Petraeus Points to War With Iran
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this—and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations—Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
America has gone from being a nation of some sort to a conglomeration of cults and their ideology. It just happens to be that America's foreign policy is mostly in the hands of the best financed and most xenophobic cult of them all. That cult as all cults rule by fear of exclusion and ostracism, and Pat you ought to know about the latter. But since our whole economic system relies on oil and our basic assumptions of life revolve around the myths that progress is linear we are stuck between the rock and the hard place. Bush the Apostate has marched the armies off into the sands and they are not coming back.
Christians were vilified for the crusades over determination of who should dominate over Jerusalem Christians or Muslims, yet we should invade Middle Eastern countries that are percieved as a threat to Israels regional hegemony and no one except Pat, James Petres, etc will hold Israeli first foreign policy to account.
@1D Simmons
Actually the US economic system relies on debt so it would not be wise for the US to forment civil unrest in Tibet through the CIA and front NGO's or sponsership of terrorism in its Xingjing province ( not sure if thats how you spell it correctly) as a large porportion of our loans comes from China especially if we invade Iran. You dont think attacks on Chinese businesses in Lhasa just before the olympic torch was to travel the globe was just a coincidence.
What's crazy is the belief that things will change by inches appropriately prior to the paradigm adjusting among the few. It doesn't even have 'far' to go in that nudge via niggle - tickle-tickle. ... Accurate words of course assist as they always have done. It's not easy.
"As soon as we have the thing before our eyes, and in our hearts [an ear for the word], thinking prospers." - anonymous (i.e. i forget at the moment who wrote it, but it's true & actual.)
Heck lovers irreconcilable (if so) sitting inches away on twin beds have farther to go. Funny. We're young but as we and our world get older, believe it or not, time is on our side. Thought you could use a little good news. Funny. Stay with things - learn to dwell so we can build.
Oh, well... it's a world of inches, a world of degrees. Where we going in such a rush? In the meantime I respect the skating via the intellectual, why not. Good. It all takes TIME and I'd bet that's what it's for. Enjoy, if it's possible. Pain even unfelt defines us.
"It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran." - Pat
Short sharp war with Iran, like with Iraq? Pelosi is evil. Why not? There's no 'good' voice at home. Whores abound.
"The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran’s Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran."
For a long time now I have noticed something about Buchanan's style of writing. He never denies that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is terroristic. He never denies that the Iranians are providing the weapons to murderous terrorists in Iran. He reports the rationale without actually judging it. What does he think the United States should do if the claims are true? Speak, Mr. Buchanan -- what should Bush do? What is Pres. Bush supposed to do if Iranians are doing what General Petraeus says? Silence. Just the bald affirmation at the end that Iran doesn't want war. Of course Iran doesn't want to have to fight a war with the USA, but that doesn't mean that it won't fund militias for as long as it can. North Vietnam didn't "want a war" with the United States, but they still aided and abetted the Viet Cong in the South. What does Buchanan claim to know that Petraeus doesn't, or is lying about? So a ground case is being laid for war -- please analyze that case before dismissing it.
Overall, a cogent analysis, but Petraeus "forcing Bush's hand"? Pat Buchanan must be kidding - Petraeus is reading his lines from the pre-designated script just as he has done all along. And these so-called Iranian trained special groups, do they even exist? Any more than Saddam's WMDs existed? I didn't believe Colin Powell on the WMDs and I don't believe Petraeus on the special groups. Sure someone has been firing rockets at the green zone - probably Iraqi patriots trying to drive the hated foreign US occupiers out of their country.
Why not invade Iran, we are doing such a bang-up job in Iraq?
Does Bush really want to pick a fight with a country 4 times the size of Iraq? He can't handle what he's got on his plate now...What a fool...
"The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone."
In other words, Iranians do good things when they feel threatened with force. Doesn't that point to an American success? I wish that someone would go back and catalogue all of the articles in which Mr. Buchanan said, "Something is afoot" and see what exactly became of it in each instance. I remember during the initial invasion of Iraq he was concerned with the possibility that the American line of supply was too long and was exposed. Turns out that it was no problem at all.
Note: I voted for Buchanan back in 2000. I am just critical of this writing style of his that reports everything in a negative light without going through and actually critiqueing much in detail. He does this in his articles, not his books.
