Discourse.net

Odds of An Attack on Iran Just Went Up

Admiral Fallon Resigns | The Agonist.

I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but with Fallon there the odds were very high that an attack on Iran wasn’t going to happen. Now the odds are not as high.

Update: Good comments (and great pun) at Fallon on His Sword. And see Adm. Fallon resigns as CENTCOM Commander.

Update2: Does anyone know how many carrier groups we currently have in the Persian Gulf?

Bush as a Potted Plant

Kevin Hayden has it half right:

The American Street » Blog Archive » Let’s assume Bush was telling the truth today: Even if we grant him the credibility that he was telling the truth about the NIE report (which was withheld from the public all year… by whom?) ask yourself if the world’s most powerful leader is suggesting World War II may be possible, and if his team is failing to let him know what the NIE said till a week ago, and if he had a vague suggestion in August that the NIE contained different information that was notable, then:

1) This is December. Why did he wait three months for a followup?

2) If his staff is withholding such critical information for all year, doesn’t it indicate someone’s judgment is faulty?

No, it means the staff knows better than to interrupt the Bush brush clearing with pesky details. And Cheney and Addington make the decisions. Or at least made them until Gates teamed up with the CIA…

I’d really like to see someone asking the GOP candidates in a debate to grade the Bush presidency. How many would dare give it even a B-? But how many would dare go lower?

Rats

In 14 Spy Squirrels In Iranian Custody we learn that Iranian authorities have recently arrested more than a dozen squirrels for espionage. Unfortunately, this has no connection with the other piece of Middle-East bait-related news, U.S. Aims To Lure Insurgents With ‘Bait’: Snipers Describe Classified Program.

From the second story:

A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of “bait,” such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.

From the first story:

“In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran’s borders,” state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported. “The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services.”

One story is horrific — our tax money is now being used to shoot civilians who bend over to investigate shiny stuff on the street — and the other story is just weird. The article is silent as to what sort of bait was used to catch the squirrels.

It Can't Happen Here

This clip from an Australian comedy show, the Chaser’s War on Everything, which purports to be man-in-the-street interviews of somewhat ordinary Americans (conducted by US-based reporter Charles Firth?) must be a spoof. It’s probably a spoof. I mean, it has a laugh track. I hope it’s a spoof.

People wouldn’t really say that stuff just sixty years after the Holocaust, would they?

Not In My House

Every so often I think, “maybe we should buy a TV”. Then I read stuff like this catch at Amygdala:

Katie Couric just led off the opening story on tonight’s CBS Evening News by announcing that “President Ahmadinejad of Iran, an enemy of the United States, arrived tonight….

That’s just the sort of neutral reporting I want to expose myself and my family to on a nightly basis.

As Gary Farber says, is there an official national enemies list somewhere?

Nixon must be smiling in his grave. Actually, you know it’s bad when the administration starts making you think Nixon was better than what you’ve got… After all, they stole both money and elections on a much smaller scale….

And CBS, even after he and Agnew broke its spirit, was never this deferential to Nixon.

My That's a Big Sabre You Are Rattling There

Over at Hullabaloo, tristero gies credence to the idea that the nuclear missiles “accidentally” flown via B-52 from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale, Louisiana, in violation of policy that we don’t have planes with nukes flying around the US, were actually flown there intentionally because, he says, “Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. “

His theory — they want to drop the big one on Iran.

I do think that’s a bit tinfoily. But it would not be hard to persuade me that this “accident” and the “unauthorized leak” were some sort of psychops procedure to make the Iranians think we plan to bomb them.

In some ways I think I’d rather believe that than the official, and most likely, story—that a pilot could fly off with at least five nukes by mistake. And no one would notice for three hours.

Bush Plans to Attack Iran, Guardian Says

UK’s Guardian newspaper says, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

The Guardian isn’t 100% reliable on US news, but this fits with a lot of what is going on, including the apparent deployment of a third carrier group to the Persian Gulf and despite opposition from high-ranking officers. Note, however, that the deployment of the third carrier group may be escalation, or it may be mere rotation.

McCain's Madness

Is it possible to look at this little clip recorded earlier today and imagine John McCain as President?

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”???

And his poll numbers were already bad.

Shhh! Pass it On

Lawyers, Gun$ and Money (and also unfogged) passes on some Scary Gossip originating at TAPPED.

Two Weeks is Forever in PR

If a week is a long time in politics, then two weeks must be forever in PR.

