Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

LQD: The drums of war are deafening

by generic Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST

If the Bushists wanted to sell a war with Iran would it look something like this?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

While the campaign isn't particularly successful it increasingly looks like Bush doesn't care.


What really got my attention was this:
Chris Floyd Online - Still Not Worried? Petraeus Blames Iran for Green Zone Attack

I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.

Then there was the resignation of Adm. Fallon which prompted USnews to compile a list of 6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran - News Desk (usnews.com)

Finally there is this:
M of A - Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran

Washington has called on international financial institutions to steer clear of doing business with Iran's central bank, in the US's most wide-ranging attempt yet to isolate Tehran financially.

In this context I want to ask a question: What do you think will happen in Europe if/when the war begins?
While according to a BBC poll basically no one favors an US attack on Iran a lot of passion is needed to put a dent into the Atlanticism that still dominates our elites thinking. And I have heard too many people comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler to be confident that this crime will be seen as the abomination it is.
I fear that not only are we powerless to stop this crime against humanity, but in the end millions will be dead and nothing will change.


Display:
I really don't think a military bombardment is plausible: this just another round of sabre rattling, I suspect.

Financial War

on the other hand, most certainly is plausible, and I'm surprised its taken them this long.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST
I hope you are right.

Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter
by generic on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sen Cato's "Carthago delenda est" was even less than sabre rattling, but when the Romans got the chance, Carthage was annihilated blandly.

Very likely, neocon pants are shivering, but they can (and probably wish to) talk themselves into utter craziness. If the markets and economy collapse, they have one way out of shame...

by das monde on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 12:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Quite true, and your point is the only plausible scenario for the Bush administration. Still, with the consequences relatively serious for the world, the key indicator to watch should be the economy-

A total meltdown, or an undeniable indication of a coming one, and the balloon goes up.

Are we pretty close to that point now?

In answer to the question posed--it seems to me that nuke use will be a diplomatic catastrophe for the US (perhaps  fairly near the Nocon's apocalyptic desire) and the death of Atlanticism, since it is hard to imagine any EC nation supporting such an act. Not so much for mopral; reasons, though I not so cynical as to discount that, but because it's totally idiotic.

I say again, the Empire can (and will) villainize anyone,with their tame media, when they need a scapegoat. Like Now.

 As an essential policy component, one must be sure to NOT be that villain. Let the Chinese eat that one, they are saying, I think. That seems pretty much obvious to me, and I'd bet that such considerations are discussed in the seats of policy Europewide. A European Marshall plan? TALK of such a thing? Would be a good vaccination for the disease of villany that the US will surely sow.

Nonetheless, I still don't see it, unless the Bush admin has just chosen to go it naked-- without even a real fig leaf. The abruptly released NIE just blew away all the old foliage.
Note that they will classify the next one, and not even provide a "sanitized" public version.  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 05:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The other issue is getting people to do their bidding on this one? Above board miltary orders are one thing  - though you might see a certain level of officers resigning commissions in the face of insanity - but any black ops could be difficult to arrange. I'm not sure that it would be good for your career to be involved in the last gasps of a lame duck, especially if the next president isn't McCain. Stuck with that disaster they might go looking for scapegoats.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is anyone keeping track of the string of military resignations during Bush' term. Is there a higher rate than "background"?

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There was an article in the salon I think a couple of weeks ago about resignations at captain level making it difficult to recruit the next generation of senior officers, but I haven't seen figures at a higher level. Those figures have to be public though.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
geezer in Paris:
In answer to the question posed--it seems to me that nuke use will be a diplomatic catastrophe for the US (perhaps  fairly near the Nocon's apocalyptic desire) and the death of Atlanticism, since it is hard to imagine any EC nation supporting such an act. Not so much for mopral; reasons, though I not so cynical as to discount that, but because it's totally idiotic.
You're such an optimist.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:12:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm very skeptical too. A military war against Iran would be stupendously stupid for the US as a whole but...

But my inner Diogenes keeps reminding me that there is no such thing as "we".

As it seems that the Potemkin economy cannot be sustained until the election no matter how much liquidity the Fed pumps in, the recession will be in full swing by November and the Republicans are going be wiped out. It's going to be a wholesale massacre on the scale of 1932.

That is, unless something very spectacular falls the Republican way. And a shooting war a little bit before the elections is the only thing I can think of. The old patriotic con would work, again. Especially with a pro-war vet tough-guy candidate like McCain.

So, I'm a bit jittery. I can't convince myself that they are that depraved but with those gentlemen, there is no such thing as "too cynical".

by Francois in Paris on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 01:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's my main fear at this stage: a last double-or-nothing play.

On the other hand, their timing would need to be perfect, because a military campaign that set off an immediate disaster for US forces in Iraq would lose them everything. How sure are they that they won't lose a carrier or a lot of troops in Iraq?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 05:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that if they run it too close to election time they risk voters interpreting it as a cheap ploy to help their candidate.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 05:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
heh, the one thing you know is that it wouldn't be is cheap, on any level.

/snarkaroo

"A fool with a tool is still a fool." - Abraham Verghese

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes- that's exactly the way it would be perceived, ---and accurately, of course. Hunger has an uncanny ability to focus the mind.
I return to one of my favorite analogies- the "we"  (and there IS a we) can be likened to a jewel in which each facet is a window through which the heart of man can be glimpsed-- but they are all different hearts.

Obama has recently made us look into a window that has not been much viewed of late- one in which empathy- the ability to take the other- to walk that mile in those other shoes- is central, and reveals truths that should have been apparent all along, - the nasty consequences of policies based on a cynical, zero-sum view are suddenly obvious,--again.

Should any European government support nuclear first-use in Iran, or even tolerate it, it would likely fall, I think. And Europe is sufficiently decoupled to survive the US meltdown intact, I think, thanks to the EU.

That said,---  any theater piece trumped up by the Bushwits of a lesser dramatic nature just might be inadequate to the task of diverting the American people from an empty bank account- or a failed bank.

 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
oh yaaaawn -- whoever we don't like this week is Hitler, it's getting really tedious.  a kind of reverse "I'm Spartacus" scene with the Yanks pointing randomly into the crowd and shouting "He's Spartacus!  No, he's Spartacus!"

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
LOL

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of my favourite  heckling stories (although may be an urban myth)

'You can't do this to me - I'm Kirk Douglas's son!' | | guardian.co.uk Arts

Joel Douglas, the less famous son of the actor Kirk, was performing at the Comedy Store and getting increasingly frustrated by the audience reaction. He started shouting: "You can't do this to me, I'm Kirk Douglas's son!" At which point some wag stood up and said: "No, I'm Kirk Douglas's son." Then someone else stood up, and so on.


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
whoever we don't like this week is Hitler, it's getting really tedious

yo, i saw the head of the catholic delegation, institute, whatever on fux news yesterday, comparing the protesters who poured fake blood on the congregation at some big cathedral easter ceremony to nazis, because nazis broke up church services too.

whaaa?

nice try, buddy! , non va giu, (won't go down), as the italians say.

 think strasbourg goose... livers stuffed and greasy with tasty propaganda.

"A fool with a tool is still a fool." - Abraham Verghese

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 04:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So hmmm, that would make Jesus' vandalistic attack on the moneychangers inside the Temple grounds also a "Nazi-like" attack?  since Nazis smashed things and destroyed Jewish businesses?

I'm reminded of the parable of the blind men and the elephant... as cast into verse by some (early C20?) wag:  "'I see,' quoth he, 'the elephant is very like a rope!'"

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 09:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


"A fool with a tool is still a fool." - Abraham Verghese
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 11:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice elephant.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Much ado about nothing, I think. Of the "six signs" that the US "may" be going to war on Iran, half involve Israel, not the US, and some are up to 18-month-old news.

US News and World Report: 6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

1. Fallon's resignation:

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip:

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria:

4. Warships off Lebanon:

5. Israeli comments:

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah:



It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 05:42:38 AM EST
I agree that the US News and World Report article has little new information. But if an attack comes there probably won't be any big chunks of information. The US is as ready as it is likely to get for it's latest kamikaze dive. If the Unitary Executive decides to bomb Iran Congress will probably hear about it after the fact.
But it is likely that close allies like Israel and client regimes like Saudi Arabia will get  a warning beforehand.
That is why I think the Saudis preparing for nuclear fallout and the Israelis no longer talking up their resolve to "go it alone" might be relevant.

And the ships off Lebanon are a recent development (28. Feb):

M of A - Empty Ships to Lebanon?

The U.S. Navy has moved the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon, Pentagon officials said Thursday.
...
The destroyer and two support ships are close to Lebanon but out of visual range of the coast, Pentagon officials said. Another six vessels, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, are close to Italy and steaming toward the other three, the officials said.
U.S. Navy ships move closer to Lebanon

Why is this odd?

Because the U.S. is sending empty ships.



Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter
by generic on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Empty ships might be needed to carry a large mumber of dead American troops home from Iraq if U.S. bombs Iran.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Israel's war with Hezbollah went horribly wrong (for Israel), of course.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 10:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It wnet horribly wrong for Lebanon as a whole as well. Calling it a "war with Hezbollah" when Israel bombed all the way to Tripoli in Northern Lebanon is an interesting framing.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 28th, 2008 at 04:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
perhaps two other participants in the next war:

Iraq unrest casus belli for Lebanon war?
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:37:56

Security is tightened in Basra
The Israeli media accuses Hezbollah of involvement in fighting with US troops in southern Iraq amid fierce clashes in Basra.

Two Israeli right-wing newspapers reported that Hezbollah fighters joined Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army who are battling 'for control of Basra and its oil resources'.

Heavy fighting broke out between Mahdi Army forces and Iraqi security members in Basra on Tuesday after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched a crackdown on "armed groups" in Iraq.

The report alleged that "the Iraqi [Hezbollah] draws on its Lebanese command for orders, fighters, arms and cash".

The publication of report could be a scenario by the US and Israel to make case for waging another war against Lebanon, an Arab political analyst told Press TV, on condition of anonymity due to sensitivity of the issue.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48933&sectionid=351020203

by zoe on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 05:15:19 PM EST
at least not precisely.  The forces are being positioned with the thought that they may be used.  Or will be used--the difference between "may" and "will" is all that is left to debate at this point, along with "when."  

The addition of a nuclear sub to the attack group implies the ability to move directly to full scale nuclear war.  Of course the putative "nuclear enrichment sites" would not be the targets, but cities and military installations.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 01:46:48 AM EST
Holy crap, Gaianne-- you sure do find the scary bits, don't you?
And, ---thanks, I guess.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gaianne:
The addition of a nuclear sub to the attack group implies the ability to move directly to full scale nuclear war.

I don't think so. The point of nuclear armed subs is that they can lob their nukes from anywhere. I don't see what is added by being local.

And of course the point of them is that you don't know where in the world they are so the only point in telling people is to ramp up psychological pressure.

Any nuke ever used (God help us!) would be a bomb delivered by plane, I suspect, or a cruise missile.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this is probably a bit of an overreaction, there's two basic types of Nuclear sub, either your Ballistic missile submarine, and they only need to be within 5,000 miles of their target. and your standard attack submarine, armed with torpedos and cruise missiles. So they wouldn't need to pass through the canal to fire

No major power in their right mind would transit a ballistic armed sub through the canal on the off chance that  that a local power decided to take a quick route to Nuclear weapon armed status, I think we can safely say that it's one of the little ones, of which there are probably two or three in the area already.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Either kind is sufficient for theater nuclear war.  And yes, both kinds of subs are armed.  

There is no worry at all about Egypt hi-jacking a sub.  When our puppet government in Cairo joins the Islamic suicidists, then there might be cause.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides, the nuke in question is just "plain vanilla" attack sub, LA-class, part of a whole battle group that went through suez.

Deployment of an SSGN would be news, but you will never know: they rotate crews in Diego, pretty close, no canal to the gulf, no port visit.

Right now, I think 3 SSGN are up, one is on port visit in south korea, one just received a new crew in diego in the past week. Maximum 2 on location in the coming weeks.

