VP Cheney Still Pushing for Attack Against Iran

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring


Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian


A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters



US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.


Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

Deployment

Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.

Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.

In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.

The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.

"All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation."

One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

 

How about just sending in some SEALs to seize Iran oil terminals and cut their money off?

Naahhh, that's the smart Democrat way.

 

And then what, Iran does nothing & says wow - you smart Democrats sure got us - no wonder we want you elected!

I know all the dems/libs here LOVE to tell themselves how stupid & evil Bush/cheney are and how the world would be a utopia if only they were elected.

However, Iran is a real problem that is not going away and there are no easy answers.

There is no easy answer here and no democrats that I have seen have even begun to talk in depth about their plans for the Middle East other than vague notions of "more diplomacy" as if those alone are magical words that give you a panacea for the problem.

Let's say an anti-war democrat is elected president (Edwards or Obama for instance) and Iran gives a dirty Nuke to Hezzbolah & they explode in in Israel but it can't be traced directly to Iran.

The ultimate "homicide bomb" if you will.

Then what?

 

Iran sends troops over the border to Iraq anyway if that happens.

 

Did I say anything about diplomacy, asswipe?

I didn't think so.

You cut Iran's money off and all of a sudden the money to their armed forces, their proxies with Hezbollah and their economy stops flowing. Suddenly President Amen-to-Jihad finds it a lot harder to project his power across the border in Iraq; Hezbollah finds it harder to fund attacks against Israel; and the mullahs lose confidence in their hard-line mouthpiece.

So you need to think over what I suggest before you pop off in typical Hannity wannabe fashion, jackass.

Whatever.

 

Besides, Dick Cheney wouldn't lead us down the wrong path.

 

Actually, many of the "libs" here, when stating a case against the war in Iraq, stated that a huge reason not to invade that country was the irreperable harm it would cause the nascent pro-democracy movement inside Iran.

You can go ahead and look up how that turned out.

 

Actually, wouldn't we be seen as the oil-thirsty greedy bastards liberals attack us as being by seizing the oil flow? Kind of contradictory, isn't it? Not that I don't agree. Money is the universal language of people in power.

But don't believe for one minute that it wouldn't incite terrorist attacks worldwide.

 

FB,

Thanks for the insults - let's me know I am winning the argument (not that I was in doubt)

Look, here is the deal - No WAY Iran will let us just "seize" their oil fields, wells, etc.

They have some considerable weaponry & we are a bit tied up in Iraq. So, while I think we can project power on Iran. Taking & holding those assets in a full scale confrontation would prove quite challenging and seriously widen a war that most DEMOCRATS are begging for us to come home from.

Wasn't there some pull out resolution floating around the Senate sponsored by Democrats?

Again, no easy options here my friend, sorry.

 

Not surprising that Yawn and JDV .. two real men among men (note the sarcasm) ... would make this about liberals versus conservatives as opposed to Americans reluctant to open up yet a third front when we can't even win on the two we already have open.

 

Alley, while you're tucking and running....

Seizing the oil flow doesn't involve 40,000 troops.

 

Let's step away from the playpen and chat over here, shall we?
One bombing run over Iran ends our ability to affect change in that country forever. It lights a new fire under the Shia in Iraq and everywhere else -- including the the Shia militia ostensibly on our side. It makes the renascent ground war in Afghanistan harder to fight. Great plan.
Of course, we can "seize the oil flow" with a couple of cops and a slingshot.
Let's go back and make sure the children haven't drowned in the aquarium while we were away.