Worrying About An Iran Conflict Part II

Part I had a few juicy tidbits of information pointing in the direction of an Iran strike, but don't fret (perhaps that's the wrong word), I have a few more as promised.

The article that had the most impact today was written by the always-superb investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for the New Yorker. This article is expansive and I advise reading it whole because it is such an important article full of great revelations and information. One of the main points of this article is that:

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

In other words: The US's mistake to invade Iran has increased the real and perceived power of Iran in the region, worrying both the administration and the Sunni Arab states. In response to an empowered Iran -- due to US action -- now the US and the Arab nations are funding Sunni fundamentalist groups (many with Al Qaeda ties!) acting against US and Sunni interests in Lebanon.

Do you get that!! We are so afraid of an Iran we ourselves empowered with our Iraq invasion that we are giving aid to Sunni groups who hate Shia Iran -- but here is the kicker...those Sunnis also hate Americans. They have Al-Qaeda ties after all!!

Does nobody remember that it was this "enemy of our enemies is our friend" mentality during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- with all the aid and training we provided to the mujahadeen then -- that helped lead to the rise and success of the al-Qaeda group. Those former mujahadeen we trained and armed to fight the USSR later took that knowledge and attacked the United States. And yes, Osama bin Laden was one of those former mujahadeen "allies" we helped back then. Talk about shortsighted.

And it seems we may be repeating that same mistake one more time.

And as the following quote makes clear, it seems that the administration has deemed the Shia's, and Iran specifically to be much more of a danger than Sunni radicals.

In my opinion they have that ass backwards...The threat from Iran is way overblown.

Remember it is the Sunni insurgency killing US soldiers in Iraq. It is the Sunni group Al-Qaeda that bombed us on 9/11, that bombed London and Madrid that poses threats to many countries.

Sunnis make up the majority of Islam, and Sunni radicals are a way bigger danger than Iran could pose. What the hell are they thinking?!

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

And this from the same article:

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Provocation? You have to be careful you may just get what you want.

But the article also makes mention of:

Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change.

(snip)

The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”

The BBC further verifies that this contingency planning is occurring. And the relevance of the last bolded part is that there is much unease and dissent among the top Generals. These generals do not think it is a good idea to strike Iran and it seems many are counting on the White House "not being foolish enough" to strike in such a weakened state.

If it was any other President than I might trust that the President wouldn't be that stupid...But this president has surprised me time and time again. I couldn't put it past him that he could be that foolish.

In fact the dissent among top US generals may be so high that it is reported -- in the Times Online -- that many Generals may resign their positions if given the order to strike Iran. That's how seriously bad some generals think this idea is:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defense and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Fortunately, in this case (and unlike Rumsfeld), Defence Secretary Roberts seems to be on the same page as his senior commanders.

Prior to the Iraq War, the senior commanders where more cautious about any way but Secretary Rumsfeld was a big proponent.

What's more, the evidence of an imminent Iranian threat gets weaker and weaker:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

All in all -- there is just so much that is wrong right now as it regards to Iran and our administration.

Later today I'll post and comment on a new article that includes information that completely undercuts the Administration claim that Iran has been supplying the Insurgency deadly new explosives...

This time for sure because its only 1 article...Really. lol