It’s unbelievable. Karl Rove said that Fall is the right time for a PR “roll out” on a war. Are we to expect another push at the U.N. and “authorization of force” vote just before the mid-terms? The playbook is all-too-well established.

Fitzy ‘em fast before they do something dangerous!

Well, we do know this happened in the past week.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/.....%20Affairs

-GSD

Fitz, please!

No you’re not already at war with them. You do however (and so do the Brits) have a terrorist group the MEK running round in the border provinces and I strongly suspect that you’ve got some “special forces” running round as well.

So you’re at unlawful combat with them which means that those MEK fighters and their British and US special forces colleagues are unlawful combattants. I invite you to reflect upon what that could mean for how they get treated when caught. It’s called reciprocity. Or in plain English “if it’s OK for Americans to do it others then its OK for others to do it to Americans.”

Attacking Iran is absolutely evil. I’m speechless.

I think this is the real “why” behind the six Generals coming out now against Rummy. They are saying in essence we don’t want this war, under this leader.

… which means one of these days, with this bunch of jokers running the show, the Iranians will no doubt capture some of our special forces guys, who they will no doubt parade on international TV.. and then what will happen? Our only hope is that strategic planners in Beijing, Moscow and Paris are laughing so hard at the preznit that they can’t concentrate on their work….

I’m sure the Central Bank of Iran has noticed a lot more cash in circulation …

There have been two plane crashes in recent months. One killed a large number of press/reporters. The other killed several members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

http://counterterror.typepad.c.....litar.html

oh god - fitz take me away

Is the tactic here, if true, one of fait accompli? Get something going so they can then drag out, once the shit really heats up, that old canard of “gotta get behind the Commander-in-Chief and show unity for our troops’ sake In THis Critical Time,” blah, blah, blah?

Thursday’s Hardball said there wasn’t even a consensus amongst Democrats that this was insanity (sorry I’ve been waiting for days for a transcript of this but MSNBC has not been cooperative).

I’ve been waiting too. Sometimes due to a “holiday” (Passover?) they do this (are late). Here’s the gist of it. Mathews asked Biden if Bush would have to go to Congress for permission to take military action against Iran. Bidden said yes, in his opinion. Mathews asked if this opinion was shared by the rest of the Congress, he said no.

A sidebar to BushCo Political Terrorism*:

His reelection seemed to infuse him with even more grandiosity than he showed before. For instance, his first order of domestic business wasn’t to disband the department of education, a longtime conservative goal. He set out to destroy social security — long known to be the third rail of politics.

Bush included privatization of Social Security in his 2000 campaign — 2005 was an attempt to deliver on it.

The scary part of Bush’s attitude, is that it was reinforced by polling — a majority of those under 45 believe Social Security won’t be there for them, while a majority of those over 45 believe it will. The truth is, Social Security is the most solid government program we have — if the annual GDP growth of the past 40 years continues into the next 40 years, Social Security will be solvent FOREVER.

*According to Mark Crispin Miller, Mary Matalin called George W Bush a “Political Campaign Terrorist.” I agree — and it his ONLY core competency.

Also, there have been some bombings in the Ahvaz region, some this year, some in October of last year…note the proximity to the border with Iraq.

Note that the Iranians explicitly call the British out for the agitation.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresa.....58870.html

-GSD

Cozumel — I think your recollection of Hardball may be more accurate than mine, I’m going to add that to the post.

Friendly word of warning: You can expect to see articles written by this guy: Amir Taheri he’s very plausible. He’s an Iranian born “journalist” who is member of Benador Associates. Quite a lot of his spewing is being published in the right wing rags over here so I expect your media to follow suit. He writes for frontpage too now that i think of it.

This might- might- explain Bush’s contined support for Rumsfeld. But I’m sticking to the saber rattling theory in lieu of some hard troop movements atm.

Last summer Britain accused Iran of helping Iraqis build bombs for use against British troops. This accusation was levelled after a number of bombs killed UK troops in the relatively quiet area in the South of Iraq where UK troops patrolled.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/.....lair.iran/

-GSD

Finally, in what could be used as one cause for strikes on Iran by the US. Bush accused Iran of making more lethal roadside bombs for use against American troops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....wstop.html

Jane,

“I think at that point Matthews pressed him and said “even among the Democrats” and Biden again said “no.”

