Spreading Democracy-Target Iran
January 16th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |At my house, we like to spend some time putting together jigsaw puzzles. It’s a fun family activity that also stretches our minds spatially. So it’s no real surprise that I am a ‘puzzle’ kind of guy. I’ve been looking at a few new puzzle pieces lately though and I am not in the least bit relaxed or amused. In fact, the picture beginning to emerge isn’t something cute like puppies or beautiful like a susnet, but rather an apocolyptic image of warfare and blood and needless death. I am talking about Iran, and the seeming US plans to launch another ill-fated military expedition under the guise of “fighting terror, spreading democracy, and keeping nukes out of terrorist hands.”
The first pieces of the puzzle came from the president’s speech last week when the president announced that he was sending (more) Patriot missle batteries to the Middle East. In itself, this is a curious thing to do, since the only militaries over there with missle capabilities to worry about are in Israel and Iran. I doubted that Bush was planning to defend Arab countries from Israeli missle attacks, so the conclusion would be that we needed protection from Iranian missles. Why though when we are not militarily engaged with Iran and neither are any other countries directly engaged in war with Iran? What reason would we need to build up missle defenses other than to bolster up areas that Iran could attack if a war occurred? The president also said in that speech that
“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”
and
“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
In my response to the presidents speech, I noted that “these words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake—Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least seven years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by U.S. troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.”
These were the first real pieces to the emerging puzzle. The next came yesterday in a post here which quoted a Raw Story report that a major investment bank was warning against an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report claims that Israel, backed by the US, may well be planning an attack while Bush is still in office, since they could rely on US support (at least US administation support) for such an attack. It further notes that Bush’s reshuffling of generals in the Middle East from those who advised against such an escalation with Iran with those more pliable to the Decider’s terrible decisions. With this news, it became more plausible that an attack on Iran, either by the US directly or through the Israeli proxy, may well be forthcoming.
Today, two new reports come forth to reveal even more US military affairs in the region.
In the first, according to a former Russian Fleet Admiral, US submarines currently located in the Persian Gulf are positioning themselves to block the Gulf of Oman, the persian Gulf and parts of the Arabian Sea. Such moves would have the effect of blockading the Iranian coast as well as moving these subs into position for missle strikes against Iranian nuclear and oil targets within Iran. Since the US submarines are not vital in any of the efforts in Iraq, except perhaps for some kinds of intelligence monitoring, their existence in the region brings cause for alarm.
And the second report, filtered through a Kuwaiti news source, says that the US may be preparing an attack against Iran as soon as April. This report is perhaps the least reliable, to me anyhow, because it claims to get its information from an unnamed source who are privy to details of a secret White House meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates.
Taken together, even unsubstiantiated, these reports, coming in from all over the place, lead to conclusions one doesn’t particularly like to make. Add to this the recent extensions of US forces in Iraq (perhaps a pre-staging for an Iran attack instead of an effort to quell violence in Baghdad?) and a call to increase military strength permanently, and the emerging puzzle looks even more bleak.
There may well be nothing that can be done to stop this escalation if it does in fact materialize. Even with an opposition Congress to content with, Bush has already proven that he values no other judgement than his own, presumably because that is what God has instructed of him. And history is filled with many monsters who believed they had a red phone to God and look at the damage they have wrought on humanity.
The issue is bigger than just attacking Iran or increasing the level of Middle East disaster. An attack against Iran will be much more polarizing than Iraq has been. Nations that heretofore have only condemned our actions may well take steps to marginalize us. The US may be the worlds biggest economy; we may have the most technologically advanced military; we may be vital to nations increasing wealth creation. None of that will matter. Most of the emerging nations that rely on US buyers to increase their own wealth and standing have a history of repression against their people. The can clamp down on economic reforms and advancements to stymie the US if they think we are out of control. After all, their people are used to harsh conditions and repressive economies. The US is not.
China and Russia both have many dealings with Iran, and they have pretty big militaries too. And the Muslim world would likely not take kindly to an invasion of Iran.
But in fact, I would be surprised if US forces weren’t already operating in Iran, ala Cambodia years ago.
Not content with being merely the worst president in US history, Bush seems determined to be the last as well.
Can anyone say WWIII?
[tag]Iran, US+to+attack+Iran, Middle East, politics, war[/tag]
21 Responses to “Spreading Democracy-Target Iran”
By SteveIL on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Still spreading that fear-mongering propaganda? Why don’t you add in Ahmadinejad’s wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”, along with their desire to create or acquire nukes? Why don’t you also factor in that Iran’s whores in Hezbollah would have no problem carrying out some kind of “dirty bomb” nuking in Israel if given the material, and that Iran would then be able to deny their involvement to an American media too stupid, and too beholden to the “liberal” elites in this country, to tell what’s really going on?
Using Raw Story (aka Pravda) as a reference makes this “story” mere fiction. Yesterday, I wrongly called a post by Tom Baker as disingenuous. I’m not making that mistake here. This post is disingenuous, with its references to a “news” source that is no better than the National Enquirer, and doesn’t tell the whole story.
By ken grandlund on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL- I’d be happy to hear what explanations you would have for deploying Patriot missiles in a region where the only threats from missle attacks are from Israel, Iran or the US. (And yes- I count Hezbollah as an Iranian missile holder.)
What explanations regarding nuclear subs in the Persian gulf?
What explanations regarding the president’s own words regarding Iran (and Syria.)
Do you not see an escalation and/or targeting of Iran?
Sure Ahmendinejad is a blowhard (like our own leader) but does he really have the power to “wipe Israel off the map” or is that mere political rhetoric like “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here?” Rhetoric is far afield from open warfare.
Hezbollah is indeed operating like terrorists by targeting non-combatant populations. They are wrong. Bombing Iran will not make them more wrong and it will also not solve that problem.
Raw Story is as effective a news source as many others. They hear, check, and report. To compare them to the Enquirer is a crock. To my knowledge, they make no claims of Elvis Alien Babies Marrying Brittney at the Louvre. Or any other such nonsense.
To wave a flag at what seems to be an obvious build up towards Iran is neither dieingenuous or irresponsible. To ignore such red flags would be so.
But I do so hope to be wrong about all of this.
In any event, these reports are out there, in more than just one place, and whether they bear real fruit or not, they certainly will have the impact of putting many in the ME on higher alert, and may in fact increase militant activities against our troops. Either way, the outcome is bad and headed to worse. If these reports are soooo out of line, why isn’t the administration vigorously denying them with better explanations of their words and/or actions?
You may blithely soak up the Bushspeak without trying to find what their meaning may reveal. I do not.
By SteveIL on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
ken grandlund said:
The last time we were told political rhetoric along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s “wipe Israel off the map” was by Hitler. What you also don’t link to is how Iran could easily threaten the Gulf states’ moving of oil by blocking access to the Persian Gulf. Bush moving Patriot batteries and subs into the area makes prudent military sense as Iran has mined the area in the past (1988), not to mention their own meddling in Iraq and meddling in Lebanon with Hezbollah.
And speaking of Hezbollah:
No, Hezbollah is made up of terrorists who operate as terrorists, not like them. And like Al Qaeda, the money trail has to be followed in order to figure out who funds them and who arms them. In both cases, the link is to both Iran and Syria. Hezbollah is already working on getting themselves installed as the rulers of Lebanon, and have heretofore used the Nazi methods of trying to do so within the democratic frameword (such as it is; they’ve also probably been involved in the recent assassinations of critical anti-Syrian politicians there), but would get rid of the democracy once they took power (just like the Nazis did).
All of these machinations of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government are more than just the rhetorical blatherings of a blowhard. And they’ve been going on for more than a year (with the Syrian government, nearly two years, since they were instrumental in the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri; the UN does implicate Assad and members of his government in the murder, but Kofi the Weasel never acted on it, nor was forced to do so), and this includes their funding of the Sadr nutjobs trying to illegally (by current Iraqi standards) take power in Iraq. If Bush can be accused of anything, it’s not ratcheting this up a year ago (and I have bitched about it), especially after Hamas and Hezbollah committed acts of war against Israel.
As far as the US bombing Iran; forget it. They got it wrong. The government already knows about Russian and Chinese influence, and those countries know how much influence the US has on them, especially China. What also is ignored here is the recent stroke by Iranian Supreme Asshole Khamenei and the recent Assembly of Experts elections (who determine who is in the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader), which didn’t go Ahmadinejad’s way. Again, Bush moving Patriots and subs is a prudent military move that doesn’t mean a US attack is imminent. Bush doesn’t need to attack; he can wait out events in Iran, and show them we’re still around, still watching them. And you wnon’t here a complaint from the Gulf states as they are more afraid of Iran than Israel (Iran is a Shia Muslim nation and has a majority Persian population, especially in the government; the Gulf states are Sunni Muslim with a majority Arab population).