Pierre

by Pierre on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see what is added by being local.  

What is added is reduction in time.  The attack will have to go VERY fast.  Close placement enables this.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While the signs of war are piling up--greater than at any time in the past--there will be a FINAL SIGN, a sure and infallible indicator that a US war against Iran WILL be launched.  

That sign:  A false-flag "terrorist" operation occurring within the US.  You will know it is false flag, for although it will have a "plausible" explanation, the explanation will not be coherent.  It will involve many American deaths, probably more than 9/11.  When it happens you will know that war will be days, at most weeks, away.  You won't miss this sign:  It will be all over the media, as war hysteria is fanned.  Then the war will be launched, immediately.  

The US will use nuclear weapons, from the outset.  

War may not happen, but if this final sign occurs, war will happen very promptly.  

If you have any plans to make, make them now.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 02:13:20 AM EST
Evidence?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When the evidence is there, you will SEE it.

Personally, I'm planning to gat things straight with Jesus, I don't want to be Left Behind.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
:D  

The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How's this for evidence?



It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We've known for 4+ years that another terrorist attack on US soil would spell the end of the US Constitution.

Daily Kos: Tommy Franks Says Bush May Discard Constitution If Another Terrorist Attack Occurs (by Rob on November 21, 2003)

Gen. Tommy Franks said in an interview with the lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government" The stunning revelation is the headline story on the right-wing news site NewsMax for Friday. Franks said that another terrorism attack will result in "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years..." He indicated that if another terrorism attack occurs Bush will likely declare martial law and the Constitution will apparently be "discarded".
In that context, a war frenzy or the use of nukes seem to me relatively natural developments.

No point losing a lot of sleep over it, is there? Che sarà, sarà

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:09:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gaianne has a pretty good point- Sorry, Coleman, but these things rarely have a smoking gun, unless it's the result of someone's monumental blunder or stroke of luck.

Knowing that, here's one of my ways to weed out the conspiracies that are less likely to be real --  consciously assembled. I scale them based on Murpy's law--

When they get so complicated that the odds of success are greatly reduced by the likelihood of bungling, mischance, bad weather(or karma)--- I give them a low likelihood. Here, though, almost all the pieces are in place, and have been. This thing can be made to appear to fall into the category of ordinary tactical ops. And sadly, a false-flag attack is easy. NO ONE is as good at these things as the US is.

McCain's a looney, Obama will ruin their party, the FED will run out of raw meat to throw soon, and the cops are coming, in any case. Oops.
As most here know, I thought the release of the NIE showing no nuclear-armed Iran was likely anytime soon was the end of the road for operation Evil Axis. Perhaps I was premature.

Still, it seems just so incredibly stupid-- insane, in fact, unless raw power is the ONLY issue, to which all else will be sacrificed. I just have little experience in my life with madness on that scale--but history is replete with examples, I guess.

Having said that, I remember Werner Von Braun, and his Pax Americana--- He would surely have done it. He WAS mad enough.

Admiral Farrell may have been a proverbial Dutch boy--

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Problem is finding someone to fix it on behalf of a lame duck president. Do these guys really inspire enough personal loyalty to get the job done? If they use ideological crazies is the risk of leakage too high? Will the professionals do it for them?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 08:09:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good questions all- I think the good Admiral refused, (or made it clear that he WOULD refuse) and was replaced.

Remember that the authoritarian personality is powerfully drawn to a military vocation. And Altemeyer's work shows clearly that their obedience-even dedication- to the maximum leader is independent of fact.

As well, a lot of these guys just like it. My (not so)ex-navy seal neighbor in Florida would have done the false-flag job,--just because that's what he did.  

Still, I think that the risk of refusal may well have been one of the major things that has kept the lid on so far.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh, I didn't realize the link was that explicit.

William J. Fallon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On March 11, 2008, he announced his resignation from CENTCOM and retirement from active duty, citing administrative complications caused in part by an article in Esquire Magazine, which described him as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran.
"Administrative complications".

