Iran....

[( R )evolution]

Does anyone else see an a huge amount of news being reported on Iran? In the past 3 days I have seen at least 10 news stories and there was a lot of AP articles on Iran. Does this possible indicate something big is going to be happing soon? Or this just the usually trump up of a enemy to gain support at home (the us)? It just seems like there is more than usually news on Iran and it just doesn't feel right, like something might be going on like a possible invasion. I know this if far fetched and America would probably get destroyed if it fought by themselves or a force like the "collation" against Iran, does anyone have any information on a possible large scale action against Iran? I personally think that America is now moving to blame Iran for America's destruction of Iraq. Disgusting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_...ea/iraq_al_sadr (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_sadr)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070215/wl_af...cs_070215050103 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070215/wl_afp/usbushpolitics_070215050103)

[Guerrilla22]

yeah, it's all an elborate attempt by the Bush regime to save face in Iraq by blaming Iran. It's really quite pathetic.

[EwokUtopia]

Its really scary. War with Iraq was bad enough and now America is dancing around the edge of the fascist cliff. War with Iran would knock her right down to the fourth reich, in addition to killing possibly millions of innocent Iranians. Now perhaps we enter our deciding moments.

[ComradeR]

This is just the propaganda machine heating up in preparation for the attack on Iran, which will happen around the end of April as thats when the US will have all it's forces and equipment in place and it's the UN deadline.


yeah, it's all an elborate attempt by the Bush regime to save face in Iraq by blaming Iran. It's really quite pathetic.
Doing it this way kills two birds with one stone, generating a cause to attack Iran while saving face in Iraq.

[Raúl Duke]

http://www.uruknet.de/?colonna=m&p=30549

(don't be afraid of the .de, its in english)

Here they mention that the US found Iranians giving weapons to militia. the US says they are giving it to the Shiite Mahdi Army; however, the Iranians who were caught were giving weapons to the Kurds and the SCIRI, which are US supported factions. (however, the mahdi army is also backed by Iran, but the article mentions many webs of alliances, etc) The article hints that the US is the cause for the civil war/instability since they are arming some of the militias to the teeth.

This made me think, what if the US wanted to cause this instability in the first place so to blame it all on Iran; thus, a pretext for war?

hmm, I really woudn't know; maybe we'll find out in the end of April

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It's the same circle we saw before the war against Iraq. It is expected the U.S. will attack in the spring. I wonder why though. Why spring?

[Guerrilla22]

The fact that the US is criticizng another country for shipping arms into a conflict zone is so hypocritical, it's absurd.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:53 pm
It's the same circle we saw before the war against Iraq. It is expected the U.S. will attack in the spring. I wonder why though. Why spring?
Stuff sells better in Spring.

[Janus]

Does this possible indicate something big is going to be happing soon?
Perhaps but it usually just means that something major is happening at the moment. The same thing happens whenever things get heated up in other parts of the world.


Or this just the usually trump up of a enemy to gain support at home (the us)? It just seems like there is more than usually news on Iran and it just doesn't feel right, like something might be going on like a possible invasion.
Well, due to Iran's proximity to Iraq, anything major that happens there is always going to catch attention. Also, the news media needs more to report on than simple casualty figures everyday.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:53 pm
It's the same circle we saw before the war against Iraq. It is expected the U.S. will attack in the spring. I wonder why though. Why spring?
It has something to do with the weather, spring is the best time for fighting a desert campaign.

[Guerrilla22]

Bush can't go to war with Iran, unless authorized by congress, however he could order a strike by executive order. However, this seems unlikely.

[Luís Henrique]

I see no military conditions for an invasion of Iran.

It is clear that the US military is overstretched just over Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is visibly a much tougher bone to gnaw; invading it would require a massive increase in American military. I would say, either a draft or at least taking all the troops stationed in places like Italy or Germany to the Middle East. I see no sign of this happening.

Also, I cannot see Bush's team being able to convince a democrat Congress that they need an invasion of Iran. I see no political conditions for a draft, I see no popular enthusiasm for such adventure, and even the bourgeoisie seems to understand that something went wrong in Iraq. Iraqi oil production was still not "reconstructed", and American economy cannot disrupt another major oil producer at this time. Especially when even traditionally pacific oil exporters, like Venezuela, are showing troublesome.

In fact, I think those considerations make even lesser armed actions against Iran improbable.

Bush needs a Tomkin Gulf now, but even this could prove insufficient for a war drive. Possibly Bush himself is the problem; he has proven a failed war lord, and the US would need a new president, preferably a Democrat, to be able to go to war again.

Luís Henrique

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:50 am
Bush can't go to war with Iran, unless authorized by congress, however he could order a strike by executive order. However, this seems unlikely.
Wait, wasn't the war in Afghanistan not authorized by Congress? I remember hearing that but I can't remember from where.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:14 pm

Wait, wasn't the war in Afghanistan not authorized by Congress? I remember hearing that but I can't remember from where.
On September 18, 2001 Congress explicitly authorized the "Operation Enduring Freedom" conflict in Afghanistan but have never formally declared war.


Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1

[Kia]

Considering that there is so much in the news (especially the mainstream news) maybe creating a thread for news articles on Iran and the current situation there (domestic and foreign) may be a good idea?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:44 am
Considering that there is so much in the news (especially the mainstream news) maybe creating a thread for news articles on Iran and the current situation there (domestic and foreign) may be a good idea?
I agree

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:53 pm
It's the same circle we saw before the war against Iraq. It is expected the U.S. will attack in the spring. I wonder why though. Why spring?
Indeed. You could take current news reports, replace "Iran" with "Iraq" and "Iraq" with "Al-Qaeda/Taliban" and it'd be 2002-2003 all over again. Whether this ends the same way remains to be seen.

Luís pretty much summed up the situation. Do you think Israel could be utilized in some sort of attack on Iran?

I'd also like to point out that the White House authorized the use of nuclear "bunker-busters" on Iranian targets like a year ago. I'll try to dig up some links.

[Guerrilla22]

[QUOTE]Do you think Israel could be utilized in some sort of attack on Iran?[QUOTE]

Its a possibility. Israel bomber a nuclear reactor Saddam was attempting to build back in '82. However, the US really does not have the capacity nor the funds, nor the support for a war with Iran right now, so military action seems unlikely.

[The Anarchist Prince]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:48 pm
[QUOTE]Do you think Israel could be utilized in some sort of attack on Iran?[QUOTE]

Its a possibility. Israel bomber a nuclear reactor Saddam was attempting to build back in '82. However, the US really does not have the capacity nor the funds, nor the support for a war with Iran right now, so military action seems unlikely.
If anything goes down before Summer, it'll be a US backed attack by Israel. It shouldn't need to much provocation, and if Iran retaliates, we can come in and look like "heroes". Some bullshit to complicate everything, re-instate the draft, and totally fuck the elections.

[Cheung Mo]

Is anyone else starting to hope that Chavez has nukes stashed away somewhere?

[Guerrilla22]

I'm hoping the politicains on both sides of the US-Iran conflict quit their bullshit political grandstanding and hard line policies because people's lives end when bombs start falling.

[Cheung Mo]

If the U.S. tries Pinochet-style interference in Venezuela again, the Venezuelan masses should be ready to force Chavez into pressing the button once the attempted coup is defeated.

[Kia]

If the U.S. tries Pinochet-style interference in Venezuela again, the Venezuelan masses should be ready to force Chavez into pressing the button once the attempted coup is defeated.

So your suggesting that if the US tries to interfere with Venezuela that they should nuke the US? ARE YOU NUTS??! Go look at some pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tell me if you want that to happen again. The idea that nuking someone in retaliation is one of the ideas that has turned this world into such a mess. And Who should they nuke? Los Angeles? San Francisco? New York? Murdering millions of people who most of the time have nothing to directly to do with the government thats ruling is just plain wrong.

Yes, if the US government does try to interfere with Venezuela the people should be prepared to fight back. They should be willing to defend their land and make sure that they have the right to choose how they govern themselves and no one else. That however doesn't include nukes.

[ComradeR]

If anything goes down before Summer, it'll be a US backed attack by Israel. It shouldn't need to much provocation, and if Iran retaliates, we can come in and look like "heroes". Some bullshit to complicate everything, re-instate the draft, and totally fuck the elections.
This seems to me like the most likely scenario.


I'm hoping the politicains on both sides of the US-Iran conflict quit their bullshit political grandstanding and hard line policies because people's lives end when bombs start falling.
The bourgeoisie who run this plutocratic system don't give a damn about that. After all they're not the ones on the frontlines fighting and dying.

[grove street]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 04:52 am

[QUOTE]Do you think Israel could be utilized in some sort of attack on Iran?[QUOTE]

Its a possibility. Israel bomber a nuclear reactor Saddam was attempting to build back in '82. However, the US really does not have the capacity nor the funds, nor the support for a war with Iran right now, so military action seems unlikely.
If anything goes down before Summer, it'll be a US backed attack by Israel. It shouldn't need to much provocation, and if Iran retaliates, we can come in and look like "heroes". Some bullshit to complicate everything, re-instate the draft, and totally fuck the elections.
Israel's emberrasing defeat to Hizballah last year, has called Israel's once unbeatable military into serious questioning. With the low military morale in Israel at the moment, I doubt Israel would be willing to attack Iran until it gets its miltary back in shape.

[CheRev]

Israel's emberrasing defeat to Hizballah last year, has called Israel's once unbeatable military into serious questioning. With the low military morale in Israel at the moment, I doubt Israel would be willing to attack Iran until it gets its miltary back in shape.

If Israel attacks Iran it won't be the same as the war in Lebanon last year. It will be tactical missile attacks against particular targets, in the hope of creating a response, which will then give the US an excuse for becoming involved. Any effect on Israel's military power from last year (which I doubt is too big) will have a minimal impact on their ability to attack Iran.

[southernmissfan]

Here's a couple articles:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4775 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=YET20070213&articleId=4775)

Excerpts:


Hillary Mann, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004, has issued a sober warning to the public today concerning the Bush Administration's intentions with Iran.