Raw Story is crap. They’re on the same level as Jason Leopold and the liars at Truthout.org. And if Raw Story could be considered credible, then I’ll start putting in Newsmax.
By ken grandlund on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL- If I am being disingenuous, perhaps you’d care to comment on the latest quips from our new SecDef, Gates:
“We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future.”
It would seem that I am hardly the only person who sees the writing on the wall. From this site (which I assume is a blog): The Defense Secretary Robert Gates today (Monday 1-15-07) announced that the massive increase in military power in the Persian Gulf is directly aimed at Iran. Gates’ comments follow a weekend of intense and heavy loaded rhetoric on the part of many neocon figureheads, signaling that the faintest spark could ignite a huge escalation of conflict in the middle east.
So call me disingenuous if you will. I respectfully suggest that the tinfoil hat is not placed on my head…
By SteveIL on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Well, ken, if only the US is to be pictured as the aggressor, explain this. I can imagine that the deal was in the works for some time. Somehow, I wouldn’t doubt that somebody in the administration knew it was going to happen, and that is why Bush has been turning up the heat. It is also a possibility that Russia knew what we were going to do and responded accordingly; they’re not dumb.
The US has nearly 200,000 soldiers on both borders with Iran (Afghanistan is on their eastern border) and we haven’t attacked them yet. The same type of rhetoric your using here is the same type that said the US was about ready to obliderate North Korea. Didn’t happen, did it? I didn’t believe it regarding North Korea, and I’m sure not going to believe you here.
By the way, if we have covert ops going on in Iran, so what? How do you know the Iranian government isn’t doing the same thing here? And they surely aren’t going to be open about it, especially to their own people, let alone the US government. If it is being done, certain members of Congress in both parties know it’s going on, as required by statute. If these members want it stopped, they have ways of doing so without taking a hit legally (it might kill them politically; but, that’s always the problem, isn’t it?).
By ken grandlund on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Actually SteveIL, your link only reinforces my thoughts that US actions against Iran will only lead to a larger conflict. And one that reaches out from the Middle East into other nations.
I never thought the US would be attacking North Korea either, though by all accounts, it is(was) clearly more threatening than Iraq was, at least re: WMD’s. Besides, most of the rhetoric about the US attacking N.Korea came from N. Korea itself…not exactly so in this case, eh?
And to your “so what” comment, I can only infer from that that you approve of ratcheting up the conflict. As for whether this administration would legally inform congress of it’s machinations, if you still believe that this administration is open, honest, and aboveboard, then I have a nice piece of land to offer you…
By SteveIL on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
ken said:
Nope. I am inferring that the Iranian government be held responsible for nearly 30 years of terrorism that has murdered Americans, Arabs, Persians, Israelis, Europeans, etc. And before you start making tit-for-tat arguments, I will always take the side of the government of a free democracy over that of a tyrannical government made up of religious fascists. Why? The government of the free democracy will not arrest me for what I say; the tyrannical government of religious whackos would have had me murdered long ago.
And if you think certain members of Congress are being aboveboard about their lack of involvement regarding classified information, then I’ve got a “bridge to nowhere” to offer you.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
I’m going to add a little fuel to the fire. You think Congress doesn’t know what’s going on? Well, here’s a little news flash for you. Public Law 109-293 (Iran Freedom Support Act), written and passed by Congress, states the US government’s position on Iran. The law itself was based on bill H.R. 6198, passed in the House by voice vote (no roll call was needed as 2/3 approved it, per House rules), and was passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate. Nowhere in the bill does it state the President is not authorized to do covert operations. How is this significant? H.R. 6198 was originally based on H.R. 282. Within that bill is House Report 109-417, which originally included specific text to keep the President from doing any covert ops. None of the versions of that bill retained that provision, thus not disallowing covert ops. And H.R. 6198 doesn’t contain anything that disallows covert ops in Iran either. The difference between between H.R. 6198 and H.R. 282 was that there was a roll call vote on it, and it passed 397-21. Some of those people who voted for it include: Sherrod Brown, John Conyers, William Delahunt, John Dingell, Jane Harman, Steny Hoyer, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Patrick Kennedy, Ed Markey, Jerrold Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey. Whether or not the vote would have been the same on H.R. 6198 is moot, especially since the covert operations part was never in either bill, just a House report.
Now, there is no way you can get me to believe any of the above named individuals don’t know how a bill is written, and that what is not in a bill is as significant as what is in a bill. Each one of these people knows that a President’s Article II, Section 2 Commander in Chief powers will allow for covert military operations, provided it meets the standard set in subsection 301(b) of the new Act (page 5 of the PDF file linked above):
Covert operations could include intelligence gathering and would be entirely constitutional.
How much of this ever got out in the press? Or even to the American people? Posts like this can rant and rave all they want about the abuses by “horrible warmongerers” they don’t like, but seem to neglect to mention all the parties involved, especially those they support and who also voted for H.R. 282.
Let me add this. If one Google’s “Iran Freedom Support Act” and then clicks “News”, there are only a few items on it (5), and nothing from the lame-stream media. Read all of them to find out what various authors and essayists are saying. The one thing I note that is also missing from these pieces, and along with this post, is that there are political moves that could be made that would be more effective than a military solution. This could include discussing ideas with allies other than those in Europe (as they have proven to be ineffective and stagnant anyway), and still do this without direct talks with the Iranian government. There probably is more going on behind the scenes than what we are being told by our entertainment-obsessed media, but nothing like the fear-mongering presented in this post.
By Jamison on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Ken great analysis. Don’t waste too much of your time on a radical right wing extremist apologist like Steve. No one takes those folks overly seriously, everything that spews out of them is a lie they heard on Fox news. His goal is to keep screaming until you give up trying to talk, it’s all they have left.
I’m not saying I’m convinced at this point, but there are several other pieces that you haven’t covered. First the hostage taking by US force of Iranian dipolmats in Kurdish region of Iraq. The resulting backlash has alienated one of our only allies in Iraq and almost came to exchanges of gun fire between our troops and the Kurds. We have the vice-president swaking about Iran the same way he didn’t about Iraq. You have the assignment of a Naval Aviator as theater commander of a ground war, seems like his skills would be better suited to using two naval fleets to keep the Gulf open to oil shipping while we are causing through there.
But even with all that, I have to fall back on Occam’s razor or similar philosophical theory. How does it go, never attribute to malice what can be explain by stupidity. The Republican party has proven itself incompetent and idiocy on a level that has never before been seen by human civilization. This could all just be a part of an average Tuesday morning for them. Something is a foot, but I’m not sure what it all is yet. But given what I know about Republicans, I always assume the worse will happen to my country and that worries me. The corporate media will not lift a finger to save this country so it’s up to us to do the leg work.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for providing absolutely nothing to the discussion or debate, Jamison. When you decide you want to act like an adult and contribute something that isn’t pointless, by all means join in.
By Paul Watson on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
Given this example of your idea of what debate is, perhaps you’d like to follow your own advice? Unless, of course, dismissing a person’s view because they’re not American is a legitimate debating point and no one told me.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Well, hi Paul. Glad to have you here.
If you notice, I wasn’t actually debating on that one. I was amazed and appalled that such a bullshit assertion would actually be made. Especially since Ward Churchill, the (not-so) brilliant (fake) Native American “educator”, who still gets paid as a government employee, stated that Osama bin Laden attacked us because we were starving the Iraqis to death. These nuts have to get their stories straight. Even the 9/11 truthers do a better job coordinating their stories.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Let me add that Churchill was right that Iraqis were starving (although his figure of a half million dead doesn’t seem to have corroborated anywhere), but it was Saddam’s fault for that, not Churchill’s contention that it was the fault of the US. Churchill is playing the “angry” Native American to pander to real Native Americans.
And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.
By Jamison on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Absolutely nothing to the debate? Now I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I provided more evidence to make Ken’s case, while providing an alternative explanation of what is happening, a third way if you will, which should have dovetailed nicely into your argument that there was no conspiracy going on. I helped both side of the argument so how can I be contributing nothing? Wouldn’t contributing nothing mean that I didn’t post at all?
I really like your terminology, pointless and adult. Any point of view that isn’t your own is pointless. I suspect that if you are one of those people that are desperate to fit into the status quo. Angry at everyone that doesn’t want to be with the in crowd. Horrified as you watch your radical ideology slowly being crushed by the honest and hard working American people. Must be horrifying for you, you <a href=”RWA’shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism“>RWA’s</a> are all the same. Hate, fear and greed are all you know. I can’t help but pity you.