I think that’s correct.

I think the special ops folks are ratcheting things up in Iran a notch at a time to create a stir in the countryside, but also to provoke a maritime response against US naval forces of against tanker shipping in the gulf. If we get struck by Iran, we won’t have to bother with a UN war resolution, or any kind of a UN resolution. We’ll just deny we’ve got teams on the ground in Iran until or unless any of them are captured.

The Israelis, with US cooperation have quietly moved up to four diesel subs to Diego Garcia - not a good sign at all.

Remember those British soldiers dressed as Arabs and carrying bomb making equipment who had to be busted out of jail in Basra GSD?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....262336.stm

wasn’t there also a suspicious bombing in Iran which Iran blamed on British troops or am I just remembering the planes?

I suspect that W&Co will happily sacrifice a few special ops folks to provide another reason to attack … and Cheney’s favorite news station (Faux which he demands all tvs in his hotel rooms be turned on to) has been hyping the plan for attack for several weeks with military guys and maps and lots of fervor.

I have a feeling this is closer than the election - I don’t think W is particularly worried about the election but I do think he’s itching to expand his GWOT since Iraq is getting boring for his psychotic pleasure.

And I don’t expect to see troop movements since this will be primarily an air strike event … look for ship movements in the Straits perhaps?

so what’s with Blair’s no Iran pronouncement - fake or has he lost his nerve or been told to lose it?

Who could really eff this up big time are the Kurds. They’re busy turning Turkey’s worst nightmare into reality there’ve been a spate of bombings in Turkey recently (including the one targetting the bus that had a whole heap of the judiciary in it.) Guess what, the Turks and the Iranians are suddenly having talks. If it gets serious enough you can expect Ankara to cancel its cooperation with Israel and do a bit more than just refuse the US permission to use its bases.

Through the looking-glass:

Bush I’s cadre of October Surprise and Iran-Contra connections run deep in Iran. Karl Rove is working with these cats to stir up a big media show-crisis in order to save W.’s bacon and present the possibility of a Commander-in-Chief moment for Jr.

Imagine Bush announcing he’s going to Tehran. Oh, how the media will swoon once again! He’ll be strutting in his codpiece anew across the deck of a carrier in the Gulf, aiming that Texas boot heel right at rattlesnake Ahmadinejad’s neck. Crisis averted, war averted, nuclear threat at least temporarily curtailed. I can already see the Democrats running for cover, afraid to criticize this Presdident who breaks down barriers with such strength and conviction.

Of course this is just Machiavellian enough to work; while in Tehran, Bush will formally apologize for the US role in Mossadegh’s ouster, thus becoming a hero to Iranian liberals still fuming that we turned their enlightened Republic into a fascist hell-hole that developed as a result into a religious fundamentalist state.

It would be nice if these people were capable of weighing the number of lives to be lost in this potential debacle against their own political ambitions and making the right decision.

This occurs to me just about every day. Soldiers risk their lives to fight the politician’s war, yet the politicians won’t even risk their precious political careers to take a principled stand. Considering what is at stake in the larger view, their personal ambitions are just so small and petty.
How do they live with themselves?

Iran is not a nuclear threat to anyone. Unfortunately corporate media refuses to print the “news.” Via Juan Cole:
“Kiriyenko: Iran’s Method “Unfeasible” for Fissionable Material”
Here is what a nuclear official who has no interest in getting up a war on Iran says about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claims earlier this week to have slightly enriched a small quantity of uranium:
‘ MOSCOW (AP): Russia’s nuclear chief on Thursday said Iran is far from being capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the Interfax news agency reported. Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Natanz, equipped with 164 gas centrifuges, could not produce any significant amount of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel power plants or produce atomic weapons. “These centrifuges allow Iran to conduct laboratory uranium enrichment to a low level in insignificant amounts,” Kiriyenko was quoted as saying. “The acquisition of highly enriched uranium is unfeasible today using this method.”
How refreshing, a high government official who isn’t LWB (lying while breathing).
posted by Juan @ 4/14/2006 06:15:00 AM 1 comments
http://www.juancole.com/
Since the Leaker-in-Chief wants us, “to know the truth,” he can “declassify” the NIE on this.

