US getting ready for war on Iran?

[coda]

.

Bush: After Iraq, Iran?
By Vincent Jauvert
Le Nouvel Observateur

25 January 2007

Intimidation or Strike Preparations?

The American president assured Jacques Chirac that he still favored diplomacy with respect to Iran. Yet indicators of war preparations against the Islamic Republic are increasing.

John Rockefeller is one of the best-informed men in the United States. The most important civilian and military officials file through his office. Chairman of the powerful Senate intelligence committee, he has access to most top-secret documents produced by the Bush administration. Ordinarily, this Democratic senator is not talkative. Yet, last Friday, he saw fit to confide in the New York Times. He is very worried about White House plans for Iran. "To be honest," he said, "I'm afraid it will be Iraq all over again."

He's not alone. Last week, several Democratic leaders rang the same alarm bell: according to them, the White House is secretly preparing America for a war against the Islamic Republic. Many specialists share their concerns. A former military professor, Colonel Sam Gardiner, is closely following the deployment of American forces to the Persian Gulf. He explains: "Soon there will be two aircraft carriers in the regions: the USS Eisenhower, which arrived several weeks ago, and the USS Stennis, which sailed January 16th." Yet, every time America has deployed two aircraft carriers to the region, bombing ensued.

There are other indications of war preparations against Iran. When, at the beginning of January, he presented his new battle plan for Iraq, George Bush announced that America was about to deploy Patriot anti-missile batteries in the region - probably the Gulf States. "Why is he doing that? What has it got to do with the war in Iraq?" asks Trita Parsi, a specialist in American-Iranian relations based in Washington. "The Iraqi insurgents have no ballistic missiles, so what good does it do to install anti-missile batteries? I can see only one reason: last year, Iranian officials let the Gulf States know that if America attacked Iran from their territory, the Islamic Republic would strike back at them. Consequently, Washington wants to protect them against such a riposte. [This seems to be] proof that an attack is being seriously contemplated."

That's not all. George Bush has just named Admiral William J. Fallon as commander of American forces in the Europe-Middle East region. Why an admiral for such a position, when the war in Iraq is a ground war? Several specialists see it as an obvious signal that the aircraft carriers will soon come into action against Iran. The same observers note that the number of American submarines crossing the Gulf has increased to the point where accidents with civilian vessels are on the rise. They also observe that after three years of slowed operations, the Incirlik American Air Force base in Turkey, close to Iran, is now operating at full capacity and that several F-16 are stationed there again. They add that the F-16 can carry the B61-11 atomic mini-bombs, the so-called "bunker busters," i.e. able to destroy bunkers - and consequently the nuclear installations Iran is hiding underground.

The White House intimates that all of that is only gesticulation, that the preparations have no other motive than to intimidate Iran, to force Tehran to give up supporting Shia militia in Iraq, and to demonstrate more flexibility with respect to the nuclear issue. At the Elysee, they say they believe this version. "In September, George Bush repeated to Jacques Chirac that, with respect to the Iranian matter, he did not favor the military route, but diplomacy," an adviser to the French president explains. "We think he is still of the same mind." A great many American politicians, including Republicans, are not so optimistic. They think that in spite of the Iraqi quagmire - or perhaps because of it - George Bush has decided to dispose of the "Iranian threat," alone or with Israel; that he wants to go down in history as the one who rid the West of the devil Ahmadinejad. Alarmed by the sound of boots, several senators are looking for a way to prevent such a catastrophic scenario. Some even intend to adopt a law prohibiting the president from starting a nuclear war against Iran without Congress's approval. And they want to act quickly.

Because it's becoming urgent. "The military preparations will be complete by the end of February," Colonel Gardiner explains. And this timing is in no way coincidental. Several casus belli will offer themselves at that time. First, the deadline given Iran to execute Security Council Resolution 1737 will be up at that time. Second, Russia will deliver nuclear fuel for the Busher reactor in Iran - which could, after use, serve to manufacture an atomic weapon. Finally, Ahmadinejad will probably announce that the 3,000 Natanz centrifuges have begun uranium enrichment: a point of no return in the race to the bomb, assert the Israeli hawks and neo-conservatives close to Bush - who are burning for a fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

If they're preparing for war against the people of Iran, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Bring it on, imperialists.

But I'm not to sure they'll want to rush into another adventure, considering how badly their current adventures are going.

Here in South Asia, we refer to such adventurism as a "bund-punga".

Down with Imperialist bund-pungas!

(if anyone understood that, please forgive me :P )

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

They honestly couldn't be that stupid. America would be defeated soundly by Iran on their home soil, and the riots back in the States would tear the country apart.

[Comrade_Scott]

No one NO ONE is that stupid. After seeing what goes on in iraq why oh why would they think of that? did they not watch the iran iraq war? the nationalistic people of Iran will do anything to stay free. no one is that stupid not even the american government.

[seraphim]

Why would they not be that stupid? Prior to Septmebr 11th as I'm sure I've said before the vast majority of the US defense budget was geared towards suppressing forces within the United States own borders. Historically what have nations and empires always done when there's been strife at home? Find an external threat. The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks all did it! Nowadays the capitalist system is that war has the 'added bonus' of driving the economy. Couldn't be that stupid? Maybe not but they are certainly that calculated!

[coda]

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

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think to compare the intent against iran with the iraq war is to hide the real issue.

Many people will dismiss the idea of a strike against iran if the word iraq is mentioned, because they will say that "there is no way even bush would go for another iraq".

But a strike on iranian nuclear facilities would be relatively quick, and involve no ground troops (beyond possibly-maybe a few choppers-full of Special Ops.).

Destroying Iran's nuclear and long-range missile research infrastructure is a tempting target for america and israel, and a target that they have a decent chance of destroying totally if they decide to. Heck, they could set the progress back years just by sniping a few relatively unprotected scientists.

Of course an attack would have utterly unpredictable consequences in iraq (probably leading to iran intervening, or stepping up support for anti-american forces), but the bush administration has a history of looking only at the target they want to remove (Saddam Hussein, the taliban regime, the islamic courts alliance, hugo chavez) without thinking about the immediate or longterm consequences.

They invaraibly manage to accomplish their goal in the short term, but then things go wrong. This is because the american military is good at operations, but not strategies. The officers and troops are professionals who know their jobs, especially in the air force. Don't doubt their ability to coordinate and execute a devastating strike on iran without warning. And don't doubt either the capacity of the Bush administration to psyche itself up for a strike, thinking that it can cope with any retaliation.

Finally, don't doubt the american ruling class' grip on the minds of their nation. They will be able to secure significant support for a 'one-off', no-invasion attack that does its job and gets out.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

So sort of like how Reagan ordered airstrikes on Libya and Clinton on Sudan and Iraq to distract the the people at home from domestic problems, Bush is just continuing the trend?

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:13 pm
So sort of like how Reagan ordered airstrikes on Libya and Clinton on Sudan and Iraq to distract the the people at home from domestic problems, Bush is just continuing the trend?
Exactly it's not just a trend to modern times it's always been the case. The ecenomic depresion in Gemany? Hitler solved that home issue by blaming the jews and invading his neighbours.

[La Comédie Noire]

The only difference between Bush and any of the past 3 U.S presidents is he opted not to ignore the middle east. Regan ignored it, Bush sr. Ignored it, Clinton Ignored it up until the way end when he started dropping bombs, than Bush boom! went straight for it. Of course he does'nt realize that if your going to try to clean up your shit your gonna have to get covered in shit.

The problem with their stradegy is they went in there thinking "short term, short term, short term.." Now they're like "holy fuck you mean these people are'nt happy with us?!

Not to mention the military's total lack of exprience, plus U.S forces are horrible at PR. I mean when you invade a country you have to make it atleast seem like your better then the guys you just through out. ;)

But they are dealing with a culture and a language, with so many dialects. they know next to nothing about.

[guest187]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:02 pm
The only strife at home is the strife bush caused himself, though.

<<did they not watch the iran iraq war?>>>

They financed the iran iraq war. they supplied the stockpile of weapons -- to both sides.
The U.S. sold Iraq &#036;200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq&#39;s conventional weapons imports during the war.


Suppliers in Billions (1985 &#036;US) % of total
Soviet Union 19.2 61
France 5.5 18
People&#39;s Republic of China 1.7 5
Brazil 1.1 4
Egypt 1.1 4
Other countries 2.9 6
Total 31.5 98.0



--wiki

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The only difference between Bush and any of the past 3 U.S presidents is he opted not to ignore the middle east.

This is opposite of the truth.


Regan ignored it

No he didn&#39;t. For instance, he backed Iraq in its war against Iran.. while the CIA sold weapons to the Iranian government to finance the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua. He also backed the mujadin (which is now the Taliban) against the revolutionary Afghan government and Red Army.


Bush sr. Ignored it

He did?? What was Desert Storm then? How about the crushing sanctions levied against Iraq that caused the death of an estimated 1.5 million? How about the campaign in Somalia (in the horn of Africa, bordering on the Middle East)?


Clinton Ignored it up until the way end when he started dropping bombs

Wrong again. Remember the meddling in the Palestine "peace process?" He also continued the Somalia campaign. There was "Operation Desert Fox," a bombing campaign over Iraq. And, as you mentioned, there was the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan.

[coda]

<<

[La Comédie Noire]

I stand corrected. "Tried" to ignore it is more of what I meant.

[Anarcho]

Make no mistake: If the administration sends the US Military to fight, the Iranian Military will be crushed. Currently, in a stand up war, there isn&#39;t a force on the planet that can project power as fiercly as the United States.

However, in the event that were to happen, the odds are good that there would need to be ground troops sent in, and when that happens, it will make Iraq look like a Church Picnic.

And yes, the streets will be thronging with ineffectual protesters.... but the politicians will use it against Bush.

IT&#39;s a loosing play for Bush. I certianly hope he can manage to NOT do that one.

[shadowed by the secret police]

I wouldn&#39;t underestimate the delusional, paranoid, and messianic vision of Bush and company. Remember Bush claimed that God told him to invade Iraq. Who knows what other Godly advice Bush is privy to.

[Kia]

I&#39;m pretty sure bush made a semi-statement about Iran during his State of the Union speech last tuesday. It was mostly to do with Iran funding "extremist groups in Iraq" but then I found this article a couple days later, U.S. troops allowed to kill Iranians plotting attacks in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/26/iraq.main/index.html). Seems to me that basically hes trying to get as close as possible to either starting a war himself or getting Iran to start attacking US troops in Iraq directly on. The Bitter Hippy I think is probably right. The US military could easily bomb nuclear facilities and missile silos (even target so called places that are funding "terrorism" in Iraq) in Iran without having to use ground troops, but..... my guess is Iran would turn around and declare it as an act of war (which it is) and thus we&#39;d have another war on our hands. The only thing that seems to be keeping him semi-under control is the fact that he no longer controls the congress and they can easily turn around and veto any action that would start a war.....but thats putting alot of faith in something extremely corrupt.


Noticed this article too: N. Korea denies sharing nuke secrets with Iran (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/27/koreas.nuclear/index.html)

seems like the media is trying to rally support for action against Iran also....scary.

[The Bitter Hippy]

ta kia :)

Anarcho: you are making the common mistake again. There is little to no reason why ground troops would be required in a strike on iran. That may sound like pedantic semantics, but it is central to the issue. The ground-troops-necessary paradigm always causes people to dismiss the very real, very credible threat (almost probability) of an american attack.

I doubt the iranian military would suffer very much at all, because a conventional iranian army is no threat to the americans (or more importantly the Holy Leader&#39;s poll standings). They are after symbolic targets, installations that can be proclaimed to be destroyed, to the triumphant applause of NYT and Washington Post hacks.

[Question everything]

:lol: I&#39;d like to see them try, those idiots are now pinned down, have you seen the protests? America is regarded as a rogue state in most parts of the world, even here in Canada... If Bush had won the Iraq war in the time he said it was going to take, that bible basher would have gone on a Crusade... thank God (yes I mean the God he thinks he is working for :P ) He didn&#39;t, and now all he can do is (this might just be might opinion) commit genocide by telling him troops to kill any Iranian they see, or If the surrender, ship them off to Guantanemo, for some torture, Texas Style...

[peaccenicked]

The threat to Iran cannot be denied.http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/. I have some doubts that it will happen but the war drive may have its own unstoppable logic. My main hope is that this is bluster coming from Bush and Blair who look desperate to salvage some sense of historical legacy for the end of their chickenhawk carreers. I think their hope is wider than Iran and to maintain a strategy of tension which keeps the demonisation of muslims always on the agenda.
http://www.endofempire.org/reports.php?page=59. The phoney idea that even the CIA says is false that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is at the folcrum of this fear mongering. The war party have a huge problem in launching this war which has been heralded as a potential nuclear warhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4536 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070121&articleId=4536).
This difficulty has it own worries as verbalised in congress by Ron Paul,http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=324 and his speech is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw&eurl=

[coda]

=================

[Mikhail Frunze]

I suspect that Iran in some way will be subject to US and/or Israeli aggression in the form of pulverising airstrikes. I doubt that this would involve ground troops because the Americans and Israelis are cowards that can only fight with planes. Furture aggression against Iran will for the most part be limited to agitation through Kurdish, Turkish, and Baluchistani proxies and the sort of airstrikes we witnessed throughout the 1990s against Yugoslavia. Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan.The pretext will be that Iran is building a nuclear weapons program despite the fact that there is no evidence of such. I think the motive for Washington would be to distract the public from its failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would of course be scores of deaths from these murderous bombings and a major uproar in the international community. Mohammed El-Baradei and the prime minister of Pakistan have both warned against such attacks on Iran because they would have catastrophic implications for the region and the world. I hope that neither Russia nor China would put up with aggression towards Iran. But then again, they stood idly by when Iraq was subject to such savage aggression. But at the same time, that scoundrel Yeltsin still pledged to intervene in Yugoslavia if ground troops were sent.

After Israel unleashed aggression upon Iraq in 1981, the international community overwhelmingly condemned Israel&#39;s barbarity:


Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un487.htm

[peaccenicked]

There are very bad signs that war is imminent.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10411

[Kia]

I don&#39;t see where it makes much difference if it&#39;s an air attack or a ground attack. Even with an air attack, their intelligence is so bad (or maybe purposely) that they always hit civilian targets or take out vital civilian resources, ending in human carnage. Just because we don&#39;t see the civilian casualties broadcasted on CNN doesn&#39;t mean that it doesn&#39;t happen.

Well other then the fact that both are awful..there is a HUGE differance. America does not have the troops currently or even enough equipment to do a full ground attack on Iran. If the USA tried they would be in for a much bigger fight then compared to Iraq. However Air strikes are pretty damn easy for the US military. Considering the fact that the US military has the most advanced missiles and planes out of any country it would be pretty effortless for them to bomb targets. Also the US now has two aircraft carriers close by and that means that missiles along with planes can easily be launched.

Back to the Irans ground force...I didnt realize but military service is compulsory in Iran from the age of 18. (Iran: CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)) globalsecurity.org puts the current Iran army at 350,000 people...which is more then enough to fight the US military. This doesnt mean that they would win...but that they would do HEAVY damage to the US military. Anyways even if the us military won..theyd have the same problem they have with Iraq. Theyd be constantly bombed along with attacks from gruellia units...there is no way the US could keep a hold on Iran.

Of course there will be civilian casualities. There always is. The thing is, will the rest of the world hear about it if it happens? Probably not. The US military and PR department will say that they were terrorists or soldiers. The american people will be fed lies and the rest of the world will probably go along with it because very few countries have the guts or the power to question the US&#39;s actions.




The scary thing is that there is so little that can be done to stop it from happening if Bush and his groupies make a push for it. Congress has the power to veto the war..but again..thats putting alot of faith in something corrupt. The UN has no control over the US government at all; theyll just ignore the UN and continue on doing whatever they feel like. No country has enough sway over the US to stop its actions, and I doubt countries would ally together against the US. The best thing that can be done is to make sure that as many people as possible know what is going on and gather as much support against any action to attack Iran. If the US does attack, then we must protest/riot/ and make enough fucking noise about it that the US government has no choice but to agree to the wishes of its own people and stop this bonkers fucker from destroying everything. :angry:

[seraphim]

There is no stopping the US war machine since the American civil war all hostilities the US has been involved in have been profit driven.

