Scott Ritter says 80% chance of war with you know who . . .

[bushmeister0]

The Rutland Herald reports:

"There is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center. . .

Among the war clouds Ritter cited were:

Preemptive strikes against the two groups most likely to erupt if the United States invaded Iran, Hezbollah (unsuccessfully attacked by Israel) and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (unsuccessfully attacked in Basra by Iraq's central government).

Recent visits to Middle Eastern allies by high officials, ostensibly for other purposes, but really to prepare them for the effects of such a war.

The appearance of the 'miracle laptop,' as Ritter called it, a thousand pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian computer, which dubiously had just the sort of information the administration needed to support a hard-line stand on Iran.

Congressional supplementary funding for more 'bunker-busting' bombs, with a contract completion deadline of April.

Congressional supplementary funding for the extra bombers to carry those bombs, with a contract completion date of April.

Cheney's order to send a third aircraft carrier battle group close to the Persian Gulf, a necessary bolstering of forces for a war with Iran."

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01

Remember that "Fox" Fallon, now "retired," blocked Cheney's move to send an extra carrier group about the same time last year.

"Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/

Atimes reports:

"Fallon's greatest concern appears to have been preventing war with Iran. He was one a group of senior military officers, apparently including most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were alarmed in late 2006 and early 2007 by indications that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were contemplating a possible attack on Iran.

Even before assuming his new post at CENTCOM, Fallon expressed strong opposition in mid-February to a proposal for sending a third US aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, to overlap with two other carriers, according to knowledgeable sources. The addition of a third carrier was to be part of a broader strategy then being discussed at the Pentagon to intimidate Iran by making a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike. The plan for a third carrier task force in the Gulf was dropped after Fallon made his views known.

Fallon reportedly made his opposition to a strike against Iran known to the White House early on in his tenure, and his role as CENTCOM commander would have made it very difficult for the Bush administration to carry out a strike against Iran, because he controlled all ground, air and naval military access to the region.

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/158944

Keep in mind if they're going to do something, they want to do it before the summer, when all our expensive high tech weapons systems become useless.

According to the US Navy's own, site the next New Moon, an optimal time for an attack, is May 5th.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.php

[BadgerLaw2010]

1. I'm still waiting for the last four of Ritter's wars with Iran.

[Larkspur]

3. In this case, maybe calling "Wolf" is helping prevent war against Iran

we won't know and may never know how close we are getting to war against Iran.

[Bucky]

20. Thank you.

I never thought his "we're about to bomb Iran any second now" scenarios were ever very realistic. But then again, it never hurts to warn people about crazy ass war schemes the Bushies might be cooking up. It's too bad that Ritter seems to have burned through his credibility in the process. But if he sacrificed it, at least he sacrificed it to a noble cause.

[Zywiec]

5. The previous four predictions were a 100% chance of war with Iran

This time it's only 80%

:shrug:

[Skink]

6. We are at war with Iran. Economic sanctions always come first.

[mikelgb]

2. Lord Voldemort?

[LaPera]

4. It's going to happen!! Fuckers BushCo want those massive Iranian oil fields & more war for profit!

Just like they want to control the Venezuelan oil fields....Why not, it all belongs to them, the republican corporations...Our taxes pay for the mightiest military to invade and steal these fields for the corporations and they want it done before BushCo leaves office...In so much as we are in so very deep fighting, keeping war for profit going on for many years....IMPERIALISM!

[bushmeister0]

8. Basra was an attempt to get hold of the oil before an attack?

M K Bhadrakumar, a veteran Indian diplomat writes for Atimes:

"What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq. Iraq's Southern Oil Company is headquartered in Basra. Highly strategic installations are concentrated in the region, such as pipeline networks, pumping stations, refineries and loading terminals. The American oil majors will insist on fastening these installations.

The sense of frustration in Washington and London must be very deep that Basra is not yet fastened. Time is running out for Bush to make sure that his successor in the White House inherits an irreversible process in the US's Iraq policy. . .

Cheney must be furious that Tehran torpedoed the entire US strategy for Big Oil. He has had a hard time shepherding the pro-West Arab regimes in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, up to this point.

Besides, nothing infuriates Cheney more than when US oil interests are hit. Thus, the most critical few weeks in the decades-long US-Iran standoff may have just begun."

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html

We ceratinly don't want the Iranians to get their hands on that oil if we're at war with them.

[LaPera]

9. Great insightful story!

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html

[Horse with no Name]

13. That isn't the entire reason

this cabal doesn't want to give up power.
How will they ensure that?
War with Iran.
Hide and watch.

[debbierlus]

7. K & R - OFF to the front page with you

[JHB]

10. Maybe I'm forgetting something...

...but just what is it about summer that "all our expensive high tech weapons systems become useless"?

Not that attacking Iran isn't still more neocon delusion, but what's so special about this one point?

[bushmeister0]

12. Here's an example

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AAR.htm

[paparush]

11. Cheney/Bush would use a "miracle laptop" false flag op to avert the whole Iraqi-WMD claims debacle..

BUSH: "See, the Iranians are evil doers..and here's the proof..we've got a genuine LAPTOP! SEE!?!?!?! This here is EVIDENCE. This aint no 'mobile chemical weapons truck', this here's a LAPTOP!"

CHENEY: "It is clear that the Iranian regime .... intends to use this laptop to spread terror throughout the world. As evidenced by the Microsoft Word document contained in the laptop entitled, "HOW WE DID IT: The Secret Iranian Plan to Rain Nuclear Death Down On the Yankee Imperialist Infidels", this regime will stop at nothing to keep that thick, oh-so-profitable, oily substance from its rightful Anglo-Saxon owners."

[progressoid]

14. Well, it's April so it's time for another, "we're going to war with Iran" story.

Tune in again in May for another installment.

[bushmeister0]

15. Yes, only a crackpot would think W. & Co. would pull something like

a war with Iran.

The Daily Telegraph reported last Friday that our British allies seem to think something is up:

"A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. . . 'Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq,' a British official said. 'Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves,' he said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml

"Airstrikes and other moves" might mean an incrimental ramping up of cross-border strikes leading to an "incident" that requires sterner responses.

When such leading neocon lights as Kimberly Kagan say "US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," this should be seen as the kind of thinking going on in the Fuerher Bunker. Judging by the time left to this administration and it's single-minded focus on 'not to losing Iraq,' to paraphrase John McCain today, such a supposition is not so far fetched is it?

[progressoid]

21. I didn't say that.

Nobody denies this administration's immorality and gall. But these "Iran war is just around the corner" posts have been showing up regularly for a couple years. Each with just enough angst & panic (with a smattering of plausibility) to draw people in.

Apparently the politics of fear is alive and well on DU.

[damntexdem]

16. If it happens, it won't go as "well" as Iraq.

Think about that and get really worried.

[bushmeister0]

17. Maybe the thinking is that it couldn't be any worse

and this time they might get lucky?

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. 80% chance of war by when?

Predictions are easy to make if they are open ended.

Here's an example: The Yankees will win a World Series. I'm not predicting when, just sometime in the future.

[bushmeister0]

19. Are the Yankees going out of business next Jan.?