Veteran war correspondent Chris Hedges echoes Dana Priest when he says that it is the U.S. military, not Congress, that is the strongest bulwark against an attack on Iran.

"In the Hands of the Military"

The last wall of defense that prevents the Bush administration from targeting Iran, an attack that could ignite a regional conflagration and usher in apocalyptic scenarios in the Middle East, runs through the offices of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon , the head of the Central Command (CENTCOM); and Gen. George Casey, the Army's new chief of staff. These three figures in the defense establishment have told George W. Bush and the Congress how depleted the U.S. military has become, that it cannot manage another conflict, and that a war with Iran would make the war with Iraq look like an act of prudence and common sense.

The reliance on the military command, however, to be the voice of reason in the debate about a new war is not a healthy sign for our deteriorating democracy. Compliant generals can always be found to carry out the Dr. Strangelove designs of a mad White House. Those who resist implementing decisions can easily be removed. The protective cover provided by these figures in the defense establishment could vanish.

Chris Hedges is the author of War is a Force That Gives us Meaning and American Fascists. I highly recommend both books.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, we're going to go to war with Iran. What pisses me off is that Congress and the traditional media are falling for it again. Let me make real simple for y'all, OK?

2003: War-mongering lies about Iraq
2007: War-mongering lies about Iran

Get it?

Greenwald: The president's escalating rhetoric on Iran
Firedoglake: Poking Iran with a sharp stick

Remember back in 2002, when the New York Times allowed Judith Miller to print fabrications about Iraq’s WMD capability? They kinda sorta apologized, but never really owned up to the role they played in dragging this country into a disastrous war.

They haven’t learned their lesson. Michael R. Gordon was one of the NYT journalists who aided the Bush administration’s bogus Iraq claims. This article does the same with unsubstantiated claims about Iran being the source of 25 percent of American casualties. As you might expect, the story is rife with unattributed sources—and evidence is thin.

Get this:
“civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies”
“military officials say”
Damn, that’s convincing.

“Other officials believe Iran is using the attacks to send a warning to the United States...”
Ooh, love that construction! Other officials! Like Doug Feith? The assistant sub-under-secretary of the Interior? the guy who answers Karl Rove’s phone?

“An American intelligence assessment described to The New York Times...”
Let’s celebrate passive voice!! I wonder how this unknown personage “described” this intelligence assessment. Did he use sock puppets? Interpretive dance? Smoke signals? Scary drawings on napkins, which was the sum total of the Iraqi WMD program? Kind of like the Hula Hoop schematic from The Hudsucker Proxy?

Oh, and get this:
“Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq’s weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims.”

No, really?? Ya think? Maybe they should say something portentous about mushroom clouds and smoking guns. That’ll convince us!

OK, I think I need to light some incense now to try to get rid of the odor of bullshit wafting from the pages of the Grey Lady. Damn, I should use this stuff in my garden. We're talking high-quality nitrogen.

Also as you might expect, Juan Cole tears it up.

“This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops.”

It’s Sunni guerrillas who are responsible for the most American casualties, not Shia militias. And think about it. Why the hell would the Iranian government want to arm the same people who are kidnapping, torturing and murdering Shia just for being Shia?

It’s not surprising that some Iranian weaponry is ending up in Iraq. Arms dealers are arms dealers, and they don’t care who finally ends up with their stuff. But why would the Iranian government deliberately provoke the U.S. and try to increase the chaos in Iraq? The religious leaders who really run Iran are trying to get Ahmedinejad to STFU and behave. Do you really think they’re happy that a few Iranian weapons are ending up in Iraq, where they could be used against Shia?

This whole argument about the complicity of the Iranian government is a fine example of one of my favorite logical fallacies: hasty generalization. I’ve heard it’s one of the favorite fallacies of the Bush administration too. /sarcasm

Interestingly, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, won’t touch the Iran claims with a 10-ft pole. "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Watch him catch hell from the administration for not going along with their kabuki theatre.

Josh Marshall does a good job of pointing out the inherit inconsistency of warmongering against Iran. He points out that the volume of arms the U.S. is claiming that Iran is selling is not causing the current civil war and attendant chaos. Attacking Iran for their supposed arms sales would cause a regional catastrophe; it would inflame anti-American sentiment that is already at a fever pitch, it would endanger our ground troops in Iraq—but it wouldn’t solve a damn thing.

ETA: I take it all back! It's obvious that Iran is heavily involved in attacks on U.S. troops. There's a Powerpoint presentation! If it's in a Powerpoint presentation, it's got to be true.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002534.php

From Spencer Ackerman at TPM Muckraker:

"Perhaps the administration isn't planning a war -- but, as we learned in Iraq, just because there's no planning doesn't mean there won't be war."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002472.php

According to the observer, Iran's nuclear capability has been highly exaggerated and has actually been plagued by failures.

"Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.

"Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html

Sean-Paul Kelley of The Agonist notes that there is circumstantial evidence that Iran is not complying with IAEA requests because its leaders do not want the Iranian public to know what a dismal flop the nuclear program is. Not when food prices are sky high and unemployment is rampant.
http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20070201/is_the_fix_in

If you think 2007 is sounding a lot like 2002, you're right. The administration is using the EXACT SAME techniques it used in 2002 to guide public opinion into accepting the war on Iraq.

Just exchange the year, and an N for a Q, and you've got Iran. For the record, there is next to no evidence that Iran is supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents--most of the insurgents are Sunni. Why would Iran be helping them? Seized arms caches aren't turning up anything from Iran. Regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's estimated that Iran is at least 5 years and probably 10 years away from being able to produce weapons grade radioactive materials. All they've got right now is some centrifuges. So they can produce glow-in-the-dark Mickey Mouse watches! Yippee!