[coda]

<<<America does not have the troops currently or even enough equipment to do a full ground attack on Iran. If the USA tried they would be in for a much bigger fight then compared to Iraq>>>

GOOD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

my point is, if it&#39;s not obvious enough --- it doesn&#39;t make much difference HOW they do it, or even their lame excuse of why they do it. it&#39;s fucking wrong&#33; Do I have to state the reasons why?

[Question everything]

There is no stopping the US war machine since the American civil war all hostilities the US has been involved in have been profit driven.

still Iraq was a disaster... there is no way in hell America is going to attack any where near there for a long, long time... I feel sorry for all those who died because of that Idiot in Office (not that any of his predessors were much better)...

[The Bitter Hippy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:48 pm
<<<America does not have the troops currently or even enough equipment to do a full ground attack on Iran. If the USA tried they would be in for a much bigger fight then compared to Iraq>>>

GOOD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

my point is, if it&#39;s not obvious enough --- it doesn&#39;t make much difference HOW they do it, or even their lame excuse of why they do it. it&#39;s fucking wrong&#33; Do I have to state the reasons why?
i think we are all agreed than american imperialism is something to be opposed.

But the pentagon doesn&#39;t care what&#39;s right or wrong. they care about making the american and israeli ruling classes rich. And boy have they done that well. (continued in a new post.)

This is why it DOES matter how they do it, or more relevant: why it does matter that people do NOT confuse this with an iraq-style invasion.

Nobody, anywhere, is thinking that bush is going to take the same approach in iran as he did in iraq and afghanistan. But whenever anyone mentions this new threat, it is automatically dismissed because of reasons i have stated before. This is not good.

Heck, its the same damn problem as we have as commies: everytime we talk about a red revolution, non-red people think 1) USSR&#33; BAD&#33; 2) Human Nature&#33; 3) It&#39;ll never happen.

as long as anyone mentions the word iraq in reference to this new and entirely different but related threat, this mindset will persist. (which is why i&#39;ve banged on about it for so long. I&#39;ll stop now)

[coda]

I do understand what you&#39;re saying, Bitter Hippy. I&#39;m not refuting that it can happen. The guy is clearly a nut-job. I think he is going to try to get in as many of his crazed vile plans as he can before he leaves. And I&#39;m not refuting that it isn&#39;t quicker. it is devastatingly so.

What I am refuting is the notion that strategic air strikes are some how "cleaner." That&#39;s always been the imperialist warmongers bullshit selling points of doing an air strike. But, that doesn&#39;t cut it for me. The damage it does to the civilians and infrastructure is far more destructive from the air than it is from from the ground. And if it&#39;s true that they plan on using nukes--- it&#39;s just fucking heinous and he needs to be immediately recalled NOW in whatever way it can be done.

[Severian]

Yeah, it&#39;s probable there&#39;ll be a large-scale, prolonged bombing campaign against Iran sometime before Bush leaves office.

Since it&#39;s just an air campaign, the shortage of troops, their problems in Iraq and so forth are less of a consideration. Partly they&#39;ll want to show everyone in the world that all those problems don&#39;t make the U.S. unable to strike out - reestablish fear and "credibility".

Iran does have a number of things they can do to retaliate, from blocking the Hormuz strait to influencing the Iraqi government and militias. That&#39;s the biggest thing that might make the U.S. hesitate about attacking Iran.

[Question everything]

every single american politician is a nut job... who will march off to war claiming they they know what is best for those people... but even the worst leader, know when the people would turn against them and vote for a third party ( :o God forbid), or as things are going these days, even a violent revolution is possible... either way, Those politicians would do alot of nutty things in order to gain money and power, but it is highly doubtful that they would invade Iran, in their current political situation... if they did the americans would turn Bush over to the UN and have him hung (mussolini style ;) ) for war crimes (I got a long list of them and I&#39;m hardly an insider on this stuff...)

[coda]

as far as voting for a third party.. not sure.. but you could probably bet the farm that the Republicans have not a chance in hell next election.

