Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 11:56 AM
Original message
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran
---snip---

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

---eoe---

http://www.usnews.com:80/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. #7
7. The concurrent timing of #'s 1 and 2. That's a bit scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. #8 the end of Bush's term in office
He has about 300 days to go until his term is up. If he is going to do anything it's going to happen soon.

Plus he has a great cover screen to get things in place. While we watch Hill v. Obama, Spitzer, et all he can move and stage with impunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R! This is some scary shit, no doubt.
How does a full-blown war with Iran affect the November elections? If one of our carriers gets sunk, all bets are off. The way this nation turns mean, it will be President McCain, riding a-bombs down into Tehran, ala Slim Pickens. I just have a really bad feeling about all of this...

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Do let me know how you plan to fight this war with no army.
Ours is stretched to the breaking point. Our soldiers are committing suicide. Our officers are leaving. We have NO MONEY to buy replacement parts or anything else.

Don't you think Bush would have taken out Iran over a year ago if he could have? He has a Master Plan, after all. An American Empire to create.

You all seem to think this is still the America Bush took control of in 2000. It isn't.

If Bush nukes Iran? Iran still has a fresh and properly-equipped army which will be very angry. Did you check the maps? It's a big place.

ISRAEL TOLD BUSH THEY WOULDN'T DO HIS DIRTY WORK AND YOU TRANSLATE THAT AS AN ASSURANCE THEY'LL DO IT TOGETHER? Biased, much? Anti-semitic to the bone, much?

Hysterical, wing-flapping, Chicken Little idiocy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lutefisk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "Chicken Little idiocy?" How about Chicken Hawk idiocy?



Lest we all forget, the people with the ultimate decision making authority are criminally insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. That is a stupidly silly simplification.
Is it really necessary for us to be their perfect target? They say, BOO! We fly screeching into the boughs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Exactly. Iran would be a suicide mission.
You brought up a good point too - how do you fight a war with an army that is overloaded? We cant even finish the job we started (whatever that is) in Iraq. What makes our government think we can do it again? are they fucking nuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. you push a button.
that guy who follows the president everywhere he goes has 'the football' and with one word and code verification can launch 1-10,000 nukes any time day or night. After that, the draft starts overnight and we militarize the country. Severe- yes, doubtful- yes, possible- yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I'm pretty sure they already told him NO on that one.
And NO, the draft does NOT start "overnight." Because Georgie would have done it long ago if it was that simple.

What the Republicans are trying to do is keep up the sense of danger and threat because they have absolutely nothing else to run on.

The solution is relatively easy. They say threat, we say three trillion dollars, banks failing, Americans losing their homes, gas $4, food unaffordable.

It's the economy, stupid. And they have no solutions. (Except privatization, already an expensive failure.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. I feel a draft in here.
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 02:32 PM by KamaAina
Somebody please close the war.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. They want WWIII
:nuke: before they leave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. More saber-rattling is my bet (and hope)...
They're *this close* to getting Iraq to sign that oil deal...

They want Iran to respect it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Fallon falls: Iran should worry By Gareth Porter
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak01.html


WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon's request to quit his position as head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) and to retire from the military was apparently the result of a George W Bush administration decision to pressure him to resign.

<snip>

Fallon's policy positions made him unpopular among neo-conservative supporters of the administration. One neo-conservative pundit, military specialist Max Boot, criticized Fallon last November for his public comment ruling out a strike against Iran and then suggested in January that Petraeus should replace the "unimpressive" Fallon at CENTCOM.

Fallon was playing a complex political game at CENTCOM by crossing the White House on the two most politically sensitive issues in Middle East policy. As a veteran bureaucratic infighter, he knew that he was politically vulnerable. Nevertheless, he chose late last year not to lower his profile but to raise it by cooperating fully with the Esquire article.

IPS has learned that Fallon agreed to sit for celebrity photographer Peter Yang at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa on December 26 for the Esquire spread, despite the near-certainty that it would exacerbate his relations with the White House. That may have been a signal that he already knew that he would not be able to continue to play the game much longer and was ready to bring his stormy tenure at CENTCOM to an end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. # 10? The cutting of many underseas communication cables isolating Iran.
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 02:31 PM by BushDespiser12
An experiment in preparation of the real deal.

Not advocating the following site, but throwing it out there to peruse: http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/ConnectingTheDots.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
15. AWAKE!
Democrats AWAKE!
I started protesting the Iraq war on 9-12-01:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
16. #11 Iran opened it's Oil Bourse last month and has stopped accepting dollars for their oil.
The reason those cables were cut was to delay it's opening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnowGoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. Military engagement could help McCain
It seems to me that while you and I might feel that unpopular military entanglements argue against electing a hawk, others might try to sell the argument: "It doesn't matter how we got into it, now that we're in it, we need an experienced military man in a 'time of war'".

Not too dissimilar from the argument they're making for staying in Iraq.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC