Pre-election attack on Iran imminent

[Windy]

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent
By Wayne Madsen

According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.

In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.

Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something that must be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause.

MORE AT LINK ABOVE

[troublemaker]

1. Please Stop Posting This Bogus Story

[Windy]

6. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was bogus!

I just found it on the net. Thought it was important to read. Why do you think its bogus? Just curious

[troublemaker]

7. Fair Enough. It's been posted here many times, but if

you hadn't seen it before it's provocative.

Every week there are shocking news stories published in India or Jerusalem or Lebanon or jihad-net or god knows where else that 1) would be the biggest story in the world if true, and 2) attract no interest whatsoever in the larger world of journalists.

Always keep in mind that even if one accepts that the American media will not cover some things there are plenty of legit European journalists who would. If this story was true it would be everywhere. And if this was truly the buzz among Washington insiders it would be all over the place here.

[Windy]

9. Wayne Madsen, who wrote this article is an American

and former NSA member.

In all seriousness, do you think that lends itself to the credibility of the piece?

[sendero]

2. I don't give a crap...

... what "polling" says - if they do this it *will* backfire. I don't think even they are that damn stupid.

The wag-the-dog scenario is not going to work for them.

[Maiden England]

3. OMG is he trying to start WWIII??????

[renegade000]

4. well hes got about a week left to do it

i don't think thats enough time...

[madmax]

5. Anything is possible with these war mongers

Attack another country like the world is the wild west and these cowboys are out to conquer new frontiers. Even for this bunch it sounds extreme. More opinions appreciated.

[Blackrain]

11. This is scary

The possibility of this plan materializing is very probable. Based on the track record of this current admiinstration nothing is to extreme or out of bounds. Cultivating fear is the only tactic that Karl Rove has left. And he's using that fear to perpetuate the right wings imperialistic policies.

[Chomskyite]

8. I pray he's wrong, but Madsen's no crackpot

From his bio at http://www.kuci.uci.edu/~dtsang/subversity/pr020716.htm

Wayne Madsen is the Washington correspondent for intelligence Online. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, In These Times, CovertAction Quarterly, and Counterpunch. Mr. Madsen is the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (Mellen Press) and The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (Macmillan).

Mr. Madsen has some twenty years experience in national security and intelligence matters. He has worked for the Naval Telecommunications Command, National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mr. Madsen is a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC.

[Windy]

10. oops, I didn't see this post...sorry

So do you all think that this article has some credibility then? Should we be concerned?

To be honest with you, I wouldn't put anything past these people and they are certainly not dominating the polls. (thank goodness)

[Bucky]

18. Tell ya what, Windy. If nothing comes of this, you'll know to quit tinfoil

If it pans out, you'll owe us all a big "I toldja so".

[RivetJoint]

19. I guess we'll know if he's a crackpot

in about a week, eh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Using Israel as a surrogate - then taking credit.

I think there is a probability of this happening. Israel is very nervous about Iran and Sharon wouldn't hestitate if he knew he had Washington's backing.

Then it's just a matter of Bush looking solemn and praising Israel as our brave partner in the "war on terror" and for taking necessary action. And, no American casualties.

Throw in a bunch of flags, some commentary by stern looking generals, and the poodle media, a few rousing choruses of "God Bless America" and "Hava Nageela", and it's Bush infesting the White House for the next four years...or until he's impeached.

[steve2470]

13. Has this story completely died ?

just curious, for such a bombshell-like story, it's been real quiet

[d_b]

14. Even if the story was legit

A premtive strike on Iran would most certainly have the opposite effect: Bush would be done.

[steve2470]

15. Truth About This: How do We find out ?

n/t

[RivetJoint]

17. Well, you'll know in eight days,

if it's true or not, wont' you?

[steve2470]

25. yes, true, ugh

n/t

[MadHound]

16. Sorry, but this would be political suicide for Bush

Too many fence sitters are pissed with him lying the US into war in Iraq. A pre-emptive attack on Iran would drive these folks into the Kerry camp, and Bushco knows it. No, Iran is safe until after the election. However, if Bush wins, Iran is going down. Read your PNAC and learn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. As written the story is complete BS

"Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs"; that would be political suicide for Bush. Assassination of civilians - in religious places to boot? He could get away with targetting Saddam, after years of UN resolutions, and all the propaganda about WMD and terrorists; he is in no position to do the same to Iranian leaders now.

The idea that the US would go to the trouble of transporting 18 defence ministers (mainly from small countries) to the Arabian Gulf for a secret meeting is laughable. If the US had plans like this, it would just use ambassadors to tell them what they're doing.

Wayne Madsen has been completely wrong on stories in the past. He is on this one, and will be again.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. I think the story below is a better assessment of the situation in Iran

US not ready to rock the boat

Oct 23, 2004

In the past few weeks, Washington has altered its tone on the issue of Iran's nuclear development program. The present policy, instituted with the inauguration of the George W Bush administration, began with tough treatment of Iran, labeling the country a "rogue state" and a potential subject for "regime change". Yet, due to the drain on US resources brought by the unexpected instability in Iraq, the Bush administration has been forced to moderate its tone on the Islamic republic.

The change in the administration's tone was evident by recent statements from Bush administration officials that the US would consider offering incentives to Iran to convince it to abandon its desire to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle and to comply with United Nations demands. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained the change in policy, commenting, "We are going to hear from the Europeans on the work they have been doing on how to get the Iranians to comply." That being said, however, Boucher did not retreat from the official Bush administration line of exercising Article 41 of the UN Charter, which would refer the Iranian nuclear question to the UN Security Council for the possibility of placing international economic sanctions on Iran. Boucher repeated that Washington's goal is to "move this matter to the Security Council".

The Bush administration fears that Iran's desire to control the nuclear fuel cycle is grounded in a covert quest for nuclear weapons. The danger to the US of a nuclear-armed Iran is that Tehran would be in a better position to take actions contrary to US interests in the region by altering the regional balance of power.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ23Ak04.html

[Dem2theMax]

22. I wouldn't put anything past this administration. BUT,

I think this would prove to the 'other half' of the country that what 'we' have been saying about * for the past four years is the truth. Seeing 'four more wars' come to life, realizing that there is NO way to do that without the draft, realizing that * and company will stop at nothing to get what THEY want, not what this country needs, I call it political suicide.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

23. More on this possiblilty...

On 15 July 2004 William S. Lind suggested that "an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction President George W. Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

[RivetJoint]

24. Eight days and counting...