agitprop version 2.0

One Step Closer to World War III

How did I miss this? From Sunday's WAPO:

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

This fits with last month's revelation that Dick Cheney ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran. Maybe this Pentagon doctrine is just icing on the cake for the upcoming assault on Persia?

And now for the irony . . . President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly this morning and urged other nations to join his crusade:

Bush pressed for Security Council approval of a resolution calling upon all nations to take steps to end the incitement of terrorist acts and asked nations to agree to prosecute and to extradite anyone seeking radioactive materials or nuclear devices.

"We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: You will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world," Bush said. "Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists."

So little George wants all the WMD to himself. His Mamma never taught him how to share. If Kofi Annan has any balls then he'll enact this resolution and prosecute Bush for pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

USA: WMD for us, but not for you!

Guns of August

A few weeks ago, The American Conservative magazine reported that Dick Cheney had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Such an attack would be carried out in response to the next terrorist attack that occurs on U.S. soil. Whether or not Iran is the perpetrator of this hypothetical terrorist attack, Iran would be the target of a U.S. military assault. This makes me wonder, how far will the evil doers in the Bush regime go in order to implement their grand imperial agenda?

First, are there any warnings to indicate or predict an upcoming attack on U.S. soil? Second, I'd like to look at Iran, most particularly, why attack Iran? According to John J. Albanese, the political stage is ripe for another war:

1. The economy’s housing bubble is ready to pop
2. Oil is at an all-time high, with winter approaching
3. A grand jury appears poised to zero in on the White House
4. The president’s approval ratings is at historic lows
5. The Downing Street memos, as well as myriad other sources of evidence are slowly revealing the awful truth behind the lies and high crimes of this administration

I recommend reading Albanese's entire work Red Alert – The Cassandra Complex – Part 2. There are many good sources which connect Iran, new terrorist threats and U.S. Neoconservative war plans.  So, what about terrorist attacks? Does the government know something that we don't? Is there any chatter out there?

• CNN:  FBI: Al Qaeda plot possibly uncovered in California
• NRO:  Ayman al-Zawahiri promises further destruction to US and UK
• Karena:  Terror drills in Texas
• UnCapitalist/NY Times:  Officials warn of possible new terrorist attacks in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago around September 11th, 2005

The Neoconservatives would probably love to shift the war into Iran for a variety of reasons. That might have been PNAC's goal all along. Most of these NeoCon oil connoisseurs are still angry about the fall of the Shah in 1979. Plus, Iran has some good tasting black gold.         

      

The folks at PNAC have both predicted and demonstrated that the best way to rally Americans to support war is a terrorist attack:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

We've seen what happens to the American psyche after a terrorist attack. It is bruised and beaten, and rightly so, seeks vengeance. Bush was able to easily connect the 9/11 attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the minds of the American public. I bet that he'd have an easy time connecting a future attack to the "evil" nuclear-obsessed mullahs of Iran.

Let's check out some of the warring rhetoric against Iran:

• CNN:  Bush tells Israeli TV that "All options are on the table" for Iran
• Haaretz:  Iran tells Bush they have more war options than U.S.
• Seattle Post:  Senator McCain considers military options for Iran
• InfoWars:  Israeli hawks might take out Iran's nuclear facilities
• Liberal Revolt:  Iran Watch--Timeline to Destruction. Vaughn chronicles the past seven months of U.S.-Iran rhetoric.
• Granny Insanity:  Fishing Poles and the Guns of August
• Blogenlust:  John notes that the Iraqi insurgency is getting bombs from freedom-hating Iran
• NBC San Diego:  Military training and exercises have increased at Camp Pendleton. One of my friends who lives near the Marine base had to give away their dog who was continually spooked by the 24/7 sounds of bombs. They can't recall a time when the bombing noises have been so frequent.
• Portland IndyMedia:  Was Four-Star General Kevin Byrnes fired for trying to organize opposition to the NeoCon plans to use the Air Force to attack Iran?

