- This is an ongoing process that hasn't yet fully materialized
into a justification for an attack, but it's coming. The process is just
as inevitable as was the Iraq war that we all foresaw in November of 2002.
Only this time I believe the US will use Israel to start the war so as
to "force" the US into joining in order to "protect our
troops" in Iraq from the inevitable barrage of missiles that Iran
will rain down in retaliation. The US will claim it is only launching a
"limited" attack on Iran. However, it will be wide-ranging assault
and will concentrate on hitting Iran's civilian and industrial infrastructure
as well as the full range of military targets in order to bring Iran to
its knees. I repeat, it will NOT be a surgical strike upon only Iranian
nuclear targets, though it will be billed as such.
- As Craig Unger said in his Vanity Fair article entitled:
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq. "Once again, neocon
ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once
again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington--this
time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile
leaders are promising freedom."
- As Taylor Mash in Global Research points out, the US
claims that Iran is "aiding" the insurgency while arming and
training Shiite militias, which incite the insurgency. Naturally, the neither
the US government or the US media give any specifics on Iran's "aid"--at
least nothing verifiable--so that the American public can't put two and
two together. Journalists are once again forced to repeat the official
claims as their only story.
- "United States officials in Baghdad were reported
to be in possession of Iranian made weapons. In a brazen display of 'intelligence',
the Americans proudly showed off their Iranian-made weapons to reporters.
[But predictably, the US banned all cameras and recording devices so that
no one could take away any evidence of the phony display the US was making.]
- "Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were
put on display, including EFPs, [81mm] mortar shells [used as roadside
bombs] and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced
to Iran. The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in
Iran. ... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons,
an official said."
- But as Kurt Nimmo pointed out, Iran has no plants capable
of manufacturing 81mm mortar shells: "Many were made as recently as
last year--ruling out the possibility that they could have been left over
from the many arms caches scattered across Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime.
Of course, as this is a sloppy neocon ruse, as per usual, there is a problem
here. Can you guess what it is?
- "If you guessed the date, you win a Cupie doll.
For some reason, the geniuses at the Pentagon have failed to explain why
the Iranians used a date from the Christian Gregorian calendar and not
one from the Islamic Persian calendar. According to the Muslim calendar,
the date stenciled on this mortar shell should read 1427, not 2006. And
why did Iran, a country speaking and writing in Persian, a language written
in a version of the Arabic script, decide to label their shells in English?
Maybe they thought it would fool the infidels?"
- I might add that various government connected "sources"
are countering Nimmo's assertions by claiming an Iranian "Arms merchant"
made the shells on behalf of Iran. Nimmo isn't being so easily put off,
however. It appears this new cover story has the neocon's finger prints
all over it: <http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=766>http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=766.
- What about the Steyr .50 caliber sniper rifles the US
has found in some insurgent weapons caches? First, there is the issue of
"what brand of insurgents." There are Shia insurgents and Sunni
insurgents and the US-controlled al Qaeda. It makes a difference which
group possessed this cache of weapons. The US doesn't say. If they were
Sunni (which constitute the vast majority of insurgents) they are enemies
of Iran as well and hardly recipients of Iran's largesse. If Shia, the
US has long been a provider of weapons to this group (openly and covertly)
- Juan Cole writes how the figures concerning US deaths
attributed (by implication of location in Baghdad) to Shia is false: "This
NYT article depends on unnamed US government sources who alleged that 25
percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December
of 2006 were from EFP bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias.
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. .... Overall, only a fourth
of US troops had been killed in Baghdad through the end of 2006. But US
troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else--Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these
are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded
by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands
- Over 800 of these armor piercing rifles were exported
from Austria to Iran in 2005. The US claims that over 100 have made their
way into insurgent hands and can be traced to Iran. But that is far from
proof, and we must be skeptical of claims from our own government that
has been known to manufacture evidence (and weapons) with fake markings
on them to cast blame on Iran. I have also recounted the stories of innocent
Iraqis arrested by coalition forces, sent to the green zone for interrogation,
and then told to get into a car and drive to another location in Baghdad.