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gaianne's point seems to be that a false-flag op could give the administration the go-ahead to strike Iran. So it could. But the style - the peremptory announcement, the capitals, the Apocalyptico-conspiratorial manner - does call for a request for some substance to back it up... and perhaps some friendly leg-pulling.

As for: a false-flag attack is easy, maybe. A false flag op that kills more Americans than 9/11, though, strikes me as likely to fall into the so complicated that the odds of success are greatly reduced category ?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 08:19:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
afew:
As for: a false-flag attack is easy, maybe. A false flag op that kills more Americans than 9/11, though, strikes me as likely to fall into the so complicated that the odds of success are greatly reduced category ?

Agreed. Furthermore I don't see how a false flag op is necessary. They could just poke a stick at the Mahdi Army and blame the reaction on Iran.

Von überall könnte das Volk, Urbrut alles Undemokratischen, Zelle des Terrors, über die gewählten Hüter von Wachstum und Wohlstand® kommen. - flatter
by generic on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think that would no longer suffice.
I don't necessarily agree with Gaianne on the casualty count, but it will need to be media-grabbing. Otherwise it will serve little purpose, I think. And you're right- "easy" was a poor choice of words-- but they ARE really, really good at this shit.
Remember, all these things have a major component of perception management. An attack on a US ship, for example, will not suffice for a cover to nuke someone. He's been blowing that rather badly for a while now. As well, right now Bush needs a really loud bang now more than he needs to attack someone--The house is on fire, and a piddling thing won't divert the shmucks enough.
The con wing of the GOP needs McCain in a superman suit, and Bush's twisted psyche needs dead, evil Iranians.
-- two birds--?

I remind you--the intelligence community has sent a clear message- they will not assist in this, and will indeed oppose it. So it's a huge internal struggle still, I think.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fallon was just the latest piece taken off the board, and Bush has been losing in the count. But Fallon was a big piece, folks. A bishop, at least.
Wonder who will go next? Is it end game time?
I still think the economic meltdown is the key- the first retail bank that goes might be a good time to check the wind.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The aim of attacking Iran (and overthrowing the regime if possible) has always been an integral part of the Cheney/Bush agenda, imo. The build-up on the nuclear question seemed to be heading that way when the intelligence estimate that Iran had ceased working towards nuclear weapons put the kibosh on it. That was no doubt a blow struck by military/intelligence interests that see an Iranian adventure as utter folly.

Those interests are still there. No doubt Cheney dreams nightly of working things round to a strike before the end of the mandate, both for Great Game reasons and for reasons of domestic political control. But the Washington power structure is split, and it's by no means sure the war-freaks will get their way.

One last act of madness? It can't be ruled out.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:59:55 AM EST
I like this interpretation---particularly since I propounded this theory several times.
But --crap. The things I like tend to be wrong.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I surely owe you for your lights on this matter, giP! Though my view, from our first discussions on Iran here, has always been that Cheney would attack Iran if he could, that it was part of the agenda that began, not with Afghanistan, but with Iraq.

Currently, as you know, the Iraq War has not been won (to Israel's benefit), but lost (to Iran's). 'Nuff to make a man mad...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I still go with the idea that George is working backwards through a list of perceived historical slights or insults given by other countries to the USA on a piece of paper with a crayon and his tongue sticking out of the corner of his mouth. So Iraq was last, before that was Iran, before that was VietnaM, then Cuba then North Korea

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dick more than George, imo, and Rummy and some other ole boys who were around in the '70s.

In the case of Iran, not as much a "perceived historical slight" as a humiliation that led to a pullback of American territorial influence in an area vital to the supply of sand and camels, as we all know. The overthrow of the Shah put the US on the back foot (ie Saudi A) for a couple of decades. Backing Saddam to beat Iran in the '80s didn't work, and then Saddam was left over as a damn nuisance holding the central spot needed to threaten Iran. So first stop Saddam, next stop Iran. With Syria for Israel to take out.

But the best-laid plans...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyone know the accuracy or reliability of these guys? I got a link to it in the daily spamarama in my inbox.
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
by northsylvania on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM EST
MOSCOU, 19 mars - RIA Novosti. Les experts militaires russes estiment que la planification de l'attaque militaire américaine contre l'Iran a passé le point de non retour le 20 février, lorsque le directeur de l'AIEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, a reconnu, dans son rapport, l'incapacité de l'Agence de "confirmer le caractère pacifique du programme nucléaire de l'Iran".
 

"Moscow 19 march--RIA Novosti.  Russian military experts estimate that American plans for a military attack on Iran passed the point of no return on 20 February, when AIEA director Mohammed ElBaradei conceded the inability of the Agency to "confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."

Selon l'hebdomadaire russe Argoumenty nedeli, une action militaire se déroulera au cours de la première semaine d'avril, avant les Pâques catholique et orthodoxe (cette année elles sont célébrées le 8), lorsque l' "opinion occidentale" sera en congé. Il se peut aussi que l'Iran soit frappé le vendredi 6, jour férié dans les pays musulmans. D'après le schéma américain, ce sera une frappe d'un seul jour qui durera 12 heures, de 4 heures de matin à 16 heures d'après-midi. Le nom de code de l'opération est à ce jour "Bite" en anglais (Morsure). Une vingtaine d'installations iraniennes devraient être touchées. A leur nombre, des centrifugeuses d'enrichissement d'uranium, des centres d'études et des laboratoires. Mais le premier bloc de la centrale nucléaire de Bouchehr ne sera pas touché. Par contre, les Américains neutraliseront la DCA, couleront plusieurs bâtiments de guerre iraniens dans le Golfe et détruiront les postes clefs de commandement des forces armées.
 

Sorry--here my French breaks down--(the Russian agency quoted) "says the military operation may begin in the first week of April"  Are those subjunctive tenses?  "It may occur on Friday 6 April (a Muslim holiday).  The American plan--code named 'Bite'--is a single operation of twelve hours starting at four o'clock in the morning through four in the afternoon." (Local time?--It is not specified.) A score of Iranian installations will be struck, including centrifuges, research centers and laboratories.  The main center at Boucheher will not be struck.  Rather, strikes will be made on key Iranian army positions and command centers in the Gulf."  

A fascinating item.  I have never been convinced that the Iranian installations were ever a target, only an excuse.  The real targets will be military and political centers.  

But the timeline!  If the false-flag event happens tomorrow (Friday) that still leaves only a week to hype the hysteria.  That makes for a tight schedule.  

I cannot rule it out, though.  

Please correct my translation as you can.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You guys do realise that is from March 2007 and that it says that Easter will take place in mid-April as opposed to (as in 2008) in March?

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Missed the year.  

And they missed their estimate.  

So much for that.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh snap. Me too. Thanks for reinforcing the belief that nothing good comes out of spam.
by northsylvania on Fri Mar 28th, 2008 at 04:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was right there in the URL, too:

.../fr.rian.ru/world/20070319...

Means "world news from Ria Novosti, in French, for 2007 March 19".

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 28th, 2008 at 05:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]


The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's from one year and 9 days ago.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 28th, 2008 at 04:12:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

The Killing of Jo Cox

by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17
24 comments

Nostalgia Isn't What It Used to Be

by gmoke - Jun 15
5 comments

Long tunnels

by DoDo - Jun 12
23 comments

What 9/11 liberals ignore

by DoDo - Jun 5
68 comments

Developments in Austria

by generic - Jun 8
1 comment

The arsonist party

by fjallstrom - Jun 8
1 comment

Recent Diaries

The Killing of Jo Cox

by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17
24 comments

Long tunnels

by DoDo - Jun 12
23 comments

Developments in Austria

by generic - Jun 8
1 comment

The arsonist party

by fjallstrom - Jun 8
1 comment

The tragedy of Hillary

by DoDo - Jun 6
47 comments

What 9/11 liberals ignore

by DoDo - Jun 5
68 comments

France on Strike

by John Redmond - May 30
37 comments

Böhmermann

by DoDo - May 29
11 comments

A Tale of Two States

by Frank Schnittger - May 26
20 comments

Edmund Burke for Socialists

by ARGeezer - May 25
22 comments

More Diaries...