Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike

[katty]

more: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/19/4686/

Published on Friday, October 19, 2007 by Inter Press Service

Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike
by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The George W. Bush administration’s shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran’s role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation’s top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The reorientation of the military threat was first signaled by passages on Iran in Bush’s Jan. 10 speech and followed by only a few weeks a decisive rejection by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although scarcely mentioned in press reports of the speech, which was devoted almost entirely to announcing the troop “surge” in Iraq, Bush accused both Iran and Syria of “allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq”. Bush also alleged that Iran was “providing material support for attacks on American troops”.

[BushOut06]

1. Military action against Iran at ANY level is unacceptable

I don't give a shit if they're talking about "only" a surgical strike - such an action is completely unacceptable. If this happens, we need to DEMAND the immediate impeachment of Der Fuhrer. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Iran is preparing nuclear weapons - and even if they were, it still wouldn't be reason for military action.

When is enough enough?

[katty]

2. yes, been asking that question myself since the 2001 appointment