage military raids inside Iranian territory.
Iran has a relatively sophisticated arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles. Those short-range missiles could be fired at U.S. bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. The medium-range missiles could conceivably hit Tel Aviv.
Not only could Patriot missiles be used to knock down Iranian missiles while they’re heading toward their targets, but the fearsome firepower of two aircraft carrier strike forces could deter any Iranian retaliatory strike following a U.S. or Israeli attack.
In other words, the deployments would fit with Israel or the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and then trying to tamp down any Iranian response.
Another danger to American interests, however, would be pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S. troops. If that were to happen, Bush’s escalation of troop levels in Iraq would make sense as a way to protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets.
So, Bush’s actions and rhetoric over the past several weeks continue to mesh with a scenario for a wider regional war – a possibility that now mainstream journalists, such as Tim Russert, are beginning to take seriously.
The Surge Purge
Other data points are aiming in that same direction.
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq. Bush also removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy aviator and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups off Iran’s coast.
Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in neoconservative circles, for instance, attending a 2001 awards ceremony at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank dedicated to explaining “the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.”
Bush also shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-level position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John “Mike” McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile technocrat, not a strong independent figure.
McConnell is seen as far more likely than Negroponte to give the administration an alarming assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold water on their heated rhetoric about the imminent threat from Iran.
“Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News in April 2006. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”
Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
“Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said. [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]
Delegating to Israel
But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be to delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel’s powerful lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable with the Congress.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also has called the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb an “existential threat” to Israel that cannot be tolerated.
Bush’s tough talk about Iran also comes as Israel is reported stepping up preparations for air strikes against Iran, possibly including the use of tactical nuclear bombs, to destroy Natanz and other Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that two Israeli air squadrons are training for the mission and “if things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz]. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole.”
The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities – at Isfahan and Arak – with conventional bombs. But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago.
After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program for producing energy.
While some observers believe Israel or the Bush administration may be leaking details of the plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that the preparations for a wider Middle Eastern war are very serious and moving very quickly.
Without doubt, Bush’s actions in the past two months – reaffirming his determination to succeed in Iraq and warning about a possible regional explosion if he fails – suggest that his future course is an escalation of the conflict, not some “graceful exit.”
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Years ago, when Ernie Kovacs was in Philadelphia on CBS holding down the thankless time spot against Milton Berle, his brilliant comedy show got cancelled. On the last night, he went about the studio setting mock fires, muttering, "If I can't have this studio, nobody can." As the blaze grew bigger, it became a mushroom cloud. I always wonder why that sign-off skit comes back to mind at times like this. Now I know: it is comic relief that has spot-on relevance to this murderous moment
THE LAST & GREATEST THREAT: RIGHTEOUSNESS
My friends, ask any of the world's citizenry at random who poses a greater threat to world peace, Israel or North Korea, and most (including me) will say Israel. Ask the same citizenry who poses a greater threat to world peace, America or Iran, and America will win by an even wider margin. The winners both have large, active nuclear arsenals and both openly threaten their use by saying they are deploying this weaponry against potential nuclear adversaries. The irony of this is so great that it gives new definition to insanity.
The last and greatest threat to mankind, my teacher Bawa Muhaiyaddeen says at the end of his book, "The Resonance of Allah," is righteousness. When I get emails from Zionist friends urging me to see the lastest documentary on the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and I realize how these men and women have been manipulated by the same fear factor(y) used to take America to war in Iraq, I grow exasperated and melancholy both at once (no easy psychological feat). For starters, most of my Zionist friends refuse to see Jewish complicity in the rising tide of prejudice against them. So even Jimmy Carter becomes an anti-Semite for using the word 'apartheid' in polite company.
Zionists should take a beginner's course in karma, and see that a lot of what they call 'anti-Semitism' is understandable fury at their actions. I've long said (to no avail) that Jews themselves could do a lot to cure the hatred they bring on themselves. Alas, the leaders in both Israel and America are consumed by an impenetrable psychosis of righteousness. So you'll excuse some frightened, feeble, cowardly crazies from swabbing Swastikas on Jewish graves and grocery stores. At least the tomb stones and stores are left standing (or partially so). Israelis prefer to bulldoze homes into rubble or contaminate wells; their anti-Semitism against Arabs is so much more virulent.