In an interview this morning on CNN, she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" on crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to a large ground war as is the case with Iraq.

When asked why the Bush Administration was seeking to do this, she responded that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.

Of course, one only has to look back to history to see the Bush Administration's real agenda behind confronting Iran. Iran is only one piece of the puzzle in a broader, century long struggle by the US, Britain, and it's Western allies to secure the Middle East’s oil reserves.


Hillary Mann joins the ranks of a growing consensus of both former and current officials in various government, military, and intelligence agencies, who all agree that the US is actively involved in attempting to lure Iran into launching an attack on US forces, or worse.

Jim Webb, the freshman from Virginia who’s election day victory tipped the Senate in the Democrats favor, appeared on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” five days ago echoing the same warning given by Hillary Mann.

“If you look at the framers of the constitution, they wanted to give the president as commander in chief the authority to repel sudden attacks. That is totally different than conducting a preemptive war.

“And you know one thing, if you look at where we are in the Persian Gulf right now, when I was secretary of the Navy and until very recently, we never operated aircraft carriers inside the Persian Gulf because, number one, the turning radius is pretty close, and number two, the chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high.

“We now have been doing that, and with the tensions as high as they are, I‘m very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there and we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ball game here.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1981, came out on February 1st to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee(3), blasting the Bush Administration’s handling of the war.

He called the War on Terror a “mythical historical narrative” used to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war,” and accused them of trying to spread the conflict in Iraq to other parts of the Middle East by “deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

“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…”

“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,”

He also made note of the Bush Administrations ludicrous cronyism, saying, “I am perplexed by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals—just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand. And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war, and used the original justifications to go to war.”

Texas House Republican Ron Paul also had harsh words for the Bush Administration and Congress, giving an alarming speech before the House of Representatives(4) on January 11. He accused them both of using “the talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq” to “distract 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. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

“Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.-- possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten 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.

“We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

“Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

“Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one."

The “contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident” that Congressman Paul mentioned is his speech is one of many modern historical examples of false flag terrorism used by governments around the world to justify an illegitimate war to a terrified public, willing to accept whatever in the name of security.

http://www.harpers.org/sb-war-with-ir-1171457451.html

Excerpt:


As insane as the prospect for war might seem to those of us who have spent parts of our lives in the shadow of a mosque, it is impossible to ignore the drumbeats for war with Iran. Yes, I think Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran.

[Janus]

So your suggesting that if the US tries to interfere with Venezuela that they should nuke the US?
That's a nonissue considering the fact that Venezuela doesn't have nuclear arms nor capable anytime soon.

[piet11111]

i read that america is sending troops to "allied" country's along with patriot missiles to protect them from iran's missiles.

this really looks like operation desert shield during the first gulf war where they stationed troops around iraq to prevent an iraqi invasion during the time that america was building up its army.

so i say that america is getting prepared to attack iran with tactical missiles and bombardments but not going to fight a land war on any serious scale.
chances are even that america will let israel provide the airplanes and crew to do the bombing for them while they launch tomahawk cruise missiles to back the israeli's.

america is facing some seriously advanced anti air weaponry in iran like the Thor-M1 and the S-300 that russia sold to the iranians.

i cant wait to read how many airplanes those baby's shot out of the sky :lol:

[Phalanx]

I can't imagine Washington encouraging Israel to attack Iran anytime soon. US forces have more than they can handle in Iraq, let alone Iran, which is three times the size. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran would almost certainly launch attacks on US interests in the Gulf region. The US could bomb Iran into oblivion, but there's no way they could occupy a country so vast as Iran with so little troops. Taking into account there is no draft.

[Jesus Christ!]

There is no way the American populace would stand for a war with Iran. The War in Iraq is already completely no supported and the amount of money the gov would need to raise to wage war on Iran would make any war even more unpopular. I also don't think that the draft is a viable option, it would be political suicide for anyone to instate a draft.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 19, 2007 01:52 am
I can't imagine Washington encouraging Israel to attack Iran anytime soon. US forces have more than they can handle in Iraq, let alone Iran, which is three times the size. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran would almost certainly launch attacks on US interests in the Gulf region. The US could bomb Iran into oblivion, but there's no way they could occupy a country so vast as Iran with so little troops. Taking into account there is no draft.
they dont want to occupy iran just bomb it into submission.
and hopefully cause so much damage that the population will overthrow the government.

america cant fight a ground war but they can use tomahawks and the stealth bomber to cause damage to knock out irans nuclear facility's for many years.

[Janus]

i read that america is sending troops to "allied" country's along with patriot missiles to protect them from iran's missiles.
Which is facing some major opposition and threats from the Russians who are threatening to attack those bases.

Russian command threatens US base hosts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_eu/europe_us_missile_defense)

[RebelDog]

This has just been the top story on the bbc television news here in the UK;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

[piet11111]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 19, 2007 10:22 pm
This has just been the top story on the bbc television news here in the UK;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm
i told you what those fuckers where going to do !!!

i would do a little victory dance for being right but unfortunatly i would rather have been wrong.
oh well atleast i get to see how well the russian anti air weapons will perform against the imperialists and that outcome could be very very interesting.