Bush setting America up for war with Iran (for Israel)

Bush setting America up for war with Iran



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...6/wiran116.xml



By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007



Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that
President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place
America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has
learnt.


Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush


Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets
in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic
efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has
begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead
to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who
has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her
differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military
action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence
officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq -
arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on
Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

advertisementA prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western
intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against
British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security
circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in
the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger
for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed
forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does
not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not
capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows
what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not
most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top
Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the
next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence
around Iranian activities in Iraq."


Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have
come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's
handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered
ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting
tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies
dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air
strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are
training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of
escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the
Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in
Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border
town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle
the smuggling of weapons from Iran.

A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said
that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation
officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now
working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and
present a united front to the President.

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language,
you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy
but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.


"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ
they are working together to find a way to present a position they can
both live with."

The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work
with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell
and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".

Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war
again it must build the case over a period of months and win
sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised
her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of
both parties before any military action against Iran on the
understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major
contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for
a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of
the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than
2,000 targets."

James Morris wrote:

US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and
nuclear fears (Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts
warn):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...9798%2C00.html


Julian Borger and Ian Black
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian

The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq
risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional
analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days,
with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to
establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the
Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia
militias.

The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling
operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border
clash.
US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had
been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed
would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this
week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the
border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director
of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies,
said.
Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the
confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared
yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and
warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials
will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have
created in Iraq."
In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a
mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its
motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to
the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was
Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the
sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There
is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility
funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea
The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for
influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's
nuclear ambitions.
The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday
to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its
suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush
administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to
curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick
Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support
from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear
sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The
talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is
very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at
seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about
Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."
US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military
action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as
politically motivated.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a
security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time
ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of
Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical
level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part
of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack
against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He
has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his
actions."
US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia
militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main
concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of
molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say
must have been made in Iran.
A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner,
raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US
military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American
soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.
Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with
administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as
a move to increase pressure on Iran.
"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry
about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from
Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something
about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very
difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that
respect, border control is a sensible solution."
Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose
between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and
participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials
insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon
diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working.
They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a
pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by
Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be
supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of
Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and
Iran, Iran has blinked first.

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

The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2953462.ece

British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran
grow

Published: 12 September 2007
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with
Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is
fomenting a "proxy war".
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have
threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi
territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base
and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at
the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the
Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in
recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.
The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra
Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing
to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq.
Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at
Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop
the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of
entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces
are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of
particular concern to them."
The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of
whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK
as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.
The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to
clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and
also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of
attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting
violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two
countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.
The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and
Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest
accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General
Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker
accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to
the enemies of the Iraqi state".
In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on
Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be
necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within
its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard
look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.
The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior
armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra
air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal
handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the
UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.
The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country,
General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for
British help if there was an emergency.
While previous US military action has been primarily directed against
Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of
backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.
For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy.
They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US
concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons
into Iraq.
The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by
the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States.
British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American
request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra
Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms
entering Basra.
Brigadier Bashall said: "We are not sitting here idly at the air
bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall
act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra
City if asked to do so."
The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after
four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that
the "Iranian threat" is now one of their main concerns.
Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division,
said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his
forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian
munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling
and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran
claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi
territory in the Kurdish north.
Said Jalili , Iran's deputy foreign minister, last night said: "I
think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth
because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not
been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the
other side."

C-SPAN 'Washington Journal' viewer calls about Mearsheimer/Walt and
the coming war with Iran:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398

Anti-Iran hype reaches fever pitch
By Khody Akhavi

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II12Ak01.html

War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=71055

Jim Moran's Mouth, Again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...42.html?sub=AR

justicequest2000 wrote (in the comments section associated with the
above Op-Ed appearing in the Washington Post today):

Can I assume that Mr. King hasn't even read the new book (The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy - see israellobbybook.com) by respected
political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about
the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, JINSA, etc) and
how it pushed for the attack on Iraq and has been doing similar to get
US to attack Iran. Can I assume that Mr. King also hasn't read the
third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They
Dare to Speak Out' book either. Mr. King might be interested in
accessing the following URL as well which conveys how CBS '60 Minutes'
is refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=78398


Pentagon Has Given Up on Diplomacy, Crafting Plan to Bomb Iran (for
Israel!)

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78746


Pentagon Has Given Up on Diplomacy, Crafting Plan to Bomb Iran (for
Israel!)

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78746

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


Bin Laden warns of unprecedented attack on US interests for support of
Israel (no coverage of such either in the Israel first US mainstream
media)

LONDON, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned
three weeks ago that he and
his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on US interests
for
its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said on
Tuesday.
Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi
newspaper
said Islamic fundamentalists led by Bin Laden was "almost
certainly" behind the attack of the World Trade Center in New York.
"It is most likely the work of Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin
Laden
warned three weeks ago that he would attack American interests in an
unprecedented attack, a very big one," Atwan told Reuters.
"Personally we received information that he planned very, very big
attacks
against American interests. We received several warnings like this. We
did
not take it so seriously, preferring to see what would happen before
reporting it."
Atwan has interviewed Bin Laden and maintains close contacts with his
followers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

http://representativepress.blogspot....pport-for.html

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive
for the 9/11 Attacks:

http://representativepress.blogspot....nt-inside.html

Additional at the following URL:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590

On Sep 16, 4:34 am, wrote:
Bush setting America up for war with Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...07/09/16/wiran...

By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007


snip

The US was telling Europe several months BEFORE Sept 11, 2001 that
they had plans to invade Afghanistan.

All they needed was a 'Pearl Harbour'. Almost by magic they got it.

Today they have big hard-ons over Iran.

What's the bets that (a) the missing 120 kiloton Nuke is used to stage
an "attack"?

OR

(b) the aging, no longer upgradeable USS Enterprise is sacrificed by
Israel plunging several torpedoes into her guts and blaming it on
Iran?