Yes Siun your memory is correct. Blair is between a rock and a hard place he’s allegedly furious that Straw (his foreign minister) has categorically ruled out military action against Iran. That man is their worst primeminister since Chamberlain.

Chamberlain met with a tyrant and capitulated and then announced: “Peace in our time”.

Blair met with a tyrant and also capitulated and the result has been war in our time.

Different men, same results.

-GSD

Is the tactic here, if true, one of fait accompli? Get something going so they can then drag out, once the shit really heats up, that old canard of “gotta get behind the Commander-in-Chief and show unity for our troops’ sake In THis Critical Time,†blah, blah, blah?

BobbyG, exactly it I think. Plus provoke some Iranian attack maybe.

Siun, check out my several links upthread.

-GSD

How about this scenario? Bush’s squad gets captured by the Iranian, with lots of footage of them blindfolded and paraded through the streets. Bush is outraged and vows to “bring-em-home”.. you can fill in the rest.

I think the War with Iran has been set in stone since the 2004 election, if not since 9/11 or even earlier. I think at least the Senators have known it was coming for a long time. If you know how to stop it, let me know. The cards Bush holds is the timing and the secrecy. If any Democrats call him out, he can say “wild speculation”. That Democrats have known the Iran War was coming explains votes on habeus, Patriot Act, censure.

Timing? Well, after it starts Iran will strike back and Americans will die. Senator X criticizes Bush a week before or after the bombing starts. The next week Iranian agents manage another 9/11, with several thousand casualties. Or close off the Straits, or sink a ship, or cause an uprising in Iraq. Senator X might as well retire, unless saying “The dead Americans are Bush’s fault” or “Iran poses no danger” are good political moves. I doubt the left blogosphere will find it easy.

Not easy picking the smart move when you are ruled by a madman.

Bat out of hell

I agree completely Janes’ statement that “these people were capable of weighing the number of lives to be lost in this potential debacle against their own political ambitions and making the right decision.” Though I’m not talking about the politicians..

What’s the potential cost of lives of an apocalyptic Iranian theocracy possessing nuclear weapons? Here’s evidence that the Democratic leadership is at least somewhat responsible.

Mark,

That was a whole big muddled mess. That was also one of the earlier signs that the militias were running much of the show too.

We have unleashed so much cloak and dagger treachery and subterfuge in that region God knows who is doing what….That whole place must be a cesspool of spies and counterspies and traitors and cutthroats and the like.

As I have said earlier, there is one hell of karma boomerrang headed at the US for this skullduggery.

-GSD

Also as to Turkey and Iran in a new detente—wars are always rife with unintended consequences.

The blanket US Pravda line is “Iran must not get nukes.”

Why the fuck shouldn’t Iran have nukes?

And this fucking unelected universally despised little warmongering evil prick presuming to impose his will on the world, in the name of peace and democracy and nonproliferation? Jesus fucking fuck, it is to laugh and weep.

On a brief visit to Istanbul in the summer of 2004, my husband and I had a casual chat with another American couple at our small hotel. The subject of Iraq came up, and as I expressed my dismay about the war, the man we were talking to said “Iran is next.” He said his brother, who was in the Navy and part of some clandestine group, had told him that plans to attack Iraq were already underway.

I had no reason to doubt it then and even less reason to doubt it now. This is scary, scary stuff. Especially the nukes part. I’m old enough to remember the “Duck and Cover” movie from 10th grade. And I can’t believe we survived all those showdowns with the Soviets only to have our own government threaten to push the red button.

C&L has posted the video of Joke Line saying he thinks the nuclear option should stay on the table.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....html#a7936

The blanket US Pravda line is “Iran must not get nukes.â€

The problem is that no matter how much BushCo bombs Iran, it can’t do any more than put a dent in their nuclear program. In fact, bombing them tells Iran how hard and how deep they need to dig in the enrichment equipment.

Jack Straw is right — the only possible deterence is a Libyan style carrot and stick approach.

Don’t feed the troll please do a google for its name if you don’t believe me that its a troll.

Here is Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker on the poor misunderstood MEK.

You have to love this final paragraph from the article:

And one more thing, when the regime is replaced-which it will be - Iran will still have oil and natural gas to sell, if we are so short-sighted, environmentally speaking, so as to continue to want to buy and use carbon emitting fossil fuels.

It was posted by This Old Brit - some 10 months ago - that the war with Iran had already started. Scott Ritter was quoted.

The US can’t attack Iran while large numbers of American troops are left within striking distance in Iraq. Which is why the new strategic objective is to ‘re-liberate Baghdad’ in a Tal Afar-style street-by-street operation (planned for this fall, timed to give a domestic political boost for the 2006 election) under the command of Lt. Gen. Dave Petraeus, allowing Iraqi forces to finish the process of taking over security for the capitol city so the main American force can be evacuated. Once that’s done, an attack on Iran can be put on the schedule, I’m guessing Spring 2007. You heard it here first.

ck @ 3:41 pm (#42) - At this point, with Iran being years away from creating a nuke anyway, the carrot and stick approach is still the logical approach, as well. We don’t gain anything but a whole lot of trouble by striking Iran.

That regime change can be accomplished with bunker-busting nuclear weapons is evidence of the lunacy of our leaders. And this is what they believe: that the Iranians will rise up in anger at their leadership for allowing the USA to nuke them. Duh.

Two “elective democracies” going to war against each other… I thought somebody noteworthy said that’s an impossibility. Of course, there’s the question of how either of the two countries in question define both an “election” and the word “democracy”… Now, on the other hand, two fascistic monotheocracies going to war wouldn’t raise any eyebrows would it? Oh God, how did we get to this place?

I love this quote from the Hullabaloos “very persuasive” post presumably about Cheney: “devious, powermad, greedhead.” Now that’s rhetoric! Maybe a pol can use that in a public debate? Best punctuate the “greedhead” with a few nyah, nyahs?

On 21 March 2006, crude oil had slipped to $60/barrel. Solely as a result of Bush’s sabre rattling on Iran, it’s back up to $70.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/in.....html#Crude
(good price graph of the last month)
One of the reasons Jack Straw may have spoken out, is because he understands that higher oil prices don’t help most of the world’s economies. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats appear to have grasped this. Clinton understood it. When he left office the price of a barrel of crude was around $25/barrel.

MarkfromIreland: I really don’t care if anybody responds to me or not. The juxtaposition of the posters here and my commentary is enough I think.

Were the United States to USE nuclear weapons in an attack against Iran to demonstrate the unacceptability OF nuclear weapons, our nation would be in moral Chapter 7. Such would constitute the utter triumph of the “Ends Justify The Means” ethos so clearly the guiding M.O. of the venal, arrogant moral gelding who soils our national character every day from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We cannot let this happen.

“We have no plans to go into Cambodia!!!”

Sorry, I posted to the wrong site…but what the hell.

We need a major reported to ask Bush point blank “Do we currently have any regular or special troops in Iran?”

scalefree - Bush can always go into Iran if he wants to. He doesn’t need logic on his side. He governs by sheer will. He doesn’t care about polls, he doesn’t care about public opinion, he doesn’t care about democracy (unless it can be exported for a profit). Bush is the one who if ran into the burning building and had the choice of saving a 2-year old girl or a petri dish of fertilized eggs, he would save the eggs. He does not bend to logic. To Bush, the world is flat if God says so.

Well, the DiFi oped is actually not bad.

But I’m sorry, Pakistan has nukes and that’s fine but Iran having same is worth destroying our own economy and balance of civilization for?

And blub, c’mon, we ceased being an elective democracy on 12/12/00. Our democracy was murdered before our eyes on that day. The five plus years since have been, pardon my crudeness, but just raping and dancing on the corpse.

mfi, thanks for the great update on the Kurds and Turkey. Do you have a feel for where Russia stands wrt an independent state for the Kurds?

Jane you’ve got a candidate for the trexitron here.

They’re against it John, they always have been.

Thanks Mark.
OfT: “The Revolt of the Generals”
“Here are the complaints against Rumsfeld from a growing list of military chiefs. Guess what Bush thinks….”
http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....48,00.html

*ilson #2 - Fitzy ‘em fast before they do something dangerous!