Hey I like this all of my posts get 'considered'... my dream come true - now I can really go off at the mouth. Seriously, thanks! Let's see-?- Hmm recently they printed 1/2 trillion for themselves i.e. $500,000,000,000.00 -
like you're really going to 'catch up' ? Funny. That would be nice but then you & I - we'd be "counterfeiters." But that's a 'level' playing field. Must be in the wrong biz?!?
I kid. I'm looking forward (seriously) very much so to your new book. More so than any of the others. Regards, i somehow know it's the best one.
Caper @ 5
"Note: I voted for Buchanan back in 2000. I am just critical of this writing style of his that reports everything in a negative light without going through and actually critiqueing much in detail. He does this in his articles, not his books."
I am a fan of Pat Buchanan's as well, but I have noticed this tendency in his articles, as well. It makes me wonder if he actually writes his books...
"No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. "
I repeat: obviously the Iranians do not "want" to fight a war with the United States. But that's not the question. The question is whether they currently are aiding and abetting terrorists in Iraq, terrorists who undermine Iraqi sovereignty and murder American soldiers. That sounds like a real justification for war, provided it's true and there's no other way to stop them. If the Iranians could back pro-Iranian militias without being attacked in return, I bet they would. So if the only way to prevent them from doing worse things (provided that Petraeus' claims are accurate, which -- and here's my point -- Buchanan does not deny!) is to threaten them, then threaten away. Who is to say that we are not playing chicken?
Caper,
Petraeus has not bothered to present anything other than his assertions in support of his accusations against Iran. The "evidence" put forward by Gen. Odierno against Iran, Petraeus' number 2, have been the subject to significant criticism. Perhaps Buchanan's point is that, since we have no business being in Iraq, whether Iran is attacking us in Iraq is no basis for war against Iran, either. That may be his unstated point.
But if it's critique of the "Iran connection" there is ample available (assuming your question goes to whether there is a debate on these assertions.) If your intent is simply to critique Buchanan's prosecutorial skills, then I think the point was made at the first post and needn't be repeated.
"If your intent is simply to critique Buchanan’s prosecutorial skills, then I think the point was made at the first post and needn’t be repeated."
That was my point. Thanks, you're right my last post wasn't necessary.
And why would Iran aid and abet "terrorists" to undermine a government which is the most pro-Iranian in the region and which has exchanged warm diplomatic visits with them at the presidential level? And "murder American soldiers"? Since when was killing members of the army of a foreign invader and conqueror "murder"? This is simply mindless parroting of the propaganda line of Bush/Cheney and the neo-con war party. Anyone who opposes them is labelled a "terrorist". What Iran has recently done is broker an at-least temporary peace agreement among Shia factions which have been jockeying for power within Iraq. Iran has also condemned attacks on the green zone, well aware that Iran will be blamed for them no matter who does them.
What I suspect is that the US regime, having realized its mistake in allowing pro-Iranian Shia to come to power in Iraq, is now trying to undo that mistake by arming the Sunni insurgents (prior bad guys suddenly transformed into good guys), setting the Shia against each other (note the recent mysterious assassination of a top Sadrist aide), and blaming the whole mess on Iran to justify an all out war against Iran which the neo-cons have long lusted for. Admiral Fallon, who opposed an attack on Iran, has been removed and perhaps this has also happened to others less well known than him.
The neocons may yet get their new war, and in Pat's memorable phrase (which I dimly recall and can only paraphrase), "the guys doing the dying are non-neocons like McDonald, Ramirez, and Leroy Brown", while the tough-guy neocons fight bravely from their keyboards in Manhattan.
9 out of 10 times my English is decent or OK at the very worst, in spite of my stubborn refusal to use any sort of a spell checker – by the time I activate on of those my thoughts are on the next topic. So, others (and I, too) get to laugh at some of my awkward constructions, lack of punctuations, etc. This time I wanted to double and triple check “VIABLITY” from the following quote of a general whom I respect a great deal: ““Unchecked, the ’special groups’ pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
In my modest understanding of the word viability and the situation in the Middle East, there is no chance in Hell (under the most optimistic circumstances) to come to a point of creating “a democracy” as long as there are warlords, lucrative heroin trade routes, Islam – all antidotes for democracy. So I looked it up according to Merriam-Webster I did get the right meaning. Here it is just for kicks and giggles:
viable
Main Entry:
vi•a•ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈvī-ə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita — more at VITAL
Date:
circa 1832
1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb 2: capable of growing or developing 3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding (2): financially sustainable
— vi•a•bil•i•ty \ˌvī-ə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— vi•a•bly \ˈvī-ə-blē\ adverb
So in closing, short of anything sensible - war it is.
Buchanan often does use the "something is afoot" message, and he's often right.
In "A Republic, Not an Empire" he warned that if we did not begin to bring our troops home and rethink our entire policy in the Arab world, we just might suffer a strike against our homeland. Two years later, in 2001, that happened.
Months before Bush's famous State of the Union address where the war with Iraq became inevitable, Buchanan was warning about us marching to war when most people didn't care to critique the processes of government. He warned of a lot of things about what would happen in Iraq, and a lot of those things came to pass.
And the evidence about why al-Qaeda hates us, much of which came out with the 9/11 report? It has to do with our troop presence on Muslim land and our unyielding support for Israel. Buchanan has been warning this country about maintaining both of those facets for years.
Now he's talking in the same tone as in late 2002, only about Iran instead of Iraq. I think history proves that this guy knows what he's talking about with foreign policy.
After they attack Iran the next target will be Russia. I can see the headlines now"Russia supplies intelligence and hgh tech arms to Iran..blah,blah,blah.
"So in closing, short of anything sensible - war it is." -Iliya
It's amazing to me, that I can agree with everything you say very well indeed spell checker or not. You speak well in English. And yet it is your *conclusion after all at the end of it - I can't help but laugh at. (Thanks it lowers my blood pressure, laughter.)
It's a case of (in your case) from every conclusion comes the [conclusion] except prior comes the alleged 'analysis.' ...
It's as if in the reverse (or as it were, on the Other hand) those who reside in the reality of the M.E. (Middle East) & via their own perspective Islam, they were doing the same thing in behalf of what is necessary for order in their part of the world, as they inevitably must do of course. But then they too concluded (like we do in the reverse) well, war it must be. *But are they in Fact here attacking us daily, like we are them? No. ... You are like them Iliya (and *some of us) without perhaps realizing it. I hope you're satisfied??
The world, worldwide, for many *knowable reasons ain't the same in TIME. (Without realizing it perhaps, you yourself make my point.) You don't see this, do you?
The Christian perspective, (and our religion ain't democratic either, fortunately) suggests to us it's about the essence of each side and where they're at in time (again for many knowable reasons I won't get into here.) ... The 'essence' means who they/we are on Each side in toto, and it's *different and needs to be respected as such by each and all.
Or there will be, as there is now, perpetual war, sir. ... If that is the choice made among the leaders for perpetual war, then frankly speaking that in Fact is the essence of the war monger *per se.
Our leaders currently refuse to see the essence of the Other (and vice versa no doubt.) However it is we who are over there where they live attacking them (simply because we *can. Just like the Romans used to do.) That's NOT *America. ... The Others, our alleged opponents, are not doing that here (except 9/11 if you actually believe camel herders pulled off what only insiders could achieve.) ... But even if they did 9/11 all by their lonesome all ALONE coming off of their camels to pull off the crime of the millennium, still it was in response to what we Do to them where they live and we do that to them all day everyday. Right? Everywhere. Wipe the clouds from your eyes. Don't insult us. We're a little older now and not that consumately stupid any longer.
Iliya this isn't lost in the translation is it? You're capable of at least that much objectivity. No? ... You really are only in Fact speaking in behalf of your own very personalized interest and that of your own sons, and in behalf of the by comparison relative few in your camp, who are over there in the M.E. Right? Then, sir I ask are you yourself a war monger? Do you receive the message herein? Can you?
There is NO defining 'logic' to any of this. In a nutshell we (the U.S.) are militarily in 140 countries around the world and attacking people in the M.E. ... They are NOT here with their forces doing that to us. ... Who then is to 'blame' since you are in so many words (spell checked or not) assigning blame. ... Are you hoping for more insider attacks on the U.S. more false flag attacks so that blame can be more easily assigned. And you then can *justify 'logically' the wars you so transparently crave, in behalf of your own ends? Perhaps not. But if so then are you a war monger?
If so who then is OUR enemy? I ask you Iliya who IS the enemy?
