Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?

[NightWatcher]

by Dan Hamburg
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/25/8529/

Now the Bush administration is preparing to drop the other shoe. Below are some of the indications that a U.S. military attack on Iran is imminent:

The March 11 resignation of CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon who, according to a well-publicized Esquire magazine article, “openly opposed Bush’s Iran policy and was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.”

The recent removal of Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem, Commander of the 6th Fleet (Mediterranean Sea), also known to be a critic of the administration’s war plans.

Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon last month. According to US News & World Report, “The United States would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of a military action against Iran.”

The Israeli air strike against Syria last September was advertised as an attack on a nuclear facility. Current speculation is that the real purpose of the raid was to “force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses.” Knowing the electronic signatures of these systems would reduce the risks for U.S. and Israeli warplanes heading to Iranian targets.

Israel conducted its largest military exercises ever beginning the week of April 6. This exercise simulated missile strikes from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. (Note: Both 9/11 and the London subway bombing of 7/7/07 occurred simultaneous by with military and/or civil defense exercises.)

One day after a March visit from Vice President Cheney, the Saudi government announced “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom.” This announcement came following warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s nearby Bushehr nuclear reactors.

Since this story was posted, David Petraeus has been promoted (nominated) to the head of Centcom, where he would be in charge of running the next leg of the war

[bdamomma]

1. this must be stopped period.

I don't know what to say anymore, this administration is out of control. And killing people means nothing to them.

[sam sarrha]

4. what do you expect from a bunch of Obsessive Compulsive Psychopathic Cleptocrats..??

[lutefisk]

14. Congress should have dealt with these criminals long ago

The corporate media has enabled the Bush Regime, but Congress has a legal responsibility to address the crimes committed by the Regime. WTF is wrong with them? The only safeguard left is the people, and that's not going to happen, either.

[warren pease]

26. Rather than addressing BushCo crimes...

... the cowards, enablers, connivers and war profiteers in the House, under the amazingly clueless "leadership" of the craven, complicit Ms. Nancy, are planning to give these psychotics another huge infusion of borrowed cash to fund various wars, skirmishes and covert destabilization ops throughout the Middle East.

But it could be worse; it's only $170 billion this time and the great news is that this modest sum will keep the Iraq occupation going through 2009.

There was some speculation that House democrats, emboldened by their ability to delay their inevitable cave-in on telecom immunity and a Columbia free trade agreement (another transparent Bushie lie to provide an excuse for staging US troops right next door to that demon socialist, anti-oligarch and land reformer Hugo Chavez), would test their newly implanted spines by denying any further funding for Iraq or Iran or Syria or whoever the hell is in the bomb sights this week.

That turns out to be hogwash, however, as the House leadership hurried to assure their massuhs in the white house that the last thing in the world they'd want to do is piss off the ruling junta by showing a little independence by cutting off their allowances.

As one report noted, "...Pelosi aides and allies have been quick to say that antiwar activists should not believe that because of the two earlier victories, Pelosi will stop a vote on war funding...."

Those damn anti-war activists... their silly little idealistic crusades are always getting in the way of realpolitik and the war profits machine.

Oh, there's never a dull moment with this bunch. Every time you think BushCo can't get any more outrageous without provoking some push-back from Congress, they just up the ante and laugh their asses off as Congress stumbles all over itself to show the proper amount of subservience and make it clear to the American people that, yup, they still really, REALLY support the troops -- and their right to get killed or maimed for ExxonMobil and the rest of those patriotic scalpers selling $4 per gallon gas.

But there's one good thing about this coming Iran operation. Nukes are basically war on the cheap, so the Iran bombing campaign won't add too much to the zillions of dollars in funny money these swine deal in -- now that real money, formerly expressed in dollars, is just a sad reminder of better days.

Still, it's a really great day when you can combine mass slaughter and radiation poisoning with fiscal responsibility.


wp

[dkofos]

2. I would bet money on it.

The GOP need it to win the election.

[ChicagoRonin]

18. Would it work?

What would be the results of a preemptive strike by the US on Iran?
9/11 is still a rallying point for Neo-Crazies and the phony Patriotic, but it isn't as fresh now as it was when the attacks were launched on Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention that the US military is in a less tenable position to sustain prolonged conflict. Would the American people really march in lockstep with administration policy? Or maybe it wouldn't matter, as everyone's too preoccupied with their own financial situation? Or would the attack possibly trigger the mother of all disasters: a wave of terrorist blowback, soaring oil prices, severed food supply lines, disrupted trade?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Both of our candidates should speak up NOW and be crystal clear that there is NO

Congressional authorization for this, nor will there be.

