#8 - Ongoing campaign of baseless accusations about Iran's proxy war in Iraq, orchestrated by the Pentagon.

I believe the Americans will have to tip their hand by having their Iraqi forces, mercenaries, and support services go into full force protection mode before the onset of hostilities.

One consequence of an attack on Iran may be the loss of America's occupation forces in Iraq. Disrupting US supply lines from Kuwait will render widely distributed US forces vulnerable to "insurgent" activity and give Iran plausible deniability for involvement even as the Iranian Republican Guards foment Iraqi turmoil.

The present "peace" in Iraq is more a result of Iranian refusal to give the US an excuse to attack Iran by reining in Shiite insurgents than any meaningful improvement of US efforts.

By using Iraqi or Hamas proxies,Iran will also deny Israel or Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia an excuse to widen the conflict although Dick Cheney is no doubt attempting to foment as much support as possible for US shit-disturbing.

Even if he really wants to, Bush would have to find the troops to do it, the money to do it, and authorization from Congress to it. All of those seem like impossible tasks, given the current political and economic climate of the United States.

quote:

---

Nister wrote:
#7 - Internet loss to Iran and Syria caused by undersea cable damage.

---

On the cables:
The sequence and locations were improbable, but not so much that we can completely rule out coincidence. And even if there was common cause to two or more of the cuts, there are more plausible theories than infrastructure attacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
I hope you're right about Israel, Jester..but make no mistake; when the F-16i was conceived, the mission was already planned. History since 1997 has considerably upped the stakes for the IDF. Who would have seriously contemplated Russia throwing their lot in with Iran, back then? Who foresaw China signing huge oil deals with Iran? Would anyone have believed China could savage the US economy in retaliation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Given that the US -- Congress included -- is feeling trapped in Iraq (damned if you leave, damned if you stay), and is struggling with troops shortages to maintain their current deployment levels, how is it possible for them to invade Iran?

Even if he really wants to, Bush would have to find the troops to do it, the money to do it, and authorization from Congress to it. All of those seem like impossible tasks, given the current political and economic climate of the United States.

---

Dubya and his cabal don't give a damn about Iranian response. What they desire is to foment unrest in order to justify military expansionism under the guise of the "war on terror" canard they have been spoon feeding the American public.

Osama and Dubya and, to some extent,Amadinejad are feeding off each other and enabling each other. Without 9/11, Bush and co. could never have lifted the Iraqi invasion. Without American agression, Osama and Amadinejad won't be able to rally the believers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Dubya and his cabal don't give a damn about Iranian response. What they desire is to foment unrest in order to justify military expansionism under the guise of the "war on terror" canard they have been spoon feeding the American public.

---

quote:

---

Where would he get the troops for a new war? The US military is already over-extended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
Iran's invasion of Iraq is not contemplated, even after air strikes by Israel and/or the US.

---

quote:

---

Where would he get the troops for a new war? The US military is already over-extended.

---

Ground forces are over-extended.There are no troops left. At any rate,a ground assault is not contemplated. Any assault on Iran by the US will be from naval platforms, B2 bombers direct from Whiteman AFB,Missouri or B52 bombers from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Don't underestimate the capacity of neo-con loons like Dick Cheney to take a final swipe at Iran before their term runs out. They will manufacture consent and bypass Congress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Ground forces are over-extended.There are no troops left. At any rate,a ground assault is not contemplated. Any assault on Iran by the US will be from naval platforms, B2 bombers direct from Whiteman AFB,Missouri or B52 bombers from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

---

As I wrote above, it seems like an aerial strike on Iran would precipitate a ground war in Iraq.

quote:

---

Don't underestimate the capacity of neo-con loons like Dick Cheney to take a final swipe at Iran before their term runs out. They will manufacture consent and bypass Congress.