We and Fitz live in the world of mortals and the rule of law, which moves slowly. They are self-styled ubermenschen and history’s actors and they’re on dick-swinging mindlessness crack. And their upcoming horrorshow may well (I hope not) leave all things Fitz in the dust.

From Billmon on HuffPo: WaPo reporting the latest national threat -

“The Washington Post had a long story in Saturday’s paper (front page) about all those enraged liberals out in cyberspace who are doing completely crazy things — like blowing up federal buildings with truck bombs and threatening to kill judges.

Well, actually, who aren’t doing any those things — but who are a wild and crazy bunch nevertheless, the Post wants the world to know, completely unstable and liable at any moment to fire off an extremely profane e-mail to a hard-working, God-fearing newspaper editor.
Ticking time bombs of vituperation, in other words.

I haven’t read the whole dreary thing, but the chosen examples I did see were pretty telling: Maryscott O’Connor of My Left Wing and the Rude Pundit.

The Rude Pundit is, of course, the rude pundit — but the Tourette act is really just an inspired running gag, like Jesus’s General. I don’t think the rude pundit really talks that way in normal life, just like I don’t think patriotboy really is overcome by strange and inexplicable feelings of longing whenever he is in the presence of oiled-down Greco-Roman wrestlers. Although you never know. In any case, the blogosphere universally understands that the Rude Pundit is a schtick, but most Post readers don’t know, and the Post knows they don’t…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....19239.html

LOL! Maurading blogosphere “lefties.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Efforts to form a unity government suffered a new setback Sunday as Iraqi leaders postponed a parliament session after failing to agree on a prime minister. Bombs targeted Shiites near a mosque and on a bus as attacks nationwide killed at least 35 people.

Four more Marines were reported killed in fighting west of Baghdad as the U.S. death toll for this month rose to 47 — compared with 31 for all of March…

Heckuvajob, Bushie, Rummie et al. Things are going REALLY swell.

Did Iran finish moving their assets into a safe haven? Getting out of dollars and into yuans might also be a smart thing for them to do:

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s.....amp;v=dmax

As I commented at ThePoorMan.net, it’s the George W. Bush Underpants Gnomes Theory of Foreign Policy:

1) Bomb the fuck out of Iran.
2) ????
3) We all live happily ever after.

If Iraq is Vietnam does that make Iran Cambodia?

BobbyG @ 4:09 pm (#61) - Too bad BillMon didn’t read the whole thing. I think the article was written so that those with short attention spans would see it as derogatory toward left-wing blogs, but those who choose to read on see a more sympathetic portrait.

Cujo -

Yeah, I’d already read the whole thing. I agree with your take. It was relatively symapthetic overall, recognizing the justified outrage that is out there.

Well, a sub-issue is nukes, or no nukes. I don’t believe we’ll use nukes, the Hersch article actually said that nukes are being kept in some planning options, that’s all. But, air strikes with conventional weapons? Oh sure. I’ve stated before, that’s a done deal. Only question is the date.
Are we at war now? I guess it’s the Clinton thing, what is the definition of “is”. I don’t call air strikes being “at war”, but reasonble folks of this FDL disagree with me.
With a HIGH degree of confidence, I’ll say we have special ops in Iran right now. The primary purpose is recon. “Eyes on” intel always beats the spy-in-the-sky in value. The special ops guys are doing many things…snapping pics for study of material composition of a site (that helps in figuring out what type of bomb to drop), making detailed maps of the area, studying force and personnel numbers at sites (and when shift changes occur), mapping precise co-ordinates for way-points for tomahawks….helping map an area for the missiles to fly thru with minimal chance of being seen, and also….probably a few chit-chats with some groups out in the hills/mountains who may oppose the gov’t.
So, alas, the die is cast…just get your betting pools going on the date. I have no clue on the date.
Ghostman

clicked on local tv news to see if what our nasty storms were doing … they did a quick story, attributed to “a british newspaper” reporting the Iran is organizing suicide bombers to hit the UK and the UK if we hit Iran. Screen was simply the Iranian flag with the words “Suicide Bombers” … felt like brainwashing

god god god

ok, OT but not really - does everybody know about Cute Overload?

http://cuteoverload.com/

I got turned on to this site over at watertiger’s and it’s become a daily essential for my mental health, utter necessary refreshment from the Relentless Cheney Evil. Go often and be rejuvenated by the critters and the woman who knitted a sweater for a tree.

