agitprop version 2.0

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! 

The Trail of Torture Continues

I've written previously how our benevolent American conquistadors have utilized torture to spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. I would argue that torture, as a method of interrogation and intelligence gathering, has been ineffective from both a public relations and practical standpoint. Nonetheless, our top political leaders and military commanders have approved the use of torture to brutalize, demoralize and humiliate the enemy.

Get ready for more gruesome images. A U.S. judge has ordered the Pentagon to release 100 new photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse in accordance with a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. How will the Bush Administration react to the release of photos which prove that the United States engaged in torture? Will they blame it on a few bad apples or deny it altogether and insist that the U.S. is spreading freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom . . .

In an op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times, Naomi Klein gives Bu$hCo some healthy PR advice on how to deal with the latest round of torture photos:

Imagine if Rumsfeld responded like Col. Mathieu in "Battle of Algiers," Gillo Pontecorvo's famed 1965 film about the National Liberation Front's attempt to liberate Algeria from French colonial rule. In one of the film's key scenes, Mathieu finds himself in a situation familiar to top officials in the Bush administration: He is being grilled by a room filled with journalists about allegations that French paratroopers are torturing Algerian prisoners.

Based on real-life French commander Gen. Jacques Massus, Mathieu neither denies the abuse nor claims that those responsible will be punished. Instead, he flips the tables on the scandalized reporters, most of whom work for newspapers that overwhelmingly support France's continued occupation of Algeria. Torture "isn't the problem," he says calmly. "The problem is the FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria and we want to stay…. It's my turn to ask a question. Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences."

His point, as relevant in Iraq today as it was in Algeria in 1957, is that there is no nice, humanitarian way to occupy a nation against the will of its people. Those who support such an occupation don't have the right to morally separate themselves from the brutality it requires.

Historically, any nation or empire that has colonized another nation has been forced to exert their control through brute force. Is torture the only means of creating social order in Iraq? Is rule by fear the only viable way to secure Iraq? The trail of torture is a long meandering trail which includes secret renditions, brutal beatings, and deadly prisons. It has grown throughout the Middle East while maintaining it's firms roots in Washington, D.C. 

More on The Trail of Torture:

The ACLU exposes the new face of torture. Does it look familiar? Also, The Heretik examines the absurdity of torture while looking at some protesters at a recent speech by Condoleezza Rice. Have we all gone mad?

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?

Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

I think there's something fishy about the protest signs at the recent Islamic fundamentalist riots so I've decided to research this further than what I started in Flushing Democracy. I owe John at Blogenlust for initially raising this issue.

Take a look at this collage of signs from the Islamic protesters. These images were AP photos from the Yahoo News photo section. First, the slogans on the signs seem somewhat anomalous to the situation. Why are their statements so tame? I would expect to see angry and hateful epithets such as "Death to America" or "Bush is Satan" not eloquent semi-sensitive statements such as "Newsweek Deserves to be Banned" or "Bush Should Apologize For Desecration of Quran". Whoever designed these signs was skilled at English and used soft words like deserves and should. Random anti-American wackos don't just come out of the woodwork with statements like that.

Now, take another look at the collage of signs. Wouldn't you expect to see crudely written signs in sloppy paint? Here the edges of the letters are smooth and the brush strokes look computer enhanced. I mean no disrespect but where do a bunch of poor Muslims get all the equipment to produce such classy uniform signs? Kinkos? American anti-war protesters' signs don't even look half as nice. Here are some more anti-war protest images from around the world.

Afghans had already been protesting their government over their miserable political conditions before the Newsweek story broke. My bet is that someone strategically hijacked their protests by infusing it with the Newsweek rhetoric. Where were these protesters a year ago when the Abu Ghraib story broke? These protests were highly organized and strategically implemented but by who?

I smell conspiracy. Then again I might wrong. What do you think? Is this story worth pursuing? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Flushing Democracy

As a sociology major in college I learned that in order to understand any social action or behavior one must always look at who benefits from the particular action. Social action can be distinguished between its proclaimed functions and its real, sometimes hidden purposes. There is a key distinction between the purposes of social action which the members of a society are aware (manifest) and of which these members are not aware (latent). Social theorist Robert K. Merton explains the dual nature of social action:

The introduction of the concept of latent function in social research leads to conclusions which show that 'social life is not as simple as it first seems.'  For as long as people confine themselves to certain consequences (e.g. manifest consequences), it is comparatively simple for them to pass moral judgments upon the practice of belief in question.  Moral evaluations, generally based on these manifest consequences, tend to be polarized in terms of black or white.  But the perception of further (latent) consequences often complicates the picture.  Problems of moral evaluation (which are not our immediate concern) and problems of social engineering (which are our concern) both take on the additional complexities usually involved in responsible social decisions. 

Applying this method of analysis to the Bush Administration vs. Newsweek story we realize that things are not what they seem. The Busheviks were able to get NoozeWeak to apologize and retract their Koran-in-toilet story because it came from an unconfirmed anonymous source. The Busheviks, with Scottie McClellan leading the charge, went on to say that this careless act of reporting led to violent protests, deaths and the damaging of the United States' image abroad. The Bush Administration argued that the protests in the Middle East were a reaction to the Koran-in-toilet story. They described this as a pure cause-and-effect relationship.

Keith Olbermann, my new favorite anchor, argues that the Bush PR Team is clearly manipulating the media by drawing a cause-and-effect relationship between the Koran-in-toilet story and the Afghan protest. Pissed Off Patricia at BlondeSense notes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Myers said that the protests were occurring for political reasons not associated with the "big flush" story. Newsweek's specific instance about the Koran-in-toilet may have been faulty yet there are similar accounts of Koran desecration dating back several years.

But what about those Afghan protesters with signs reading "Newsweek should be banned" and "Bush should apologize"? John at Blogenlust points out the eerie similarity between the Afghan signs and the RNC's Bush signs during the 2004 election.  I myself think that the CIA painted these signs for the protesters. The bottom line is that the Bush administration version of the story has some serious holes.

When it comes to news stories, one must look always look at who benefits in order to understand the source of the political manipulation. So what are the latent functions for the Whitehouse's victory over Newsweek?

• The Right is able to further their crusade against the "liberal media". They are shooting the messenger just like they did with Dan Rather in the Memogate scandal. The messenger--our free press--is dying.
• The lying liars (Bush, Rumsfeld, McClellan, et. al.) are able to cover up their own lies (WMD, mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, etc.) by lambasting the "lies" of Newsweek.
• This story has deflected media coverage away from the increasing violence in Iraq. The 24-hour news cycle is now fixated on the Newsweekgate story.
• This comes at an opportune time for Senate Republicans who are on the verge of nuking the Senate to usher in one-party rule.

Never underestimate the power of the dark side. Karl Rove is a genius.

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.

Happy Birthday Mr. Hussein

Agitprop would like to wish ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein a Happy Birthday! Today Saddam Hussein turns 68 years old:

It is the dictator's second birthday behind bars at a US base near Baghdad airport since his capture in December 2003 near his hometown of Tikrit. Saddam faces a number of charges of crimes against humanity for his regime's campaign against the Kurds and the brutal suppression of a Shiite Muslim uprising in 1991. No date has been set for his trial.

Hey Saddam, Iraq must look great from your prison cell. Today the new prime minister chose cabinet ministers, effectively creating Iraq's first freely* elected government in over fifty years. Just keep on praying that your country collapses into complete civil war because that's your only ticket to escaping prison. In all honesty I will enjoy hearing the news about your coming trial as you deserve to be punished for the crimes you have inflicted on your people. Too bad that other evil dictators/CIA stooges like Mobutu and Pinochet have gone unpunished. You're a good place to start though.

*The current Iraqi government is in fact a U.S. puppet government which was brought about by questionable elections in which people voted for party lists, not individual candidates. The media continues to use the world "freely" to describe the nature of the elections thus I use it here.