At least one Representative is on to them:
"The White House is Up to its Old Tricks"

It didn't have to come to this.

In 2003, before their current nutjob president was elected, Iran requested negotiations with us. The Bush administration basically spat in their faces. Back then, Khatami, the kindly reformist, was president. In the next election, most of the moderate/progressive candidates weren't allowed to run, so the nutjob Ahmed-i-nejad got elected. He is NOT popular at home, and many analysts think he's been provoking the U.S. to win domestic brownie points. It's important to also understand that the office of President in Iran is much less powerful than one would think. Longtime Mid-east historian Juan Cole compares his office to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. IOW, Ahmed-i-nejad can huff and puff as much as he wants too, but his leash can get yanked at any time by the Supreme Ayatollah Whatever the Hell His Name is, and Ahmed-i-nejad knows it.

Bush has been moving battle carriers to the Persian Gulf. He has also announced that the Army has been given permission to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq. This move is particularly troubling, as thousands of Iranian pilgrims regularly travel to Shia holy sites such as Karbala. How would our troops distinguish between pilgrims and armed Iranian guerillas (which don't exist)?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/30/iran_ashura/

U.S. News states that Democrats on the Hill are increasingly scared that Bush is going to order air strikes in the next few weeks.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070201.htm

There are NO good military options regarding Iran. (Yeah, I'll find links in a minute.) Our Army is stretched to the breaking point. If we do bomb Iran, our troops are in deadly peril of having their supplies cut off! And we don't know where the damn nuclear installations are, for
Christ's sake! When Israel bombed Iran nuclear facilities back in the '80s, the Iranians spread everything around. Some stuff might be close to legendary Isfahan, a cultural center for over a thousand years. "Isfahan is half the world," the Iranians say, in a clever Farsi pun.

If Bush bombs Iran, the Mideast will be engulfed in chaos. Our world will never be the same.

And it will be on our heads if we do not stop this American madman.

We raided the Iranian consulate and arrested six Iranians. What's next, a new Gulf of Tonkin "incident"?

"Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

"Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php

When I was 12, my dad made me come into the living room to watch something boring on TV. It was Nixon's resignation speech. My dad, wise man that he is, realized that we were witness to a major historical event. But I was very annoyed that my dad would make me do something so boring. I was busy! I had lame Gothic romances to read! In my defiance, I thought, "I'll show him! He can make me sit on the couch, but he can't make me listen."

So I stuck my fingers in my ears.

I was 12. I'm not 12 any more.

George W. Bush is still 12. And he's still sticking his fingers in his ears.

...few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new "way forward" in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton.

Get that? W is pushing for this lame-ass "surge" because the Iraq Study Group told him not to. That'll show Daddy's men!

Hat tip to The Carpetbagger Report and Atrios.

I like what a commenter over at Carpetbagger had to say: "Someone tell Baker to tell them to bomb Iran." Sad thing is, that would probably work.

Jon Soltz, one of the founders of VoteVets.org, speculates that the "surge" is meant to handle the Mahdi Army flipping out once they find out that we've bombed Iran. Go ahead and read it if you want the crap scared out of you. It's a good companion piece to Alexandrovna's piece in Informed Comment. I hope Soltz wrong. I hope it's all about George being 12. That's bad enough.

The editor of The Raw Story, Larisa Alexandrovna, forsees an attack on Iran in early January. She is not the first to speculate that an attack could come so early.

She believes it likely that Saddam's pending execution is meant to trigger a wave of violence justifying escalation--and some violent event will be blamed on Iran, justifying an attack. I find her reasoning terrifyingly persuasive.

( Read more... )

So Rummy has been given the boot. Good riddance.

His replacement, Robert Gates, is a buddy of Bush I and an Iran-Contra figure. Considering that pardoned Iran-Contra felon and death-squad devotee John Negroponte has actually headed off some of the more insane schemes that Rummy wanted to pull, I'd say Gates will probably be an improvement.

I have hope that finally, attacking Iran is off the table. But we still must make sure that Bush knows he can't pull it off.

ETA:
Urk. Did I hope too soon? Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson strikes a cautionary note. Turns out that during his nomination hearings, Gates was criticized by career CIA personnel for tailoring intelligence to fit the desired conclusions. One of the analysts who praised Gates was later involved in cooking up the deceptive NIE for Iraq in 2002.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/8/15295/0713

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches

Really. How can I possibly improve on that headline?

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

The crisis is not one of nuclear enrichment, a low-level attainment that does not necessarily lead to having a bomb. Even if Iran had a bomb, it is hard to see how they could be more dangerous than Communist China, which has lots of such bombs, and whose Walmart stores are a clever ruse to wipe out the middle class American family through funneling in cheaply made Chinese goods.

(emphasis mine) Does this man nail it, or what? If you could force Rummy and Cheney to read just those two paragraphs, the resulting synaptic meltdown could probably provide enough energy to power the island of Manhattan for a day.

Is the American press going to go along with the Administration's bamboozlement on Iran like they did with Iraq in 2002? Are we going to let them??

Also check out one of Cole's commenters: she's one of us! Lookit: livinginiran I should drop by and say Hi.

This makes me sick with fear.

The Bush administration is considering using tactical nukes against Iran. Seymour Hersh says that one of the options on the table is sending bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility.

Daily Kos diary on the story

AP: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

New Yorker article

Even Israel is cautioning the U.S. not to attack Iran! We have met the jihadis, and they are us. Bush is flailing around like a mortally wounded giant trying to take out anything he can before he kicks it himself.