New Evidence Clouds U.S. Case against Iran: Two weeks ago, the Bush administration organized an intelligence briefing for journalists in Iraq to demonstrate that Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents. According to the anonymous briefers, the weapons — particularly explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s — were manufactured in Iran and provided to insurgents by the Quds Force — a fact that meant direction for the operation was “coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government.”

Well. A raid in southern Iraq on Saturday seems to have complicated the case.

It seems the Iraqis were making the stuff that the US had been saying could only have come from IraqIran. And from the markings on the boxes, it seems most of the key parts came straight from non-Iranian factories.

I hope the Times and Post put this on their front pages with the same prominence they gave the scare stories two weeks ago.

Three As a Number to Reason About

Further to my post yesterday, here’s what the influential and mainstream Nelson Report (via Steve Clemons) has to say about sending three carrier groups to the Gulf:

On the other hand, increasing to three carrier strike groups would be noticeably more ‘robust’, belligerent and suggestive of intending or anticipating attack. The difference between two and three strike groups is huge. Two =’s strong and capable, but existing offensive intent is less probable; three =’s ‘we don’t care about provocation, we’re preparing to fight in this new dimension’.

(An indicator would be to watch for announcements about Nimitz strike group; Nimitz reportedly has completed the routine pre-deployment work-up and is in San Diego.)

The US has eleven carriers (with #12 on the way). Sending three out of eleven to the Gulf is more than saber-rattling.

Worse, the Gulf is too small for three carrier groups to function effectively, and has one entrance/exit that is about 20 miles wide and runs along the Iranian coast. This creates a sitting duck effect — a ‘target rich’ environment for potential attackers. In other words, it’s inviting Iran to take the bait, something that becomes increasingly likely the more that the Iranians come to believe that they are about to be attacked. (Which is undoubtedly the point of the US government media strategy.)

(And yes, the sailors on the Nimitz have been told that they are deploying “to the Middle East in April”.)

Gulf of Tonkin meet Persian Gulf.

Talk About Burying The News

Deep in the middle of Newsweek’s article Blowup? America’s Hidden War With Iran, we find this news:

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow.

A THIRD CARRIER? That would mean, presumably, a third carrier group.

Remember when the Bush administration piled all those troops outside of Iraq and many people refused to believe they would be told to attack?

There is no way I can imagine this bunch sending three carrier groups to the Gulf unless they plan to use them. Incidentally, the Gulf is a very small bit of water for one carrier group, not to mention three. And, I worry about them being, um, targets.

Doesn’t anyone remember Millennium Challenge? (Cf. Wikipedia entry)

Are We Inured to Incompetence Yet?

Even given the soft bigotry of low expectations that prop up the Bush administration, this has to be just a little shocking, doesn’t it?

Rice Denies Seeing Iranian Proposal in ‘03: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was pressed yesterday on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity to improve relations with Iran in 2003, when Tehran issued a proposal calling for a broad dialogue with the United States, on matters including cooperation on nuclear safeguards, action against terrorists and possible recognition of Israel.

Although former administration officials have said the proposal was discussed and ultimately rejected by top U.S. officials, Rice, who was then national security adviser, said she never saw it.

Either as a lie, or as a screw-up, or as a plot to keep her in the dark, this is fairly major, right? Especially if the administration plays Mid-East double or nothing by starting a war with Iran…

John Edwards's So-Called Iran Problem

John Edwards gave a talk via satellite to a fairly hawkish bunch meeting in Israel. Some of his remarks are quoted and summarized in the Jerusalem Post and on the conference web site.

Notably, Edwards is reported to have said that Iran is now “the greatest challenge of our generation” and that “Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

This sort of talk has unsettled some people who you would think are among Edwards’s natural supporters. Take, for example, this article in the Nation by Ari Berman entitled, Edwards’s Iran Problem. This is actually a mild form of the critique:

Such a provocative speech seems out of character for the ‘08 contender, at least in political terms. As he’s moving left on Iraq—-by calling on Congress to deny funding for an escalation of troops and advocating the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 US soldiers—-why is Edwards veering right on Iran?

There’s a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he’s pandering to win the support and money of hawkish “pro-Israel” voters and donors. Three, he’s trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

No matter the rationale, speeches like these won’t help Edwards with Democratic primary voters and could potentially injure his presidential prospects. Preventing a war with Iran is as important as getting out of Iraq to many in the peace movement. Indeed, those goals are now intertwined. Edwards can’t have it both ways.