The car just happens to be loaded with explosives and is set off by remote
control, unbeknownst to the driver. These suicides bombings are therefore
not really suicides but planned provocations.
- As for the rifles, we would have to know where else these
rifles were exported and if the US or Britain covertly brought them into
Iraq to blame Iran. Even if the US provided serial numbers from the Austrian
company (which they haven't done), there would be no way to prove that
the US covert operations didn't order a special set of rifles to match
what was sent to Iran. Such arrangements are more common than you think
in covert operations--when a Western country wants to do a false flag operation.
A government which kills off its own people in falsified terrorist attacks
such as OKC bombing and 9/11 is capable of anything.
- Taylor Mash continues with the analysis of US hypocrisy
over its claims that Iran is aiding insurgent groups:
- "The defense analyst said Iran was working through
'multiple surrogates'-- mainly 'rogue elements' of the Shiite Mahdi Army--to
smuggle the EFPs [Explosive Formed Projectile] into Iraq. He said most
of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah,
the Iranian border city of Meran, and the Basra area of southern Iraq.
... The 'evidence' against Iran and the Mahdi Army continues to pile up.
But there is something fishy here.
- "The Bush administration claims that Iranians caught
in recent raids buttress clams of Iranian involvement. The targets of American
ire appear to be Iran and the Mahdi Army. However, the Iranians were captured
in Kurdish held Erbil and in Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in Baghdad.
In both instances, the Iranians were working with American allies in Iraq--the
Kurds and the SCIRI.
- "The Bush administration has indeed made a fine
bed with terrorists in Iraq. There is very little doubt that Iran is supporting
the Shia factions and the Kurds in Iraq. However, the factions Iran is
supporting are the same factions that the Bush administration is supporting.
The Shia faction that gets the least support from Iran, and that is ideologically
the least aligned with Iran, is the Mahdi Army. Yet, the Administration's
plan, as laid out in the Hadley memo, appears to isolate the Mahdi Army
and empower the very factions, Dawa and SCIRI, that Iran has been helping.
- "The Bush administration is spinning a story about
Iran that is full of contradictions. The Bush administration cannot claim
to target Iran for arming the same groups that the United States itself
is arming, without addressing its own behavior and alliances in Iraq. It
has been clear from the start that the United States has put in power terrorists
and thugs (Dawa and SCIRI) in Iraq. To support its drumbeat to war against
Iran, it cannot now cry foul without addressing its own hypocrisy in Iraq.
To the extent that they have both sponsored the same actors in Iraq, the
Bush administration and Iran have been allies.
- "So, when the Bush administration claims that some
Iranian arms have been found in the hands of Shia militia in Iraq, I am
unimpressed. The United States has, over the last four years, armed the
Shia militias to the teeth by equipping the SCIRI- and Badr Brigade-controlled
Iraqi Interior Ministry. In the contest of arms shipments to Iraqi Shia
militias, the United States wins the arms race hands down. Having armed,
equipped, and trained a party to a civil war, the Bush administration has
been the driving force of instability in Iraq. When the Bush administration
accuses Iran of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq, it ignores the elephant
in the room, that is, the United States."
- Gabriel Ronay writes that President Bush "is preparing
to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US
Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up
in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia. 'American
forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's
Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April,' the Bulgarian news
agency Novinite said. ... President Ahmadinejad of Iran has further ratcheted
up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of
the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defense system."
- Congress does have the power to stop this attack on Iran:
Claudia Nelson states that "[o]n the question as to who has ultimate
say so, Section 5(c) of the War Power Resolution makes this crystal clear,
stating, 'Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States
Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United
States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or
specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President
if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.' In other words, Congress
can mandate the removal of troops at anytime, if there has not been a formal
declaration of war." However, it has to be a binding resolution--not
the pathetic "non-binding" variety the Democrats are playing
- PDF Version: http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/pdf/World
Affairs Brief February 16, 2007/
- World Affairs Brief February 16, 2007
- World Affairs Brief February 16, 2007. Copyright Joel
- Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
- Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief