Bushco is Looking for a Pretext to Bomb Iran

[reprehensor]

Hey, it's not my idea. In fact, the roots of this idea in its most explicit form can be traced to Congressman Ron Paul (R), Texas;

"The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing Naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran, are unsettling... Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the United States. Possibly, with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is 10 years away from producing a nuclear bomb, and has no delivery system. But this does not impede our plans to keep "everything on the table" when dealing with Iran... I am concerned however, that a contrived "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident may well occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

Representative Paul made these comments on the House floor last month.

Earlier this month, big league strategic adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski made these comments to the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations;

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II."

And most recently, Hillary Mann, Bush's former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs from 2001 to 2004 has come out with these statements;

O'BRIEN: What do you think? Is the administration trying to gin up a war against Iran?

MANN: What I call it is a -- they're trying to push a provocative accidental conflict. They're pushing a series of increasing provocations against the Iranians in, I think, anticipation that Iran will eventually retaliate, and that will give the United States the ability to launch limited strikes against Iran, to take out targets in Iran that we consider to be important.

O'BRIEN: So you believe the U.S. is looking for a pretext for some sort of attack?

MANN: Pretext, not for an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq, but a pretext to take out -- to degrade some of the nuclear facilities and to take out some of the buildings or the headquarters in Iran of the Revolutionary Guards, for example. And other power centers for this government that this -- that our administration finds to be so difficult and anathema.

O'BRIEN: Why? Why would the -- at this point, with all that the U.S. is dealing with in Iraq, why would the U.S. focus on Iran at this point?

MANN: I think it's -- we're now almost into year four of the Iraq war. It is, of course, by all accounts, is not going well, even by the Bush administration's accounts. The Bush administration has long seen Iran -- the Iranian government as fundamentally illegitimate.

The theocratic government there, the president has repeatedly said, in both public and in private, that he sees that government as illegitimate. It represses its people, and as long as it stays in its form, there can never be the democratization and peace and stability that he thinks needs to come to the Middle East.

That has long been the policy. That I think now what you see is the opportunity, both in terms of what is happening on the nuclear issue, what's happening in Iraq and on the terrorism front. Now is the opportunity to increase the provocations on Iran to force them to do something to us that would allow for a retaliation.

-------------------------

"I just want to say this; the American people are a people of great common sense, and they will not be stampeded or bewildered..."
- President Eisenhower, following the assassination of JFK.

I sure hope so, Ike.

[Greeby]

1. Hmm, it seems like they're trying to come up with a pretext

But it keeps fizzling out. Dumbfuckistan just ain't as big as it was 4 years ago

[Blue Fire]

3. Pretext! What pretext?

Oh! You mean like the one the dumbya cartel invented to invade Iraq!

[Henny Penny]

15. I wonder if this is why we keep being told Moqtada Sadr is in Iran.

You know, something awful happens in Iraq (I know its hard to imagine anything worse than all the things that have already happened..) Moqtada's lot are blamed and the US demands that the Iranians hand him over. The Iranians go "He's not here" US says "He is. Hand him over or else..." and we have a replay of a recent "successful" war causing scenario.

Plausible?

Remember the people who actually want this war aren't that bright...

[roamer65]

2. People know it means World War III.

Most of us sane people don't relish the idea of starting it and sadly we are capable of using nuclear weapons. We have twice before..;(

[Blue Fire]

4. Maybe what our country needs is a constitutional amendment

that only allows sane people, free from the delusional paranoia the whacked out right wingnut faction keeps trying to cram down the collective American throat, to vote!

[aquart]

5. Uh huh. And then what?

He pisses off a minimum of 71 million people and then what? WE HAVE NO ARMY. BUSH HAS WRECKED OUR MILITARY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. WE HAVE EXHAUSTED, OVERUSED, TRAUMATIZED SOLDIERS WITH INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT FOR THE TWO WARS THE IDIOT IS FIGHTING NOW. We have no money, no army, no equipment.

BTW, has anyone done an environmental impact study of the effects of a nuclear bomb blast on oil fields? Does the oil become radioactive, for instance?

[Az]

6. No, He is trying to create a pretext for bombing

He is poking Iran in the chest and daring them to do anything. He has placed our carriers within missile range. He is flying drones over their territory. He is arresting their diplomats in Iraqi territory. He is trying to create a reason to bomb them.

Bush Needs More Blood.

[liberal N proud]

7. bu$h is trying to provoke Iran into first strike.

Then he will be able to wage his war without discussion.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. Could try talking instead.

[Mr. Ected]

9. He's Got Less Than 2 Years

And "Nuke Iran" has been on his wish list since his
campaigning days in 1999 and 2000.  Now would be an opportune
time.  After all, the American people are ready to tar and
feather him for Iraq.  A change of focus masked in patriotic
fervor is just what Dr. Chimp ordered.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. First, welcome to DU.

I think you're seeing what we're all seeing. Can the public at large bee too stupid to see it as well? Is anybody buying this load of crap?

[leftofthedial]

10. gee.

ya think?

[reprehensor]

11. I think

Ron Paul's scenario is the most likely.

CONTRIVED

[Emit]

13. If I'm understanding correctly

I think Mann has it correct:

MANN: Pretext, not for an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq, but a pretext to take out -- to degrade some of the nuclear facilities and to take out some of the buildings or the headquarters in Iran of the Revolutionary Guards, for example. And other power centers for this government that this -- that our administration finds to be so difficult and anathema.

From the neocon sources I've read, it appears that many of the dissidents from Iran believe that Iran is ripe for this -- ripe, that is, in terms of the people being ready to revolt against the clerics. Ledeen writes extensively about this, as do people associated with the MEK, which happens to be a major intelligence source for Bushco, and supported by major neocons. Some Iranian blogs have discussed this, as well.

[autorank]

14. You nailed it. What a great collection of sources for duplicity. I'm totally impressed.

What a line up. Paul spoke out before Brzezinski! These folks on 12 Feb. Who will be next?

K&R