Media blitz for Iran war

[alkemical]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/if-there-were-a.html

Test Marketing
If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up:

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow.

It’s one thing for the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al to champion a war they support. It’s another to jump like circus animals at the crack of the White House whip. If the propaganda campaign predicted by Rubin’s friend is launched, less subservient news organizations should ask certain questions, and keep asking them: Does the Administration expect the Iranian regime to fall in the event of an attack? If yes, what will replace it? If no (and it will not), why would the Administration deliberately set about to strengthen the regime’s hold on power? What will the Administration do to protect highly vulnerable American lives and interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world against the Iranian reprisals that will follow? What if Iran strikes against Israel? What will be the strategy when the Iranian nuclear program, damaged but not destroyed, resumes? How will the Administration handle the international alarm and opprobrium that would be an attack’s inevitable fallout?

If this really is a return to the early fall of 2002 all over again, then I’m fairly sure that no one at the top of the Administration is worrying about the answers.

Postscript: Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

[alkemical]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/05/1422235

Drumbeat For Attack on Iran Grows Louder in Washington
Talk about a U.S. attack on Iran appears to be growing louder in Washington. There are reports that Vice President Dick Cheney's office has issued instructions to conservative think tanks to start a drumbeat for attacking Iran. On Monday the American Enterprise Institute is hosting two events related to Iran. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is giving a speech on how the war on terrorism should be viewed as a "a world war that pits civilization against terrorists and their state sponsors who wish to impose a new dark age." Later in the day former CIA director Jim Woolsey and others will meet to discuss a new book by longtime Iran hawk Michael Leeden titled "The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots" Quest for Destruction." The Heritage Foundation recently hosted an interagency Bush administration war game attempting to anticipate Iranian responses to a U.S. bombing campaign. Meanwhile the Sunday Times of London has reported the Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against twelve hundred targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days. The main source of the article was an official at another conservative Washington think tank – the Nixon Center.

[alkemical]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Bronco Bob]

Yeah Faux Noise had some idiot ex-general on touting how it would be
a cake walk attacking Iran. I swear some people never learn.

[SoCalBronco]

The problem here is that if the decision were made to go ahead and "blitz" Iran, President Bush would have a free hand, without the need for any congressional authorization or approval, for at least 60 days, under the War Powers Act (maybe even up to 90 days). By that time, depending on what happens, we might be in a real rough situation whereby you can't just get out, due to the hornet's nest that you have aroused.

It's a tough situation. If this moves beyond rhetoric, I would hope the House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader would have a little get together at the WH and convey the message that if you go forward on this, not only will party support collapse, but House/Senate GOPers might/will get on the impeachment bandwagon. I know I would start to strongly consider it just as a voter. I know I posted recently (in the other impeachment thread) about some of the statutory construction issues/problems involved that might bar impeachment as a matter of law when it regards matters not relating to criminality (i.e. how the text talks of specific criminal offenses in addition to high crimes and misdeamenors, but not about conduct that is not criminal in nature), but I have recently found some contrary legal authority on that point (however, at least some of it might be arguably characterized as mere dicta), so I think Congress might be able to go forward on that, even if it did not involve the violation of any laws. Nonetheless, I think the threat needs to be made from one of our own (Republicans), if the administration makes a substantial move towards this avenue. Not only would another ill advised attack completely destroy the party (we are already in bad shape) but much more importantly, it would likely have long term grave consequences for the country and the national interest, IMO. I'd agree with the quote in the final sentence in Josh's article in his first post, here.

[Bronco Yoda]

Why would we attack Iran when we've paved the way for Israel?

[Bronco Bob]

The problem here is that if the decision were made to go ahead and "blitz" Iran, President Bush would have a free hand, without the need for any congressional authorization or approval, for at least 60 days, under the War Powers Act (maybe even up to 90 days). By that time, depending on what happens, we might be in a real rough situation whereby you can't just get out, due to the hornet's nest that you have aroused.