I will continue to catalog the links regarding this brewing conflict with Iran. If you have any links or sources to add, please drop it in the comments.

downing street memo cindy sheehan politics war freedom pentagon iraq iran

Operation Nuke The Mullahs

Last week I pointed to an article in The American Conservative of all places which stated that Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered the Pentagon to draft a plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in response to another 9/11-style terrorist attack. The article, by Philip Giraldi, is now available here on their website.

Juan Cole notes that the NeoCons in the White House and Pentagon thought they could use Iraq as a spring board to attack Iran. Taking a look at their grand strategy it appears that Iran, not Iraq, was their prized possession all along. However, this strategy has been somewhat foiled since Iraq's government is now dominated by Shi'ites which are friendly with Iran's Islamic Shi'ite theocratic regime. Thus, is war with Iran still a possibility? Scott Ritter has argued that the war against Iran has already begun with CIA-sponsored covert missions.

At Counterpunch, Gary Leupp responds to Giraldi's claims about Cheney's plans to nuke Iran asking:

Can it get madder than this? The neocons' plans for a total reorganization of the "Greater Middle East" have been plain for some time now. Many have been warning against the prospect of an expansion of the Iraq War into Syria and Iran. You'd think that reality would smack these guys in the face and they'd call off anything so stupid. But they apparently think that by using conventional and nuclear weapons (first time any nation will do that since Nagasaki); by employing the Mujahadeen Khalq; by activating agents in place to organize demonstrations (as the CIA did so successfully in Iraq in 1953); by attacking from Azerbaijan they can actually pull this off. Do they even realize that southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical Shiism, and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shiites U.S. forces have acquired in Iraq?

Leupp hopes that the Air Force would resist or at least question such an insane plan as a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. He offers the following rhetorical questions:

What do they mean by "another 9-11"? Could any, even small-time terrorist act in the U.S. (say, killing 52 in the Boston subway) be the signal for us to start bombing Iran?

Does the Vice President's office anticipate this second 9-11 sometime soon?

What does Vice President Cheney know that we don't? Does he have access to intelligence which predicts an Iranian-sponsored attack on the United States? I urge you to consider these candidly truthful words Mr. Cheney uttered last year on the campaign trail:

"It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

I think it's clear that we made the wrong choice on November 2.   

Technorati:  dick cheney iran iraq politics war freedom

Cheney's Plan To Nuke Iran

Justin Logan --> TPM Cafe --> Eschaton --> Agitprop

Could this story even be true? I don't doubt the fact that the United States military has developed strategic scenarios to deal with Iran in case a situation may arise, but The American Conservative reports the following (in an upcoming issue):

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.  The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.  Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.  Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.  As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.  Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

I've been keeping my eye on U.S.-Iran war rhetoric ever since Bush got re-elected. I don't think the U.S. will actually go to war with Iran because we simply do not have the troops to fight a third war (unless they re-instate the draft, which is highly unlikely in today's political climate). Then again, I wouldn't put anything past the Bush regime. Who knows what tricks they have up their sleeve . . .

Other Agitprop Iran-related posts:  [Spies Hide Out In Every Corner]  [Fox News: Bin Laden In Iran]  [Iran: Countdown To Annihilation] [Mercury Rising]  [The Persian Front]  [The Axis of Evil--Is Iran Next?]

UPDATE 7/29/05: The complete article by Philip Giraldi is now available on The American Conservative website. The article also discusses the pre-9/11 failures of the CIA and the revenge killings of Sunnis which are being perpetrated by the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi police force.

Technorati:  Iran iraq politics war freedom

Spies Hide Out In Every Corner

While the following news of the pilot's death is tragic, I found a rather interesting angle:

The pilot of a US Air Force U-2 spy plane on a mission in support of American military operations in Afghanistan died today when his plane crashed while returning to its base in the United Arab Emirates. The U-2 crashed in the Emirates while approaching the base to land, said a Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Early reports gave no indication of any hostile fire, but it is too soon to be certain why it crashed, the official said.

The U-2 is a reconnaissance plane that operates at an altitude of more than 70,000 feet (21,336 metres) and has been used in every major conflict the United States has fought since the aircraft was developed in the 1950's.