Ghostman -

If we bomb/invade and don’t take out their nuke facilities, it’ll be a monumental tactical disaster, given the worldwide rage that will ensue. It’ll be a strategic disaster regardless, but they gotta know that if they DO throw down, it’s gotta be a tactical “success,” or the whole exercise will result in a politically immolating blowback. That’s why I would not be surprised if they do go with tac nukes.

He he he sharkbabe waddya want to be that a certain Senator whose name is spelt S a n t o r u m is sporting some tented underwear as a result of those pictures.

#71, bobbyg….you may be right on the mess geo-politically (although I don’t agree that nukes are the only way)…but the bigger problem is that this WH does not agree with your over-all assessment. I wish more folks in the WH DID agree with you sir. Sadly, they don’t.
Ghostman

jane

i watched the segment with Biden twice and that is indeed what he said. It took me a swcond hearing to realize what he meant.

Kathi/Nanakat: Yes C&L just played it for me. They will have it up at some point. It even frightened Matthews.

Ghostman @ 4:21 pm (#68) - Might be they’re trying to figure out what’s going on at these sites, too. Thanks to some monumental stupidity we have lost a lot of our ability to know what’s going on in Iran with their nuclear programs. Just having folks there who can judge how active a site might be is probably helpful. I’m guessing we are really flying blind on this subject at the moment.

No, I don’t think it’s likely, but you never know.

markfromireland - argh, brain bleach please!

Does being liberal, anti-bushie, anti-Iraq fiasco make one automatically a pacifist? At some point it might be prudent to act on North Korea and/or Iran and I’m afraid we’re sending a message to the electorate that the left won’t fight. I wouldn’t trust this bunch to know who or how or when to fight, but that doesnt mean that, in the nuclear age, crazies get time to build their bombs.

I know the damage a nut job can do if left unchecked (unbalanced)–from Stalin to Hitler to Amin to Bush etc. Iran’s threats and boasts and messianic hatred of Israel make them likely candidates to join this select group and that might make action necessary–all the more reason the lone superpower needs a statesman, scholar and strategist. Put another way, we better win in 2006 and 2008. Wes Clark is indespensible for our credibility.

Sorry sharkbabe (but you’ve got to admit an easterbunnydog would be liddle Ricky’s dream) anyway sorry again.

MarkfromIreland: Fair enough, it’s Jane’s page (I assume) and she can do as she wishes. Though I think my commentary can be read constructively. If your preference is for the emotionalistic, factually challenged, demagoguery as opposed to reasoned argumentation I can see why you wouldn’t think so. But I certainly can understand why you don’t want someone pointing out your lack of clothes around…

#76, cujo: you’re right. That would also include leaving some listening devices roadside (you can sorta ID a vehicle type by it’s engine noise) around a subject plant/site. Yep, you’re right.
Ghostman

Dru sent me this article from the New Yorker– this whole carefully orchestrated debacle; tough reading but makes things clear and more frightening. Explains the role the MEK is playing in Iraq and Iran…

‘On a snowy mid-December day, Reza Pahlavi, the forty-five-year-old son of the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was seated at a table by the fire at a popular country-French restaurant in Georgetown, enjoying a bowl of cassoulet and plotting the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was accompanied by Shahriar Ahy, who in the months before the 1979 Iranian revolution had been an informal liaison between the Shah and the White House; after the Shah died, in exile, in 1980, Ahy remained close to Reza, whom many refer to as “the young shah.” By early 2004, Ahy, who had been running a multinational media company from Saudi Arabia, had left his job to work full time on unseating the Iranian regime. Although Ahy says that he has no factional affiliations, he has become, in essence, Pahlavi’s political strategist, mentor, speechwriter, monitor. He is also attempting, on Pahlavi’s behalf, to unite the atomized Iranian opposition. Ahy, an M.I.T. graduate-school alumnus, is often compared to his fellow alumnus Ahmad Chalabi, who, before the American invasion of Iraq, was the head of the Iraqi National Congress. An Iranian-American political activist with ties to Ahy and Pahlavi commented recently, “If Reza is ever returned to power, it will be because of Shahriar.” ‘

http://www.iran-interlink.org/.....060306.htm

MarkfromIreland: Fair enough, it’s Jane’s page (I assume) and she can do as she wishes. Though I think my commentary can be read constructively. If your preference is for the emotionalistic, factually challenged, demagoguery as opposed to reasoned argumentation I can see why you wouldn’t think so. But I certainly can understand why you don’t want someone pointing out your lack of clothes around…