AMERICA & ISRAEL: THE AXIS OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
Friends, I think it advisable to see Iraq-Afghanistan-Palestine as parts of a three-front imperialist Judeo-Christian war where, so far, the only 'victory' has been Palestine. Soon, in return for allowing complete subjugation of that inchoate country, Israel is likely to use our aircraft and shared weapons secrets to drop the first nuclear weapons since August 1945. Will the world then become as incensed as it has been at the firecracker missile launches of North Korea and the unproven nuclear weapons ambitions of Iraq and Iran?
The only hope we have at this late juncture is for impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney that will stop Israel in its tracks. I think it is clear they are speeding up plans for an attack on Iran and we'll join them in attacks against Syria. Conequently, I am going to spend my birthday in Washington, D.C., protesting the the buildup of men and the allocation of extra money for their deployrment in Iraq. I am also going to urge sanctions against Israel and immediate cessation of all arms and arms funding to this deranged country that listens to no one but the hungry-ghost voices in its own head and history. Care to join me?
A BITTER MEMORY
Long ago, I told my father, during a heated political exchange, that I rejected Zionism because it was thinly disguised nationalism and colonialsm, and that Jews had to stop being, what poet Charles Olson called Americans, the last First People. This was during Vietnam some months after I.F. Stone had revealed that the Israeli army was strongly suspected of using napalm against the Arabs in the 1967 War. "We Jews don't do such things," my father screamed at me. "They are in choots with America," I told him. "Like us, they'll do anything they damned well please." "Are you comparing the policies of the Israeli government to those of America?" my father, who was as much against the Vietnam War as I was, asked indignantly. "Is there any difference?" I said. By this time I was just out to hurt him because Israel was the only dream this old Leftist had left after the failure of the Soviet Union--and I wanted him to find a broader, more unifying and nurturing dream. We almost came to blows that day.
Wisely, we never discussed Israel again; or, if we did, we somehow found common ground to tread. By the end of my father's life, when Netanyahu was in power, I think he gave up any hope of paradise on earth. And since he saw no sign of any paradise to come, I think he just wanted off the wheel.
I am so much his son because, like him, I believe the only salvation for humanity is to become its own messiah.
Where my father and I part company is that I believe this is a divine mandate, that God has allowed Himself to become a 'prisoner' of our forgetfulness, so that men must discover an internal means to safeguard themselves. That means is God. And because God is within, His reality is glimpsed as a pre-exisiting, inextinguishable light like that from the glass-enclosed lantern of the Quran whose light is eternal and protected from the elements as it protects us from darkness. The Quran also mentions an eternal mosque within where true worship is done 24/7. As a Sufi, I believe there is no 'outside,' just the inside of shared consciousness where we are all one, and there is no Jew or Gentile, Israelite or Palestinian, that all are "in Islam" [the state of being, mind you, not the religion] if they would just awaken.
THE LAMPLIGHTER'S SERENADE
When I was very, very young. I remember a lamplighter on the streets at evening. God is, by definition and personal experience, that lamplighter. So far, the darkness has never become greater than that of early evening where and when always the lamps along the street are lit. It just seems like they are re-lit because my flirtatious gaze has wandered. But the discontinuity is of my making. Every day, Muslims invoke the mercy and compassion of Allah hundreds and even thousands of times. Now I have added justice to that rahmat. We must, I beg God, save Palestine. No Jew is safe until he provides for the safety of those he wrongfully and unjustly fears most. I pray that lawmakers in my country will 1) prevent any further buildup in Iraq, 2) make it unambiguously clear that Iran must not be harmed, and 3) liberate Palestine from crushing isolation and humiliation.
Here's a good article by Robert Parry on what's brewing war-wise with Iran and Syria.
The U.S.-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War
By Robert Parry
January 12, 2007
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way.”
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.
“The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
Despite the already high cost of the Iraq War, Bush also defended his decision to invade Iraq and to eliminate Saddam Hussein by arguing that otherwise “he and Iran would be in a race to acquire a nuclear bomb and if we didn’t stop him, Iran would be going to Pakistan or to China and things would be much worse,” Russert said.
If Russert’s account is correct, there could be questions raised about whether Bush has lost touch with reality and may be slipping back into the false pre-invasion intelligence claims about Hussein threatening the United States with “a mushroom cloud.”