It's a tough situation. If this moves beyond rhetoric, I would hope the House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader would have a little get together at the WH and convey the message that if you go forward on this, not only will party support collapse, but House/Senate GOPers might/will get on the impeachment bandwagon. I know I would start to strongly consider it just as a voter. I know I posted recently (in the other impeachment thread) about some of the statutory construction issues/problems involved that might bar impeachment as a matter of law when it regards matters not relating to criminality (i.e. how the text talks of specific criminal offenses in addition to high crimes and misdeamenors, but not about conduct that is not criminal in nature), but I have recently found some contrary legal authority on that point (however, at least some of it might be arguably characterized as mere dicta), so I think Congress might be able to go forward on that, even if it did not involve the violation of any laws. Nonetheless, I think the threat needs to be made from one of our own (Republicans), if the administration makes a substantial move towards this avenue. Not only would another ill advised attack completely destroy the party (we are already in bad shape) but much more importantly, it would likely have long term grave consequences for the country and the national interest, IMO. I'd agree with the quote in the final sentence in Josh's article in his first post, here.

Not going to happen. Both Pelosi and Reid have backed off any objections
they initially raised and even Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are onboard
for taking action against Iran. And of course the Liberal media is going
too be all rah-rah, gung ho about it, showing the bombs going off
and not showing what happens to the people the bombs land on,
and never questioning why we are doing it, just like they did in 2003.
Never mind the fact that the IAEA says Iran in cooperating with all
the inspections and guidelines.

[alkemical]

http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSL1387483120070913

Iran rocket used in attack on key Iraq base: U.S.

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSL1387483120070913

Iran rocket used in attack on key Iraq base: U.S.

Sorry I can't find a link, but last night Anderson Cooper on CNN interviewed
Iraqi president. Maliki says he talked to Iran about weapons being smuggled
into Iraq from Iran.

Maliki said that during the visit he raised US charges that Iran was smuggling weapons into Iraq that were used to attack US troops.

"This is the issue we brought up with Iran," Maliki said. "They said, (just like the) Syrians, (that) these come through against our wishes and beyond our control."

Maliki however told the Iranians that they were responsible for controlling their borders. "I believe that they are honest with us now in controlling their borders and stopping (the) infiltration of explosives through the borders that kill the Iraqis and the American soldiers," he said.

[TheDave]

Yeah Faux Noise had some idiot ex-general on touting how it would be
a cake walk attacking Iran. I swear some people never learn.

Where have I heard that one before?

[alkemical]

Sorry I can't find a link, but last night Anderson Cooper on CNN interviewed
Iraqi president. Maliki says he talked to Iran about weapons being smuggled
into Iraq from Iran.

Maliki said that during the visit he raised US charges that Iran was smuggling weapons into Iraq that were used to attack US troops.

"This is the issue we brought up with Iran," Maliki said. "They said, (just like the) Syrians, (that) these come through against our wishes and beyond our control."

Maliki however told the Iranians that they were responsible for controlling their borders. "I believe that they are honest with us now in controlling their borders and stopping (the) infiltration of explosives through the borders that kill the Iraqis and the American soldiers," he said.


I remember watching anderson cooper and lisa ling on channel1 back in my day

[Rohirrim]

It's cool. The Iranian people will treat us as liberators and shower our troops with flowers.

My family and I will be in Ireland.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's cool. The Iranian people will treat us as liberators and shower our troops with flowers.

And, leave us not forget, the oil revenues (not the U.S. taxpayers) will cover the reconstruction costs. ;)

http://www.bartcop.com/bfee23.gif

[Chupacabra]

whoops

[alkemical]

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29622520070919

Rice swipes at IAEA, urges bold action on Iran

SHANNON, Ireland (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice scolded the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency on Wednesday over its Iran strategy and called for diplomacy with "teeth" to end Tehran's nuclear plans.

While repeating the U.S. stand that "all options" remained on the table -- a reference to military action against Tehran -- Rice sought to ease fresh concerns over talk of war.

"The diplomatic track can work but it has to work both with a set of incentives and a set of teeth," she said.

[alkemical]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGaBukcIRTs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGaBukcIRTs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

ignore the blurb and listen if ya want... hahaha

[alkemical]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070919/ts_nm/iran_threat_dc

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Wednesday it would use "all our means" to defend itself if attacked by the West, three days after France's foreign minister publicly raised the possibility of war over Tehran's disputed nuclear activities.

[Rohirrim]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGaBukcIRTs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rGaBukcIRTs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

ignore the blurb and listen if ya want... hahaha

The level of discourse at Faux Noise is abominable. I've heard more astute comments in a high school debate. In the background, when the others are arguing about whether we should bomb Iran or not, you can hear the Coultergeist shouting, "I think it would be fun."

[Denver Crush]

God damn, and they were calling the Iranians lunatics.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah the dimwit to the right of Coulter says that Iran is the central funder and backer of the Islamist terrorist movement, blah blah blah. No. It's not. Saudi Arabia is. Idiots.

[The Lone Bolt]

Pfft . . . haven't we heard enough of this nonsense?::)

There will be no invasion of Iran. Next!

[Rohirrim]

Pfft . . . haven't we heard enough of this nonsense?::)

There will be no invasion of Iran. Next!

You're right. There are too many generals in the Pentagon who still believe they can win with air power alone.

[ant1999e]

You're right. There are too many generals in the Pentagon who still believe they can win with air power alone.

What would winning be? If blowing the **** out of their country is winning, then I say we could easily win.:thumbs:
If liberating a country from an evil dictator and setting up a democracy is winning,:stuck: that is another story.

[Bronco Bob]

DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES -- A senior Iranian military official said today that his country had drawn up plans to launch airstrikes against Israel in case of war between the two countries, according to an interview published by an Iranian news agency.

Gen. Mohammed Alavi, a deputy commander in the Iranian air force, told the semi-official Fars News Agency that his country could attack Israel with long-range missiles as well as fighter planes in case of war between the two countries.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="relatedstoryheader" style="padding-bottom: 4px;">Related</td></tr> <tr valign="top"> <td class="headline11" style="padding: 0pt 4px 4px 0pt;">-</td> <td style="padding-bottom: 4px;" class="mostemaillink">CIA World Factbook: Iran (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-cia-link,1,7121940.hyperlink?coll=la-headlines-world)</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="2">

Israeli and U.S. officials have threatened the possibility of preemptive attacks on Iran to block it from obtaining advanced nuclear technology that could be used to build atomic weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is meant to augment civilian energy needs.

Military analysts say Iran could retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli air raids by hitting targets in the Persian Gulf, disrupting oil flows or launching attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But Alavi said an Israeli attack on Iran would prompt retaliation against Israel.

"Such a plan is not just a hollow threat, and we do everything on the basis of correct and precise planning, and we have gained the needed readiness," Alavi said, according to the news agency. "We can also attack them by our fighter planes and respond to their possible airstrikes."

Alavi added that he didn't think Israel would attack Iran. But he maintained that Iran had sophisticated air defense systems to counter fighter jets and cruise missiles, and that any enemy air force would lose 30% of its fighters during any air operation.

Israel is less than 600 miles from Iran's western edge. Iran's Shahab-class missiles, based on a North Korean design, could easily reach the Levant, military experts say.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran20sep20,1,1161564.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Does Mann Coulter also consider this to be great fun?

[Rohirrim]

Not to mention that Seymour Hersh reported that Iran had sophisticated missiles entrenched in mobile vehicles stationed along the Gulf. In the event of an air attack, they could launch those missiles at our ships in the gulf, and oil tankers.

The other thing we should keep in mind is that this administration lied like a bunch of dogs to trick us into going along with the Iraq invasion. And yet you're going to believe them now? Can you say sucker? I knew you could.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What would winning be? If blowing the **** out of their country is winning, then I say we could easily win.:thumbs:


"Derr...thumbs up on blowing sh*t up. Can't wait to watch it in HD!"

[alkemical]

Six powers to discuss sanctions against Iran in Washington (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtPkHVFAZOh5_MScXtx4UFpgyQWg)

Iran Agrees to Reveal Nuclear Info (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070828/D8R9TEAO0.html)


Reports Iranian arms reaching Taliban worry U.S. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL20727520070911)

Move troops to Iran border, Brown told (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran316.xml)

US to build military base on Iraq-Iran border (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNqFWaFI_yzPKjWIb9ZNSiX2kk3w)