Philip Giraldi of American (Paleo-)Conservative wrote yesterday:
- There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.
Hard to believe this is true. A quite illegal use of US armed force against targets inside Iran– forget this silly whitewash about “pinpoint”– and this would be just to “send a signal”?
In the present circumstances the signal would be not just to Iran but to the world. The signal would say: “World! You need to rein in this lunatic power seated in Washington, urgently, before it does anything more to cause mayhem, chaos, destruction, death, and ever higher oil prices.”
Oh, and GWB will be in Israel Wednesday, very publicly lauding the United States’ close and appreciative friendship with Israel. Just what the world needs to see this week, eh? (Irony alert.)
If you think there’s any limit to how crazy Bush and his neocon friends are, you haven’t been paying attention.
1. The Revguards read the newspapers too so the US cruise missile targets would be empty buildings/training areas.
2. Those big grey ships out on the Gulf can’t be emptied so they would be prime Iran cruise missile targets, as well as US targets in Iraq with ballistic and cruise missiles.
3. One wild card now is the two Marine Expeditionary Units in the Gulf with a third having left San Diego Sunday and probably on the way. Will they be used against Revguard-occupied Gulf Islands? Suspected cruise missile sites on the mainland? Or what?
4. Rmember that Hezbollah partially destroyed an Israeli warship in the Med two years ago. The nature of warfare has changed. Smaller is now better and the Iranians are not defenseless by any means. Looks like show time is coming.
May god strengthen the hand of the US, and may the US hasten before the game goes nuclear. And if I may have a third wish, may we see sad Briton ladies carrying water for Iran and Hezbollah, carry it all the way to the Persian gulf and stay there. Their voices are as hysterical as disonant.