November 20, 2004
Everyone Wonders "Who Next?"
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |I know all of you have been wondering and worrying which regime Bush is going to go after next. Well I have a feeling it will be Iran. Certainly Iran has been "on the table," but there are some alarming signs.
Paul McGeough from the Sydney Morning Herald speculated on November 5, 2004 that Bush Win Puts US on Collision Course with Iran:
These two countries are on a new collision course - this time over the conviction by Washington and others that Tehran is covertly developing weapons in tandem with a nuclear energy program which the Iranian leadership insists is civilian and purely peaceful.
Then, on 11/15/04 there was some sign of hope as it was reported that the IAEA was satisfied that Iran was willing to stop it uranium enrichment program. Then an outgoing Powell made his final loyalty stand to say that Iran was a threat, and he didn't believe that they would stop their nuclear ambitions. Good soldier to the end, or just making up?. Whichever, now Bush seems back on the back on a confrontation track.
But all of that aside, Israel may be in collusion on the collision. Israel has been openly issuing threats and leaking plans for most of the year about preemptively attacking Iran. The logic is the same as Israel's attack on Iraq facilities - removing the "threat" to Israel. On 11/19/04 DEBKAfiles released their analysis - To Destroy Iran's Nuclear Bomb Program, 350 Targets Must Be Hit.
In what became familiar rhetoric to legitimate Bush's invasion of Iraq, DEBKAfiles starts off with: "No one familiar with Iran's record of broken promises on its hidden nuclear weapons program will be surprised by the allegations leveled against Tehran this week".
They then continue:
On Wednesday, November 17, outgoing US secretary of state Colin Powell said to reporters during a South American tour: US has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons. “I have seen information that they not only have the missiles but are working hard to put the two together.”The highly classified, unverified information Powell referred to was described in more detail by the Washington Post the next day: According to one official with access to the material, a “walk-in” source approached US intelligence earlier this month with more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to delivery an atomic strike. The warhead design is based on implosion and adjustments aimed at fitting the warhead on existing Iranian missiles.
DEBKAfile’s military experts believe the data referred to the Shehab-3 and its improved version, the Shehab-4.
They end their report with:
According to our sources, US officials involved in the Iranian nuclear issue have no doubt that the installations were not destroyed but removed to secret subterranean sites probably built under military bases scattered around the country and that the Iranians are industriously advancing their forbidden programs.Five months later, we have discovered one of those clandestine destinations to be the Nour “nuclear suburb” of Tehran.
I read this report with a growing sense of alarm. First, is the Israeli targeting of 350 sites in Iran - including suspect "suburbs". That means targeting residential areas. And you can believe that if Israel has them "targeted," then so does the US. Secondly, was the alleged hiding of nuclear materials and production in "subterranean" facilities. Unless the US has given "bunker busting" nukes developed by the US to Israel, then one might guess who would be bombing such sites.
I can foresee a scenario where Israel launches a preemptive attack on Iran, which will most certainly result in retaliation - at least Iran has threatened to retaliate. The US would then be bound to join the conflict for three reasons. One, to "protect" Israel. Two, the conflict is just too close to Iraq and is likely to stimulate more negative reaction there. Three, because the neo-cons want to and are just trying to concoct a reason to follow their desires.
Posted by rowan at November 20, 2004 05:45 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |I hadn't seen the Israeli report, and a share your sense of forboding.
Also, there are the recent statements lame-duck Sec. of State Powell uttered a couple of days ago, to the effect that Iran is playing with the right nuke payload/warhead combination with which to make its own Weapons of Mass Etc.
I guess allowing Israel to lead the charge would also allow Bushco the luxury of holding off the draft for a couple months more...
Posted by: loid at November 20, 2004 08:09 AMI couldn't understand Colin Powell's statements about Iran. I'm completely speculating, but they felt empty, coerced, or mis-stated.
I don't know what's happened to the pragmatist Powell. Rowan, maybe since shock treatment (have you read the Naomi Klein article in Harpers?) didn't seem to create the perfect corporate Utopia in Iraq, they're going to give it a whirl in Iran.
Posted by: Pamela at November 20, 2004 10:41 AMSometimes I really wonder at the obtuseness here. OF COURSE IRAN IS IN THE CROSSHAIRS. That was the unspoken subtext of the campaign. Kerry was going to start pulling out within 6 months, while Bush would continue to use Iraq as a springboard to pressure Iran. That was one of the main reasons I could not support Kerry: he would never have the balls to take on Iran.
Iran and Syria are going to be democracies before this is through. It may be sooner or later. It may come from uprisings within or help from without. But one way or another, we have put a corrosive democracy on their doorsteps. They are fighting for their lives because they know they cannot maintain their tryannies with a free press and capitalist Iraq broadcasting and sending goods and influence over their boarders. They must see Iraq fail. This isn't all about Iraq. It's also about the future of the Iranian and Syrian regimes. That's why they are so committed to snuffing democracy in its cradle.
WE ARE GOING TO DEMOCRATIZE AND TRANSFORM THE REGION.
That has always been the goal. It has always been necessary. Quit mistaking pretexts for reasons and start reading between the lines.
Sheesh!
Posted by: Bushrod at November 20, 2004 11:44 AMWhere's the "obtuseness" Bushrod? Maybe it's obtuse to you, but I feel perfectly clear. Your tone continually offends me.
And you coming on here as if it's imbecilic to suggest that Bush didn't make it perfectly clear during his campaign that he was ripe for invading any sovereign nation that doesn't adhere to his mandate of democracy. What's the definition of democracy? What we want for everyone else so we can continue to pursue unbridled accumulation of wealth for a particular percentage of our privileged population? I'd suggest that the necessity of this is some sort of unsupported bias on your behalf.
DEMOCRATIZE, what a joke. What's the meaning of democratize, Bushrod? Fabricate reasons to unilaterally go in and massacre the citizens of another country so that we can appropriate their resources and find new markets for a consumerism that isn't flourishing in our's. Listen to your declaration of democracy in Syria and Libya ... unbelievable arrogance. I'm sure their eager to get on board what with the success in Iraq and all.
Incidentally, you sit their and suggest we should read? Have you read Said, Agamben, Zizek, Foucault, Badiou, Baudrillard, Klein, Bourdieu, shall I continue? Some of the great thinkers of our time? I suggest you take a look at some of their work and spot-on analysis of the US debacle so you can get a handle on the real pretexts Bushrod.
Posted by: Pamela at November 20, 2004 01:18 PMYou know I'm lit up when I misspell "they're" and "there," with their. I think I reverted to one option in my focus to refute Bushrod's arrogance. I can handle a lot of debate and criticism, but I'll never pretend to cowtow to some sort of suggestion that I, or others I respect, "don't get it," or are wandering in some sort of unfocused "la-laland."
The thinkers on this board have generally done a good amount of reading, research and analytical thinking. I would posit that the level of "obtuseness" is relative.
The hypocricy of a declaration of democracy in countries that don't seek it is monumental--A full-on blatant imperialistic, self-serving, oxymoronic comment.
Posted by: Pamela at November 20, 2004 01:32 PMI am getting pretty tired of being insulted on my own site, and having the UTJ community insulted.
Bushrod aka Karl, if you find us beneath you logical and rhetorical standards, please feel free to go post your rants on someone else's site. I feel assaulted enough by the onslaught of policy, activity, and destruction without dealing with your "opinion" of me or those who post here.
Posted by: rowan at November 20, 2004 05:20 PMTo track this topic without leaving a comment enter your email address: