[This long post is for my readers who are fellow U.S. citizens.]
I've been worried about the Bush administration's intentions towards Iran for a long time. But recent reports leave me sleepless at night. I fear that Bush is going to bomb Iran, and that we have little time left to try to prevent it.
The cover story of Newsweek's February 19 issue reveals that one aircraft carrier battle group is in the Persian Gulf, another is on its way, and a third "will likely follow". The article quotes Hillary Mann who was formerly part of the Bush administration as National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs:
They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for
Vanity Fair has a long and comprehensive article in its current issue about the possibility of war with Iran. Ominous signs of war include:
Minesweeping boats have been deployed to the Persian Gulf
William Fallon, a Navy Admiral, has been appointed to the top post at CentCom. CentCom is the military command that covers the Middle East, including Iraq and Iran. Appointing a naval officer as the head of CentCom while the Army is bogged down in Iraq doesn't make much sense unless a naval war is anticipated.
The U.S. will have enough naval and air force in place by the end of February to attack.
Planning for a strike against Iran has been done by StratCom rather than CentCom. StratCom is the U.S. Strategic Command, the branch of the military who have the nukes, and who worry about defending against nukes.
The whole article is worth reading for the big picture, but here is one scary paragraph:
In April, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that U.S. troops were already on the ground in Iran, negotiating alliances with the Azerbaijanis in the North, the Kurds in the Northeast, and the Baluchis in the Southeast. In September, Time reported that a U.S. campaign to wipe out Iran's nuclear program could entail bombing up to 1,500 targets. More recently, Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, asserted in the Baltimore Chronicle that Bush "will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East." Adds former C.I.A. officer Philip Giraldi, "I've heard from sources at the Pentagon that their impression is that the White House has made a decision that war is going to happen."
The Vanity Fair article goes on to say that there may not be anything Congress can do to stop Bush (short of removing him from office, quickly):
Moreover, he [retired DIA colonel W. Patrick Lang] continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."
The Seymour Hersh article cited above is also available online and is worth a read. Hersh's article is from April 2006 and focuses on Iran's nuclear ambitions as the rationale for war. In the last month, however, the focus has been on Iranian weapons being used against American troops in Iraq. In his January 10th "Iraq surge" speach, Bush said:
Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
Three days ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq gave a powerpoint presentation to the press about Iranian-made bombs in Iraq. Curiously, however, the military was not able to find anyone willing to stand behind the presentation: the briefers refused to give their names and conducted the briefing entirely on background. The New York Times could refer to them only as "senior United States military officials".
There has been no evidence presented that Iranian weapons in Iraq have not simply been sold to Iraqis by black market weapons dealers. And no explanation of why, if Shiite Iran is supplying weapons, most U.S. casualties are predominantly occurring in Sunni areas of the country. Nevertheless, Bush said today:
"I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops".
And Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns directly implicated the Iranian government saying, "If that force is supplying technology for Shiite militants, that government is responsible."
Bush's statement today reminds me of his famous lie two months before the start of the Iraq war: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Administration officials keep saying that they are not planning for war with Iran, and that they don't want to "ratchet up" tensions with that country. But this administration has no credibility, and I'm sincerely worried that they are trying to provoke Iran into some action that can be used as a pretext for war. (And if they can't provoke Iran to start a war, they can always make up a provocation.)
Sometimes I feel I'm being paranoid to think (and write) about war with Iran. But when I start to doubt, I remind myself of the "Cheney Doctrine" (as described in The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind.) Cheney's said that if there is even a one-percent chance that an adversary is acquiring nuclear weapons, then we, the U.S., should respond as if it is a certainty. We can turn this around and apply it to Cheney himself:
If there is even a one-percent chance that Dick Cheney and George Bush intend to go to war with Iran, then we, the people, should respond as if it is a certainty.
This post is the beginning of my response. Next, I'll call my senators and representative. (You can do the same. Contact information here.)
I'm not sure what else to do, but I feel I've got to do something rather than just watch mutely while my country goes to war again. I'm just a tech writer with a blog, but I want to ask you: please do what you can to stop this madness. And if you know anyone influential, ask them to do the same!
Update: comments are now closed. Comment spammers have found this post and are beginning to swarm
I know you intended this post for US readers, but Blair is as knee deep in this one as he was in Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6410592,00.htm.
UK readers should write to their MPs also: http://www.writetothem.com.
Robert
I came to your site because I'm reading your excellent Javascript book, but I found this post reminds me of more important things.
You are not paranoid about war with Iran. If you look past the Bush/Cheney rhetoric (which has no credibility given their past record), the key is the deployment of carrier groups and troops, which we know is happening. The same thing happened months before the figleaf UN resolutions in 2002-3 before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
No question the Iranian rulers are nasty. But there is no authorization for war, and Bush/Cheney have proven their incompetence, not to say arrogant, hypocritcal callousness when it comes to foreign policy. They need to know this in the most forceful terms, which is why I think impeachment is what Americans should strive for, to restore our self-respect as human beings.
Not even getting into the multiple violations of their oaths of office regarding the US constitution, lying about the rationale for war is reason enough.
Here's one URL: http://www.democrats.com/impeach
Another avenue is to contact your state govm't - impeachment can also come from the states - I believe Vermont and New Mexico have already started this process. We need one in Washington state.
I support President Bush in his foreign policy. Although nobody likes war (or so I like to think), sometimes war is necessary. If I wake up some morning to read that Iran is being attacked by us, I won't be surprised or disappointed.