Another point I was meaning to bring up: Seems the US public is very indifferent to those quick drive-by air strikes. If you look back at other times, not a peep of protest is heard. it seems only when they are dragged into a protracted war in terms of dead US soldiers piling up, tax increases, and budget cuts, the majority of the people besides the commies, and a few anti-war and pacifist groups, really don&#39;t give a shit much about air strucks or the people they strike at, at all. If that&#39;s the case, he could probably attack unobstructed. As Congress is pretty much impotent to stop him. I read yesterday that only about 20 Republican and O Democrat senators agree with his plans to increase troops in Iraq. He&#39;&#39;s operating in totalitarian mode now.

[Guerrilla22]

It seems some people never learn. The "pre-emptive strike" as it wasn&#39;t a pre-emptive strike at all, on Iraq led to a complete debacle, aside from the fact Iraq never posed a threat in the first place. So what do the neo-cons in hard liners do? They starty calling for the same type of action against Iran. This fact would be funny in the consequences were not so sad.

[shadowed by the secret police]

We, as leftists, should vote in 2008 for the most leftist politician. Kucinich is probably the mot leftist---even Chomsky, William Blum and Howard Zinn admire him. If we vote him in he will try to diminish substantially the huge military budget. This will in turn compel vested interest to initiate a coup or reaction against him and there you have it---a situation which will drive the people to revolt or to a more leftist orientation.

[Question everything]

We, as leftists, should vote in 2008 for the most leftist politician.

wish I could, but I&#39;m under voting age and Canadian...


as far as voting for a third party.. not sure.. but you could probably bet the farm that the Republicans have not a chance in hell next election.

I&#39;m just saying that the two parties are hardly different... if more people took a closer look at the stone cold facts, they would vote third party and the best way for this to happen is if the gouvernement screws up so bad, that both parties look like a joke infront of the whole country...

[Guerrilla22]

I&#39;m writing in Castro next election.

[peaccenicked]

I doubt that we can do anything significant but who knows. I advocate voting for the most likely to win antiwar canditate but that seems a little too little too late. Another thing to do is to contact political representatives and voice your concern. Give the mother fuckers something to think about(excuse the language) but probably the best thing we can do is raise the issue as broadly as we can locally and over the internet.
If the secret sevices pick up enough &#39;chatter&#39; they might have second thoughts themselves if any of them actually think. Its all about throwing stones in a sea of ignorance hoping to make a splash.
Why not? Lets stick to our best traditions and "fan the flames of discontent"

[Tekun]

It would be political suicide to start anything against Iran, it just doesn&#39;t seem sane
The majority of the public would be against it, the congress would be "against" it
They&#39;re might be sanctions and/or threats, but it just doesn&#39;t seem probable that Bush or any other idiot would make such a stupid mistake
This is Iran, not Somalia or Afghanistan

[peaccenicked]

I remember saying roughly the same thing about Iraq. Well there seems to be political suicide at play. The attack on Iran is being billed as the way to win the war in Iraq. Bush as ordered a &#39;shoot to kill&#39; policy in Iraq for Iranians. I too have hope that Congress will stop Bush and Cheney.
http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=330

[Janus]

I doubt Bush is gonna go for a full-scale war while he&#39;s still in office but it might be possible down the road some time. However, I think that the US is going to use to resort to other means such as missiles, bombings, etc. while applying political and economic pressure.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:48 am
It would be political suicide to start anything against Iran, it just doesn&#39;t seem sane
The majority of the public would be against it, the congress would be "against" it
I doubt that. Almost all wars are briefly popular - right after the shooting starts.

They may be unpopular before they start, and unpopular if body bags keep coming back for a long time, but for a brief shining moment there&#39;s a tremendous "rally round the flag" effect. That&#39;s the grain of truth behind the bumper sticker "War is the health of the state."

Might even make a good boost for the Republican candidates if done in October 2008. Risky, if Iran pulls some quick and effective retaliation....but if playing it safe means a certain Republican loss.....

I admit all this is speculative, and partly based on various leaks by people who may have all kinds of ulterior motives. A lot of &#39;em have been in Seymour Hersh&#39;s interesting but questionable articles on the subject.