U.S. weapons inspectors concluded in 2004 that Hussein had long ago abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Many experts agreed that continued international sanctions would have prevented its resumption for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, some observers believe Bush’s invasion of Iraq has proved counterproductive by spurring Iran and other countries to speed up their development of nuclear and other unconventional weapons in hopes of keeping the United States at bay.
The countries on Bush’s “axis of evil” hit list saw that Iraq’s WMD disarmament and acceptance of United Nations inspections didn't stop the U.S.-led invasion.
Not only have possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, but U.S. forces killed Hussein’s two sons and turned the deposed dictator over to his enemies so he could hanged like a common criminal on Dec. 30.
So there can be little incentive for Iranian or North Korean leaders to follow the Iraq model of disarmament and inspections. Further, the explosion of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has increased risks to the pro-U.S. dictatorship in nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Islamic militants with close ties to al-Qaeda are reported to be gaining strength.
While avoiding any overt criticism of Bush’s comments about an imaginary Iraqi-Iranian arms race, Russert suggested that the news executives found the remarks perplexing.
“That’s the way he sees the world,” Russert explained. “His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that was sound.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews then interjected, “And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point.”
Russert paused for a few seconds before responding, “It’s going to be very interesting to watch that issue and we have to cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively.”
Reasons for Alarm
In his prime-time speech, Bush injected other reasons to anticipate a wider war. He used language that suggested U.S. or allied forces might launch attacks inside Iran and Syria to “disrupt the attacks on our forces” in Iraq.
“We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said. “And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
Bush announced other steps that could be interpreted as building a military infrastructure for a regional war or at least for air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
“I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region,” Bush said. “We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.”
Though most news accounts of Bush’s speech focused on his decision to send about 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq – on top of the 132,000 already there – Bush’s comments about his regional strategy could ultimately prove more significant.
Militarily, a second aircraft carrier strike force would do little to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border. Similarly, Patriot anti-missile batteries would be of no use in defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias inside Iraq.
However, both deployments would be useful to deter – or defend against – retaliatory missile strikes from Iran if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or stage military raids inside Iranian territory.
Iran has a relatively sophisticated arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles. Those short-range missiles could be fired at U.S. bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. The medium-range missiles could conceivably hit Tel Aviv.
Not only could Patriot missiles be used to knock down Iranian missiles while they’re heading toward their targets, but the fearsome firepower of two aircraft carrier strike forces could deter any Iranian retaliatory strike following a U.S. or Israeli attack.
In other words, the deployments would fit with Israel or the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and then trying to tamp down any Iranian response.
Another danger to American interests, however, would be pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S. troops. If that were to happen, Bush’s escalation of troop levels in Iraq would make sense as a way to protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets.
So, Bush’s actions and rhetoric over the past several weeks continue to mesh with a scenario for a wider regional war – a possibility that now mainstream journalists, such as Tim Russert, are beginning to take seriously.
The Surge Purge
Other data points are aiming in that same direction.
On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq. Bush also removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy aviator and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups off Iran’s coast.
Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in neoconservative circles, for instance, attending a 2001 awards ceremony at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank dedicated to explaining “the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.”
Bush also shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-level position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John “Mike” McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile technocrat, not a strong independent figure.
McConnell is seen as far more likely than Negroponte to give the administration an alarming assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold water on their heated rhetoric about the imminent threat from Iran.
“Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News in April 2006. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”
Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
“Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said. [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]
Delegating to Israel
But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be to delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel’s powerful lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable with the Congress.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also has called the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb an “existential threat” to Israel that cannot be tolerated.
Bush’s tough talk about Iran also comes as Israel is reported stepping up preparations for air strikes against Iran, possibly including the use of tactical nuclear bombs, to destroy Natanz and other Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that two Israeli air squadrons are training for the mission and “if things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz]. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole.”
The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities – at Isfahan and Arak – with conventional bombs. But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago.
After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program for producing energy.
While some observers believe Israel or the Bush administration may be leaking details of the plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that the preparations for a wider Middle Eastern war are very serious and moving very quickly.
Without doubt, Bush’s actions in the past two months – reaffirming his determination to succeed in Iraq and warning about a possible regional explosion if he fails – suggest that his future course is an escalation of the conflict, not some “graceful exit.”
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
posted by David Federman @ 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home