[leftchick]

22. Hillary appears to vote with the neocons in an Iran strike.

First the K-L amendment and now her saying on GMA that Iran will be "annihilated"if they attack Israel. Just like a cheer leading neocon. :puke:

[seemslikeadream]

5. There is a reason why my flag is upside down

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Illegal action

but Bush won't care. He needs to be indicted for war crimes and tried for them. And he doesn't want me on the jury.

[niyad]

7. I will only be surprised if there isn't one in the next few months.

[spanone]

8. it is imo...congress must step in and stop this madness

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3206752

[sam sarrha]

12. yea sure... i wont bet on it... i will bet on them using the catastrophe to stop the election..

[bdamomma]

9. Should we be calling our Reps on this????

This cannot happen. I just fired off an e-mail to Biden, I just don't know so much shit is hitting the fan now.

[Hydra]

10. Bet on it

They've wanted to do this for months now, but they keep getting screwed up by things like the NIE. Consider this to be an "all systems go" moment.

[leeroysphitz]

11. An attack has been "imminent" for years now.

I remember a year or two ago when GD was full of almost daily posts telling everyone just how many carrier groups were in the Gulf, how may were in route, etc... My favorites tho were the long time DU'ers who, time and again, had personally received "insider" info that the attack would start within 36 hours or by JUNE of whatever year... or some such.

[NightWatcher]

13. I hope your right, but the time crunch (pre Nov election) has me nervous

I hope this is all just smoke and BS. I cant wait for the day when a sane person is in charge of this country

[Zywiec]

15. You're exactly right.

Everyone has the shortest memories. There have been these imminent attack predictions in:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

and now 2008

Only a few more months for the imminent attack.

[Crabby Appleton]

16. yep nt

[TheWatcher]

17. Thank God we have smug, reasonable people like you to keep us in line with reality.

I can get back to feeling good now and know everything is fine and nothing will ever happen.

And when this out of control administration finally does pull the trigger as they have intended to all along, I'll still know it's all fallacy, because you'll be here to calm me with claims that it doesn't exist, and it's really just an uprising of The Easter Bunny.

An attack HAS been imminent for years. They have been planning painstakingly to put the pieces into place. All you need do is look at the latest chain of events, and it is clear the only thing left to do is for the administration to say "Go!"

A better question for everyone to ask at this point is, judging from what they have done, what we know, the chain of events that have taken place that mirror exactly what has been done before previous to a major military action is why the Hell WOULDN'T they now?

Who and what is going to stop them?

Themselves. And that's about it.

I don't have any confidence that they will back down now.

But I know, I know, I just need to get back to reality and feel good, and completely ignore all the signs. Because it's crystal clear fact that if they have not done it by now it will NEVER happen.

[leeroysphitz]

25. You sounded like Dirty Harry just then. n/t

[spin]

19. Watch for a "False Flag" operation....

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag

History of American False Flag Operations:
http://911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html

Many people feel the current Iraq conflict was launched for oil.

I suspect that the war was conducted to obtain bases in Iraq so that we could conduct a war against Iran. Things didn't quite go as planned, but Bush still has time.

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

[NeedleCast]

20. No More So Than in The Other 1000 Threads about Imminent Attack

[dysfunctional press]

21. could cheney launch an attack after the election but before the inauguration?

i don't think there's any kind of historical precedent- but there hasn't been one for most of what this mis-administration has done.

[JDPriestly]

23. Two additional points: The baiting of Iranians into violence by

the shots fired from a ship under contract to our government, and the distraction or diversion of the press's and world's attention to the controversy over just what the nature was of the Syrian facility that was bombed.

I am not a football fan, but I have noticed that he Bushies think they are smart by handling their propaganda and war on the American people as if they were playing football. They feign passes. The whole Syria thing is a feigned pass. Oh, look over here at Syria. Meanwhile they are plotting aggressive acts toward Iran. I don't like Iran, but I don't want war with them at this time either. We haven't done well in Iraq. Why should we take on Iran? This is not smart at all. Besides, it is unconstitutional for the president to incite a war with another nation because the president and then force the Congress to declare war. That is what is going to happen here.

[spinbaby]

24. I think Iran is a red herring

I'm betting they go after Syria.

[NNN0LHI]

27. Nope. Venezuela is next