By Jamison on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Absolutely nothing to the debate? Now I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I provided more evidence to make Ken’s case, while providing an alternative explanation of what is happening, a third way if you will, which should have dovetailed nicely into your argument that there was no conspiracy going on. I helped both side of the argument so how can I be contributing nothing? Wouldn’t contributing nothing mean that I didn’t post at all?
I really like your terminology, pointless and adult. Any point of view that isn’t your own is pointless. I suspect that if you are one of those people that are desperate to fit into the status quo. Angry at everyone that doesn’t want to be with the in crowd. Horrified as you watch your radical ideology slowly being crushed by the honest and hard working American people. Must be horrifying for you, you RWA’s are all the same. Hate, fear and greed are all you know. I can’t help but pity you.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Jamison,
I added links to laws, bills, and House Reports to show that members of Congress know exactly what’s going on regarding Iran. I added information on what the dolts in the media aren’t reporting, and the fact that they were all alternative views. Not only that, I didn’t critique them for content (other than adding something these authors may not have thought of) and gave those who read this thread the opportunity to find out for themselves. And despite these links and additional information, you said:
It leads me to believe you didn’t read one thing I linked to or tried to do as I suggest, Google “Iran Freedom Support Act”. Add the fact that you did nothing but regurgitate old news and not proof of an imminent attack, also leads me to believe that you aren’t serious about debating this at all; just spew venom.
By ken grandlund on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL- Thanks for the links to the legislation. I have scanned them all and would like to point out that some of this stuff is pretty long and in-depth. I don’t suppose that you recognize the concept that many legislators don’t actually read the entire contents of that on which they vote. So while these bits of legislation have been approved by the congress, I am under no illusion that each who voted knows the entire contents or ramifications of what they voted for. I seriously doubt that a majority of those who voted to approve this intended for these to be a precursor to serious military actions against Iran. Mostly, the legislation is a bunch of bloviated banter about ‘promoting democracy, assisting local groups, et al.’ Never mind that these ideas are failing miserably in Iraq. Don’t these folks ever learn anything from their actions? In theroy, supporting democratic reforms is great, I am all for it, but it can’t be force fed or bought at the tip of a missile.
There is also language in these bills about not sellling military technology to Iran, but as Steve O’s post yesterday points out, we’re not exactly stopping that from happening, even if the parts mentioned were for repairs to existing technology. You can’t have it both ways.
I find interesting in HR 6198 the following: It should be the policy of the United States not to bring into force an agreement for cooperation with the government of any country that is assisting the nuclear program of Iran or transferring advanced conventional weapons or missiles to Iran unless the President has determined that– (and then some conditions regarding nuclear suspension in Iran are listed.) Funny though how we continue to do business with China and Russia, two countries who quite likely are aiding Iran in their nuclear quest in some overt or subvert manners. Yet we still play nice with them. More hypocrisy if you ask me.
At any rate, I said I hope to be wrong about this SteveIL- I just don’t think I am. Conservatives have defended this administration before and been burned. This of course would be more than a burn if it comes to pass.
By SteveIL on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
ken,
Let me just say this. I too hope your wrong that the administration is adding fuel to the fire only in order to launch an attack on Iran. I believe it would be a disaster, politically and militarily. We could absolutely destroy Iran with air power alone, yet what would be accomplished? Then I would be calling for his impeachment.
I’ll add that I’ve been studying Bush’s moves regarding alliances and there’s a lot more nuance to it in many cases that just isn’t being presented by those who are supposedly “in the know”. Like any other President, Bush’s policies haven’t been perfect, and in some cases very incompetent; you’re citing the item presented by Steve O is a perfect example. But in more cases than not, there’s subtlety in who the alliances are with, and with who those allies are neighbors of. They are more politically astute than he’s given credit for. And that is why I don’t believe any kind of attack on Iran is imminent because this kind of action is already known by the government to not be needed.
As far as the movement of Patriots, carrier battle groups and subs into the Persian Gulf area, and even having an admiral in charge of the military forces, this is a smart move militarily, and for defensive reasons (or counteroffensive reasons if Iran stupidly attacks our forces). Like I said, I hope your wrong about the US launching an attack on Iran, and not because I would then be wrong, but that it would truly bad for America.