Chris;
While I hesitate to enter this fray,its been my experiance that reasonable,factual discussion is welcome on this site.Insulting our fellow commentators is not.I do not pretend to speak for Jane,but dude,rile her up at your own risk.

Of course we are at war with Iran. And we are training in Iraq. Remember that senseless ‘operation’ last month, with the biggest Helicopter airlift ever in the region, all attacking a bunch of emtpy sand? Critics said that that was just a show of force. It wasn’t. It was a practice run for the very real airlifts which we need to prepare for in Iran. That was a training mission, not a security mission. It was a way to prep our troops for exactly the mission they would be expected to accomplish in Iran.

Other opinions are welcome. I draw the line at ad hominim attacks and flame throwing with other commenters.

Mel @ 4:36 pm (#78) - Does being liberal, anti-bushie, anti-Iraq fiasco make one automatically a pacifist?

Does saying that war is what you do only when you’re out of other options make you a pacifist? I don’t think there’s much unanimity here on the question of whether we should ever, under any circumstances, do what we’re talking about doing in Iran. What’s pretty close to a unanimous opinion here is that it’s a stupid idea for this country at this time, and for the near future.

Mel, the corporate media has allowed Rove to frame the argument that way all along, the “left” is afraid to fight. We make the decision to fight AFTER we identify a threat. Wrt Iran, they are years away from developing nuclear weaponse (see comment 29). IMO we need to influence the corporate media to start asking the WH the right questions about the threat that does not exist, the same questions the corporate media didn’t ask before we invaded Iraq. JMO.

John Casper, Re:Oil

Not soley on account of saber rattling. Even back then futures were in “contango”. Front month were trading around 60 but back months were already trading above 65 at that time. Yes, the Iran debacle is putting a premium in, but that was also the annual time when refineries shut down for maintainenane/formulation changes.

To make a blanket statement like you did shows a total lack of understanding of commodity markets in general, and crude markets in particular. No offense intended, but the oil scenario is much, much more complex than turning on soley on Chimpy McAsshole’s rhetoric.

John;
How can we influance the coperate media,we don’t sign their checks or effect the “bottom line.”

General Eisenhower was quite the pacifist when he saw the Korean War couldn’t be won. “Discretion is the better part of valor.” He was also wise enough to let the French do the fighting and dying in Vietnam - he did supply enough foreign aid to them for diplomatic propriety “to assist in fighting Communism” but Americans weren’t dying…

Alaskan_Pete, what else in your opinion has caused the rise since 21 March 2006?

One thing not to miss about the oil situation is that there are an awful lot of pipelines within (plausibly deniable) striking distance of Iran. The same goes for natural gas pipelines.

Why SHOULD the Dems not pander? I abhor Biden and would never vote for him. BUT talk to the average American — I mean those who don’t like Bush. They say, “What is wrong with Biden?”

I will visit the site you suggested, but the NO. 1 PRIORITY should be getting these heads out of their soup, or wherever they are. Without that, nothing else much matters.

Speaking of corporate media– read this!

Crooks and Liars has a video clip of the segment.

RAW STORY trancript of the exchange between Stephanopoulos and Klein:
#

Klein: And, by the way, we’re very much well liked among the young, educated Iranians. But this is not Iraq we’re dealing with here. This is an ancient country, a very strong country, and a very proud country. And so, yeah, by all means, we should talk to them, but, on the other hand, we should not take any option, including the use of nuclea-….tactical nuclear weapons off the table.

Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?

Klein: It’s absolutely stupid not to.

Stephanopoulos: That’s insane.

Klein: Well I don’t think we should ever use tac-…I think that…

Stephanopoulos: Well, then why should they be on the table?

Klein: Why?