The less-mild form, which is floating around too, calls Edwards a sellout to the NeoCons and lambastes him for not saying at least (1) that Iran is still several years away from getting nukes, so we should all calm down and/or (2) that tactical nuclear weapons should be off the table — on the theory that saying any less, much less “ALL options are on the table” just encourages the current administration’s worst tendencies, which include being mad enough to nuke Iranian reactors or the like.¹

Personally I don’t agree with the “greatest” threat stuff — I’d say that the biggest long-run threat to us is global warming; and the biggest short-run problem is getting out of Iraq without making things worse or betraying those who helped us.

On the other hand, you will find a heck of a lot of national security types, and not just neocons, who think that rogue states with nukes are very very very scary. And

• if they are theocratic rogue states that have said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, and
• if we know for a fact (as we do), that the Israelis will strike first before they allow such a theocratic rogue state to build a nuclear weapon, and
• that there’s probably nothing we can say to stop the Israelis from launching that sort of an, especially at present when the Israeli government is so weak (and when lots of folks in our own Pentagon — and not just the political appointees — probably think it’s a good idea), and
• if we suspect (as we do) that an Israeli attack on Iran would set off a giant mid-east war, during which our oil supply will at best be disrupted and at worst severely damaged for a long time,

well, then you begin to see why this claim that the Iranian push for nukes is a really big dangerous deal is not nearly as nuts as it might sound, and has little to do with the Bushco attempt to provoke an armed conflict. (Should fear of giving comfort to neo-cons cause someone who believes the above to be plausibly dangerous to choose to stay quiet? I don’t see how we can expect that. It begins to sound like the neocons telling us to shut up.)

As for the remark that the US has “abdicated its responsibility and had not done enough to stop Iran” I take that to be part of the “Iraq is distracting us from what matters” line that, again, one hears from national security types who haven’t drunk the Cheney Kool-Aid. And if one wants a non-military solution with Iran, the only plausible route to that outcome involves solving the Iraq mess ASAP.

Attacking Iran while in Iraq would be madness; doing so after pulling out of Iraq would be only somewhat less mad. But making threatening noises while trying to entice Iran to the bargaining table is just standard diplomacy. (And, if you read all of Edwards’s remarksk, that’s clearly what he has in mind: “I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.”) So this talk by Edwards strikes me as not so radical or odd, but quite mainstream. Not optimal for my taste, but I can’t say that these ideas are unreasonable either. Is there a little pandering going on to US Jews as well? Quite probably. But just a little.

---

¹ The talk about tactical nukes derives from a George W. Bush press conference held April 18, 2006:

Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we’re working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that’s why we’re working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we’ll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved.

See also Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker.

Once Again With the Stick

Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq:

The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.

Ya think?

Poke It With a Stick

The Left Coaster’s military corespondent brings us up to date on US military moves in the direction of Iran. If the US has a strategy here, it seems about as subtle as poking a beehive with a stick.

Iran Claims to have Shot Down US Drone

Haven’t seen much about this in the Western media, but the Eastern press is reporting that Iran claims to have shot down a US drone recently. Here’s the Chinese version,

TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) — Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival — the United States.

The aircraft was brought down when it was trying to cross the borders “during the last few days,” Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh, a member of the parliament, was quoted by the local Fars News Agency as saying.

The lawmaker gave no exact date of the shooting-down or any other details about the incident, but he said that “the United States sent such spy drones to the region every now and then.”

The vagueness as to the date is suspicious, as is the lack of detail as to location. Is the US flying spy drones over Iran? Or armed Predators? And if so, isn’t that a little provocative? Then again, the whole thing may be Iranian disinformation. It probably sounds good to the voters in Tehran…

'This has to be called escalation

The Left Coaster’s new military affairs contributor USAF Col. Sam Gardiner (ret.) starts off his blogging with a disturbing account of the US actions aimed at Iran, Pieces in Place for Escalation

The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on Tuesday. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

This has to be called escalation.

There’s lots more, including this:

As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

Is there no one in the GOP who can shake some sense into the madmen in the White House?

The Latest

Digby has much more information about the US and Iran than I found in my newspaper.

We're In Trouble

We're in big trouble.

Have a look at The Washington Note, whose latest begins like this:

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

If this is true, we're in very big trouble. Or, if the rumor was sparked by an order 'only' authorizing clandestine operations (or, worse, bombardment) as a form of provocation, this is serious stuff. But even if it's not at all true in any way, we're in pretty big trouble, as the spread of this rumor means we've reached a point in our politics when sober, quite moderate, people like Steve Clemons are starting at shadows.