---

Time will tell who's right here, but I am very skeptical. The Iraq invasion was clearly visible for almost a year in advance. It took them that long to set up the casus belli, and do a little UN dance to try to get some semblance of legitimacy for the action. All the signs were there; the rhetoric was the same as what you see in advance of most unprovoked military actions in history.

For Iran, it isn't there. There has been only sabre rattling, the same as we have seen for decades with North Korea, who the US would never even think about invading. The '6 signs' in the main article are circumstantial, not anything like the very clear intent we saw before the last conflict.

And manufacturing the consent of Congress can't be done unless the American people are on your side. That's how he got Iraq: he made Representatives and Senators afraid to face down the pro-war sentiment in their own constituencies (that cowardice has come back to haunt many, such as Ms Clinton). But now, Bush has lost the American people. He's exhausted the full coffers of political capital he received from 9/11.

There's some irony here. As a result of Bush invading Iraq over nuclear weapons they didn't have, he is now effectively powerless against Iran who may be very close to developing them.

The biggest threat Iran has to worry about is that Europe will agree to harsh sanctions against it, which again is ironic because Bush so badly damaged relations with the Europeans figuring he didn't really need them for anything.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
"...
On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited "a high-ranking security source: "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran."

According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said "that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future."

The chief of Russia's general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not "obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans."

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
... The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22, the day following Cheney's visit with the kingdom's rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council 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

---

I think Obama has a better idea of the wrongness of discretionary mass murder, e.g. attacking Iran.

I had thought that the notion of attacking Iran was dead-in-the water after that National Intelligence Estimate (December 2007) was released...

I'm not convinced that the U.S. is about to launch a major assault (air strikes) on Iran, but if it does then I think we've reached a tipping point into utter insanity the depth of which the world has never known.

Maybe we passed that point a long time ago...

Things seem to be moving so fast that it is hard to keep track; we are on this geopolitical roller coaster ride where presidential candidates lie about being under sniper fire or Obama confronts racism in America by putting a lid on it.

Just this week, I'm watching Bush cheer on Nouri al-Maliki's fighters scrap with Muqtada al-Sadr's militia...as if this is a positive sign or in Bush's own words a "defining moment".

The consensus on the left seems to be that Iran is getting stronger in Iraq and I profoundly fear some kind of showdown in order to reverse this.

quote:

---

The day the US declared war on Iran
By John McGlynn

March 20 is destined to be another day of infamy. On this date this year, the US officially declared war on Iran. But it's not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.

No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W Bush from the White House. In fact, on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran's native language) that their government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people". But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be 'firm'."

Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran "threat" was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon's website (on March 20) was: "Bush lauds military's performance in terror war", a feel-good piece about the president's appearance on the US military's TV channel to praise "the performance and courage of US troops engaged in the global war on terrorism". Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa, but not Iran.

But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran. So who made it official?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I'm certainly not saying that Israel won't be an assistant or enabler to the Great Satan, just that they are smart enough to let the genius take the fall.

---

Well, Israel stayed neutral during the operation "Iraqi freedom" of '03.
People predicted that they might strike Iraq or that Hussein would strike them as Bush's proxyies

quote:

---

The turf war in the Iraqi Shi'ite regions has several templates. Iraq's future as a unitary state; the parameters of acceptable federalism, if any; attitude towards the US; control of oil wealth; overvaulting political ambitions - all these are intertwined features of a complex matrix. Therefore, the fragility of the newfound peace is all too apparent. Tehran will be justified in estimating that it is prudent to wait and watch whether peace gains traction in the critical weeks ahead.

But the most important Iranian calculation would be not to provoke the Americans unnecessarily by rubbing in the true import of what happened. Tehran would be gratified that in any case it has made the point that it possesses awesome influence within Iraq. Anyone who knows today's anarchic Iraq would realize that triggering a new spiral of violence in that country may not require much ingenuity, muscle power or political clout.

---

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:53am BST 05/04/2008

British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.

quote:

---

"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan.

There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."

---

quote:

---

...military analyst Kimberly Kagan

---

As if......