The Air Force uses the U-2 strictly for high altitude reconnaissance missions. It was used to spy on the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and take photos of Cuba's nuclear missile installations in 1962. A U-2 was shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960.

Why would the United States need to perform high altitude reconnaissance in Afghanistan? I thought the United States was rebuilding the country and had it secured. It's not like the remnants of the Taliban possess sophisticated anti-aircraft guns which could pose harm to low-flying U.S. fighter jets. So what would we need a U-2 for other than covert surveillance and intelligence gathering?

Look at which country lies smack between Afghanistan and The UAE:

Looking for nuclear sites are we?

MORE IRAN INFO:

• Scott Ritter: The War against Iran has already begun
• Atrios: Iraq army being trained to fight Iran?
• BBC: Iran rocked by blasts before election, MEK is suspected culprit
• Village Voice: John Bolton advocates using Iranian exile terrorist group MEK to infiltrate Iran

Fox News: Bin Laden in Iran

The propaganda network is at it again. Check out last night on Your World With Neil Cavuto on Fox:

(These are authentic screen captures; no photoshop involved)

                         

Fox News Channel knows where Bin Laden is hiding. Neil Cavuto introduced "two men who claim to have irrefutable information as to the exact location of Osama Bin Laden". Fox News Military Analyst Lt. Gen. Paul Vallely claimed that Osama has been hiding in safe houses outside of Tehran. Vallely also believes that Iran is the "center of terror today" and advocated applying the Bush doctrine to the Islamic republic.

The other guest was Ken Timmerman, a conservative author and former GOP Senate candidate in Maryland. Timmerman claims to have testimony from Iranian defectors about Bin Laden's networks and safe houses within Iran. He also believes that Iraq's WMD were moved to Syria. Watch the clip for yourself, it's located on the right of the page.

President Bush, you may now commence Shock & Awe II: Operation Persian Annihilation . . . Bombs away suckaz! 

Iran: Countdown to Annihilation

Courtesy of Corrente via Pissed Off Patricia at Blondesense, we have learned that U.S. naval ships are departing for the Persian Gulf. Xan at Corrente provides some stunning evidence and ask us to connect the dots. Go ahead if you dare . . .   

The military is right on schedule. Both Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter have predicted a June 2005 attack on Iran based on their multiple insider sources. It's all happening according to plan. We've already witnessed the media propaganda about Iran's nuclear ambitions and have experienced a steady pro-war rhetoric from the Bush administration during the past six months. Presently the Europeans are unsuccessful in their diplomatic attempts to halt Iranian nuclear development plans. When their attempts are officially deemed to have failed, will the U.S. and Israel step in with a Shock and Awe solution?

Bush's poll numbers are in the tank so the time is ripe for another war. Operation Iranian Destruction will most likely commence with a bombing campaign. However, if we do send in ground troops or small special forces teams they will be forced to confront the dreaded Iranian Chick Ninjas.

                   

So, what are the odds for another war? Any bets?

Mercury Rising

On Sunday, in a daring act of masochistic insanity, I forced myself to watch Iran: The Nuclear Threat, a Fox News Channel hour-long report on U.S.-Iran tensions. Through its use of fear-laden propaganda, dramatic background music and stock footage of angry anti-American crowds, missile caches and nuclear blasts, the report succeeded in scaring the shit out of me. When the program concluded my heart was literally beating faster and my breathing was impaired. I was not worried about an Iranian nuclear attack on the United States, rather, I was severely distressed about a possible United States military assault on Iran.

I can't stomach another war, and neither can the United States, or the world for that matter. Not only is the U.S. military over-extended but the government is in major debt thanks to Bush's domestic and foreign policies which have bankrupted the federal treasury. This Fox report, hosted by Chris Wallace, was reminiscent of the media's one-sided coverage of Iraq in late 2002. Remember when the media banged the war drum and stirred up public fear about the non-existent Iraqi WMD threat? Now three years later we are faced with Iran. Whereas the Iraqi threat was greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration and the CIA, the U.S. really has no clue about the state of Iran's nuclear development.

Wallace indicated that U.S. military action against Iran seemed inevitable. The report indicated that the IAEA's diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's nuclear development were unsuccessful. In fact, Iran announced this week that they will resume the enrichment of uranium. Why would a rouge state listen to the IAEA anyways? The U.S. has proved the U.N. to be irrelevant so why should any nation pay attention to the demands of international treaty organizations?

The report contained an interview with a freshly coiffed Rick Santorum, who advocated regime change in Iran via supporting internal democratic movements to overthrow the ruling mullahs. However, the focal point of the report was the possibility of U.S. military action to confront the growing threat posed by Iran. Four military options were discussed with former CIA/military personnel:

1. CIA covert operations: U.S. special forces would enter Iran to sabotage and destroy nuclear facilities. One military expert indicated that this may already be taking place.
2. U.S. naval blockade: The navy would block Iranian oil tankers from leaving their ports. 50% probability.
3. U.S. air strikes: The air force would bomb and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. 50-60% probability.
4. Ground invasion: 1% probability. Uh, duh, unless you want to start a draft.

Scott Ritter has indicated that June 2005 is the do or die date--the point when the U.S. will decide to either choose serious diplomacy or embark on military action. Some sort of action seems inevitable. Fox is the first network to jump on the war bandwagon with their propaganda coverage of the Iranian threat. CNN and MSNBC will most likely follow in lock step in the coming months.

I don't believe that Iran is enriching uranium solely for energy purposes. The aggressive U.S. foreign policy of pre-emptive war has harmed non-proliferation efforts by encouraging rouge nations to develop nuclear weapons. The only deterence for a U.S. attack is to flex some nuclear muscle as evidenced by the recent actions of North Korea. The Iranian mullahs have learned that in order to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein they must develop and possess nuclear weapons. Therefore, will the Bush administration respond with serious diplomacy or military action?

Let us examine the ambiguously open-ended words of our fearless leader from February 2005:

I think we're screwed.

The Persian Front

It's been two years since Bush sacked Babylon. He has since recreated it in his own image by spreading "chaos & order" like Alexander the Great did centuries before him. Will Bush now set his sights on Persia to complete his Near East Empire? Well, Liberal Revolt has complied a great timeline of the Bush administration's rhetoric on Iran called Iran Watch - Timeline to Destruction.

 

The media is too busy covering the Michael Jackson trial and Bush selling his Social Security Destruction Act--both which serve to distract people from the administration's mounting war plans for Iran. Meanwhile, oil prices grow higher and higher. I just paid $2.40/gallon here in Southern California. And how does Congress respond? Instead of funding research for fuel efficient technologies and hybrid cars, they voted 51-49 to allow for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It will take 10 years before any oil comes out of that land, probably after the land is polluted and animal populations decimated. But who cares? Dick Cheney will probably make a few G's off it. So watch for increased rhetoric on Iran (remember they have oil, and Condi Rice just talked about a pipeline deal too).

The Axis of Evil -- Is Iran Next?

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter claimed last week that he has access to confidential information that states the U.S. will bomb Iran this summer. On his fence-mending tour throughout Europe, Bush said that the U.S. has no plans to attack Iran and then commented "having said that, all options are on the table". What a case of double-speak! Bush's diplomatic tour is really all political B.S. -- the politicians publicly say that they are committed to diplomacy and peace, then they share war plans in the back room.

I heard Scott Ritter interviewed on my local Pacifica station KPFK. He was also featured on the documentary Uncovered: The Truth About the Iraq War. His predictions about Iraq have mostly come true--he said there were no WMD and he also nailed the way Bush & Co. duped the American public into supporting the war. So Scott does have some cred and one should take note of his words about Iran. Journalist Seymour Hersh (who uncovered the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1969) has also written about the U.S. military's secret war plans for Iran. So we may be in for yet another war this summer. With Syria now allied with Iran, we may be facing two separate adversaries. You would think that summertime would be too hot to start another war in the Middle East. Well the plans are only for bombing, not invasion.