The essence of 'attack' which means attack in toto is, believe it or not, an asking for help. What in hell do you want? More HELL? Then be HONEST - flat out make the case instead for more hell per se. Please. So you see more hell as a prod and the way to greater *spirituality?
Then again you make my point, that perspective or 'belief' (if not you?) is an ANACHRONISM. Please don't make me laugh on the way to hell. Then I won't know the difference. Will I?
#18. The Russians are well aware that they follow Iran on the neo-con hit list and may well do their own pre-emption. Putin assured the ayatollahs that an attack on any Caspian Sea area country by a power outside the Caspian sea area would be considered an attack on all Caspian Sea area countries. A convoluted, diplomatic, but easily decoded way of saying that Russia will consider an attack on Iran by the US to be an attack on Russia.
Nothing New!
Step 1........Crash the economy and destroy the middleclass.
Step 2.........Invite the middleclass to war because there's no jobs.
Step 3.........Invite the Northeasterners to become war profiteers.
Step 4.........Claim that the war saved the economy.
Step 5.........Bury the dead.
Ditto roho. Thanks God at least we're not so consumately stupid we see it this time. Iliya won't answer any of these civilized observations possibly because he's seeing it for the first time himself, or on the other hand, worse. Mossad? But where is my buddy John Press, the culturist, when I need him? Wasn't 'Goebles' (spelling?) a culturalist of sorts? What's that called fighting fire with fire (propaganda.) Let's go to the video tape:
Looking at some other rainbow
I was praying in the dark
You're telling us the same old story
That reality is stark
But when we see you you are GONE
That was a wonderful remark -
I had my eyes closed in the dark.
How could you tell us something
Just to keep us hanging on -
When we see you you are gone. -V.M.
As for us here in the U.S. :
"To this I witness call the fools of time,
Which die for goodness, who have lived for crime." -W.S.
But kids get your [illegal] taxes in today on time. They'll give you a sweetener (a cookie) your $600 rebate.
I.e. pay your taxes, get a check.
Right, same old same old. Good thing we bombed and incinerated 600,000 defenseless women and children in Berlin, during the other good war, or was that Hamburg or both. 'Proud to be an American.'
We just sing about Jesus
And drink wine all day-
It's great to be an American! -R.N.
Thank you, Mr Buchanan, for blowing the whistle on this neocon scam. I am quite certain that your article is widely read. The neocons are obviously hell-bent on bombing Iran. This must be stopped, if possible. Bombing Iran would be terrible crime on the Iranian people and a tragedy for the rest of the world.
Jack, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. I just gave a short laundrly list of factors that lead nowhere else but into a military confrontation (war). Under the risk of repeating myself I shall take out only those key factors which inevitably lead to war (in years passed, as well as present time) which have been a constant assurance of impending doom (war). Our only unknown elemen is the scope of the next war - any one of them can spread and practically always be greater - rather than lesser. Therein lie a fear of a more global war (world war). The factors leading up to our own demise can be found here in the US but a gread deal more readily in the M.E.:
"as long as there are warlords, lucrative heroin trade routes, Islam – all antidotes for democracy."
Factors that lead to war (no matter where on Earth it is:
a) Islam
b) warlords, private armies, paramilitaries
c) quick source of income by illicit trade (white slavery, drugs, black market of one kind or another)
d) Lack of infrastructure (roads, phones, indoor plumbing, media, etc.)
Yes it sounds silly that lack of indoor plumbing may lead to war, but some people would rather have use of a good bathroom than a cell phone.
An awful lot of people get very grumpy in lack of indoor plumbing and their irritability may incite others towards attaining some other goals by force. God forbid they had enough shoulder launched missiles, IEDs, and other similar goodies in a demographically unstable region where two or three sects of Islam are infighting for centuries - hence, war it is.
When optimistic analyses compared the Iraq aftermath to that of Germany before the invasion they forgot to mention that Germany already had major industries that could be incorporated into the post war economy, an educated business class and the majority of its population single ethnic heritage the same can be said for Japan. Iraq did have an educated business class but have long left and with Turkey invading the North doesn't help, makes the Iraqi leadership look week.
With Iraq eventually costing $3 trillion (which I think is optimistic) and finance the operated of the missle defence shield targeted at Russia ( although they say its for missle strikes from Iran although the US rejected an other from Russia to station it in Turkey where it would be more effective) how much will the US debt increase by.