Stephanopoulos: Why do we want that specter of crossing that line?

Klein: Because we don’t know what the options on the other side…what their options are on the table.

Stephanopoulos: Well we know that they’ve got 40,000 possible suicide bombers but I also think that line is one that we have to be very, very careful to cross.

Klein: Listen. I don’t think. I think the use of force here would be counterproductive. But I think that when you’re dealing in a negotiation you can’t take stuff off the table before it starts.
#

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0416.html

Ike did’nt help us much when he had the CIA “do away” with the elected officials in Iran,leaving the power in the Shah’s hands.And the beat goes on.

The Flight Forward
“By just about anybody’s definition – except maybe Hermann Goering’s – this would qualify as mass genocide. Even I don’t believe George W. Bush would deliberately and knowingly order the deaths of three million people. But I’m absolutely terrified by the thought that a popular novelist (or Dick Cheney) might waltz into the Oval Office and convince the president of the United States that all the scientific experts are wrong and that a tactical nuclear strike on Iran would only make the flowers there grow a little faster.”
http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html

DMM, newspapers survive on subscribers and advertisers. Those are their two primary pressure points. Letters to the editors and the criticism that blogs such as FDL provide are also important. Just since October Jane, Christy, and other blogs have had a tremendous impact on the quality of the coverage. In December Richard Morin, the WaPoo’s polling expert, was bragging that he wouldn’t poll impeachment. I don’t know if he’s polled impeachment yet, but he’s not bragging about it anymore.

DMM @ 5:00 pm (#95) - Long term, that has to be one of our stupidest moves ever. Replace an elected government with a dictator, and fifty years later we’re still dealing with the aftermath.

John#91
How ’bout fat quarterly profits?I’ll bet there will be a new record this year.

Ripples in the pond Cujo.And we keep tossing “pebbles”.

Now, Ms. Hamsher also writes about the political environment of all this. She mentions petitions, and reports on a so-far rather timid response from Democrats. What should Democrats do? Well, consider these things:
1. now, at much disagreement with most of you guys, I won’t advocate petitions, or speeches in opposition. I think it all falls on deaf ears. Sooo…..what about Democrats, RIGHT NOW, “pounding the podium” and demanding this WH share details on post-strike planning?? We’re NOT asking for strike plans (always properly classified), but the plans for what we’ll do after the air strikes. Where will we reinforce? What groups will give us trouble? What measures are we taking right now to defend against suicide bombers? What is the cost? How many forces, and where, and what’s the price tag? Just a thought.
2. If you REALLY want to see the WH shit a brick, as things heat up, send a delegation of Democratic leaders over to Tehran to talk with the leaders. Worst those Iranians will do is spit in our eye…but the Democrats score points for at least trying. And again, Bush Jr. WILL get his panties in a major wad…oh lordy lordy.
Ghostman

I think this is the real “why†behind the six Generals coming out now against Rummy. They are saying in essence we don’t want this war, under this leader.

This is, of course, the real reason. Sy Hersh’s report followed by — what, how many was it this week? Four more generals? — coming out against Rummy (a new one each day). There is just no way that this is a coincidence. This is a coordinated PR campaign by the military brass. “A military coup by media” as Digby noted. They are desperately trying to send the American people a message hoping to wake them up. From Hersh’s article, “It’s a juggernaut that must be stopped.”

Really, the entire Army is on the line here. Attacking Iran is likely to lead to a full-scale assault on the U.S. Army by Iran and Iraqi Shiites. If we can’t move the Army out of harm’s way, the Joints Chiefs will refuse to carry out orders to attack Iran. This is the reason for “the second liberation of Baghdad” announced today (yesterday?). It’s the minimum needed to ensure cooperation by the military brass for an attack on Iran (moving the Army out before the shit hits the fan). I suspect many in the military hate the thought of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. But they will follow orders. However, if they know those orders are likely to utterly destroy their Army, they will refuse.

If “the second liberation of Baghdad” goes badly and Cheney orders a nuclear strike on Iran anyway, I think the Joints Chiefs (and on down the chain of the military brass) will resign in protest and call for the President’s removal. Full-on, major Constitutional crisis. It’s coming.

Ghostman: show me one place where I mention petitions about Iran.