I can only remember one time that felt like this: when Nixon was in the last weeks of his Presidency, and people -- including the then-Secretary of Defense-- got worried that Nixon might try to start a war to distract the country from his troubles, or even stage some sort of coup. People in DC even began to speculate as to what military forces could be assembled as a counterweight in the event that Nixon, rumored to be drunk and unstable, chose to subvert the Constitution.

According to reports published after Nixon resigned, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger even went as far to tell some of the highest-ranking military officers to inform him if any 'extraordinary orders' went out from the White House and to refrain from carrying out any orders which came from the White House outside the normal military channels. (An action, incidentally, of dubious formal legality on the part of both James Schlesinger and his generals.)

Those were not good times.

Any time there is serious speculation by ordinarily sober people that the President has launched a secret war against one -- or two! -- countries, well, those are not good times either.

I think this is true whoever you think is at fault -- the administration for being Hell-bent for lunacy, or the DC Democrats (or if you prefer the DC Establishment), for being a bunch of strategic cowards. Whenever the level of trust within the governing class has so broken down, we are in for hard times indeed.

And if, as Clemons's article suggests, the White House is launching a new secret war (or two), then we're far worse off than we were in 1974, for who in the modern White House would cast him or herself as our modern James Schlesinger?

US Conducts Provocation Against Iran

U.S. Forces Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq, Detain 5 (Update2)

U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.

Was this a premeditated and intentional provocation? I'd bet yes. We'll know I'm wrong and that it wasn't if the US releases the diplomats and issues a full apology in the next very few hours. Any longer than that and they did it on purpose.

Recall, in this context, how the US felt when Iranian students, supported by their government, seized the US embassy in Tehran...

Update: The first US statement is encouraging. It is not bellicose:

U.S. forces detained six Iranian officials for questioning in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, seat of the Kurdish regional government, an American official said Thursday.

But the official disputes accounts from Iran that the troops broke open a consulate gate and conducted a raid.

"No shots were fired. No altercation ensued," the U.S. official. "It was a knock on the door and 'Please come out.' "

Iran's government-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported five people were detained and said U.S. forces disarmed guards, broke open the consulate gate and confiscated computers and documents.

The U.S. official asserted the Iranians were not inside an officially designated diplomatic consulate or embassylike building.

Iraqi state-run TV network Al-Iraqiya identified the site as an Iranian consulate, but the Iraqi Foreign Ministry described the building as a "diplomatic representation."

The U.S. official would not identify the Iranian officials or say why they were being questioned.

Why Put an Admiral at CENTCOM?

CENTCOM has traditionally been a ground soldier's job. Why give it to an admiral? Especially as there are two ground wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) going on in its theater of responsibility.

Here's one worrying theory --

Pen and Sword: Navy Admiral Goes to CENTCOM: Be Very Afraid. It seems highly unusual for a navy admiral to take charge of CENTCOM until you consider two interrelated things. First is that Bush needs a senior four-star in the CENTCOM job who hasn't gone on record as opposing additional troops in Iraq. Second is that Fallon's CENTCOM area of responsibility will include Iran.

A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.

If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it's "Fox" Fallon.

Meanwhile, Military commanders have apparently told President Bush that only 9,000 troops are available for escalation, with an additional 10,000 soldiers who would be "on alert in Kuwait and the U.S."

Eric Muller Writes a Letter

Eric Muller writes An Open Letter to the Members of the Institute for Political and International Studies of the Foreign Ministry of Iran.

Today's must-read.

This Bunch Doesn't Rattle Sabers: They Just Club Folks With Them

War Signals:

The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.

According to the article, the deployment is ahead of the normal rotation for the carrier group.

The fact that an attack on Iran would be military and diplo-political stupidity of a positively supernatural order must not be allowed to obscure the effects of the near-total reality distortion field now centered at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the boyish delights that can be taken in a Rovian October Surprise.

The only thing that gives me hope this is all a bad joke is that The Nation quotes the Navy's spokesperson, our old friend Lt. Kafka, now apparently no longer working at Guantanamo but serving up news from Norfolk.

Administration Banging the Drums of War -- With Iran

Time magazine -- no liberal bastion! -- reports that the military thinks something is up:

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

And Col. Sam Gardiner -- the author of an excellent study showing how the administration planted false stories about Iraq in the 2003 run-up to its invasion -- now says that

We're conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and from Congressional sources.

Much more at Crooks and Liars.