Oh, and thanks for injecting politics into a non-political realm. I have nothing to lose, but you risk alienating a large percentage of your readership and/or customer base.
Marty,
This is my website. I get to decide whether it is a political realm or not! (Though I have to say that I don't consider decisions about war to be political: they're about common sense and humanity.)
You may not have anything to lose, but I note that you chose not to use your last name when expressing your views.
And yes, I may alienate some readers, and I could lose customers. For this issue, I'm willing to take that risk. I sincerely doubt, however, that a "large percentage" of my readers will be alienated. A substantial majority of the US population is against the Iraq war and, I imagine would also oppose a war with Iran.
You are right, in reality I do have something to lose - becoming associated 'on-line' with political agendas (right or left). I'd like to keep my on-line presence apolitical. So I apologize for posting in an anonymous fashion.
Of course this is your Blog and you can do what you will with it. No problems there. I just get discouraged when I find politics injected into non-political forums, which seems to be happening more and more. I've visited your site over the years and have always associated it with technical content. It pollutes the waters, so to speak. What ever happened to that pearl of wisdom: don't talk religion, politics, or money in mixed company. Or something to that affect.
And again you're probably right regarding the numbers. My observations of late indicate that the technical community leans left. But I bet 30-40% of the readers perhaps lean right. Is that insignificant?
Cheers.
You're absolutely right, I think many Americans are losing sleep over this, the media has been lying (FOX) to the American people, making Ahmadinejad look like an evil maniac. We need to do all we can to keep this from happening. I think the BBC would listen to you.
I believe the tatic they will use is called a 'false flag'. It is something akin to what we did in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
If we do go to war with Iran it will be a horrible mistake.
Marty's right - keep this site technical not political. If you want to rant and rave against our government for this reason or that create another website for that purpose. I came here looking for some technical information on Java and feel like I logged in to moveon.org. I guess I'll go elsewhere and buy someone else's books.
Sign me up as another alienated reader! David, I've loved your books, and this was my first visit to your site. It is certainly your right to do as you will, but war IS politics (von Clausewitz). And politics has a tendency to get folks a little riled up.
Mostly this post looks like a lot of left leaning regurgitation. We need debate, think it through, tell me what you believe will happen if we DON'T invade Iran, what do we risk? What do we risk if we DO invade? If you're going to bring up politics put out some thought not just hysterics and propaganda.
John,
If I wanted advice from readers on what to do with my personal web site, I'd ask for it!
This site gets only someting like 50 visitors a day. But I still feel it is necessary to do whatever little bit I can to raise awareness about the fact that our country may be on the brink of another war.
David Flanagan
Mark,
Yes, politics gets folks riled up, but war gets them killed. And massive bombing campaigns by the world's largest military get lots and lots of people killed. I think that is worth getting riled up over.
I have no intention of debating the pros and cons of bombing Iran with you. The point of my post is to raise awareness of the issue and to link to recent reporting about the possibility of war.
I take it for granted that any such war would be immoral, illegal, and disastrous, and I further assume that most of my readers feel the same way.
On an administrative note, comment spammers have started to strike this post, which means that I'll probably be forced to close comments soon. So if you want to weigh in on this, do it soon.
Good job!
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info]drug picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info[/url]
drug picture
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info/drug-picture.html]drug picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info/drug-picture.html[/url]
drug picture
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info/doctor-picture.html]doctor picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info/doctor-picture.html[/url]
doctor picture
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info/marijuana-picture.html]marijuana picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info/marijuana-picture.html[/url]
marijuana picture
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info/medicine-picture.html]medicine picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info/medicine-picture.html[/url]
medicine picture
[url=http://allaboutxanax.info/medications-picture.html]medications picture[/url]
[url]http://allaboutxanax.info/medications-picture.html[/url]
medications picture
Many thanks. Thanks!
[url=http://compharma.info]buy pills[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info[/url]
buy pills
[url=http://compharma.info/buy-pills.html]buy pills[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/buy-pills.html[/url]
buy pills
[url=http://compharma.info/buy-medication.html]buy medication[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/buy-medication.html[/url]
buy medication
[url=http://compharma.info/lortab-xanax.html]lortab xanax[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/lortab-xanax.html[/url]
lortab xanax
[url=http://compharma.info/ritalin-xanax.html]ritalin xanax[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/ritalin-xanax.html[/url]
ritalin xanax
[url=http://compharma.info/buy-medicines.html]buy medicines[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/buy-medicines.html[/url]
buy medicines
Nice and interesting site
[url=http://compharma.info]how long do the effects of xanax last[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info[/url]
how long do the effects of xanax last
[url=http://compharma.info/how-long-do-the-effects-of-xanax-last.html]how long do the effects of xanax last[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/how-long-do-the-effects-of-xanax-last.html[/url]
how long do the effects of xanax last
[url=http://compharma.info/xanax-take-effect.html]xanax take effect[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/xanax-take-effect.html[/url]
xanax take effect
[url=http://compharma.info/effects-on-xanax.html]effects on xanax[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/effects-on-xanax.html[/url]
effects on xanax
[url=http://compharma.info/effect-of-xanax-on.html]effect of xanax on[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/effect-of-xanax-on.html[/url]
effect of xanax on
[url=http://compharma.info/long-term-effects.html]long term effects[/url]
[url]http://compharma.info/long-term-effects.html[/url]
long term effects