| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"The Last 1900 Days....HOOROO !" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2007 01:03:19 AM |
| Object: |
US gearing up for war with Iran, despite denials |
yeppers, yes siree yes indeedy deedy deedily do !
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
===00===
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/3/focus/19062404&sec=focus
Wednesday October 3, 2007
US gearing up for war with Iran, despite denials
MIDWEEK BY BUNN NAGARA
AFTER weeks of speculation over a US military attack on Iran, events
moved closer towards war this week.
Last Friday attempts by the United States, Britain and France to push
for new sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council were blocked
by Russia and China as the other permanent five council members.
As before, frustrating such attempted measures could be less an
indication of no action at all than a sign of an alternative military
option. As with Iraq in 2003, UN consensus even at Security Council
level was never needed for an illegal war.
Washington argues that Iran is planning to build a nuclear bomb,
despite Teheran's insistence that its nuclear project is only for
generating electricity. Again as with Iraq before, no proof of the
existence of any "weapons of mass destruction" is needed to start a
war for the purpose.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that the subject
of his country's nuclear project was a closed issue, to be handled by
the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. US hawks are concerned
that this would take the matter out of US hands and prevent the
possibility of a unilateral war.
Leading neo-conservatives, US Zionists and Israeli officials hope to
keep the option of such a war open, even likely. Some of them, like
the influential Norman Podhoretz, have recently consulted privately
with President George W. Bush in pushing for war.
The US position is that all options against Iran are on the table,
including unilateral pre-emptive strikes. Meanwhile, US sources have
been instructed to dig up the dirt on Iran to justify imminent
military action, to add to claims that Iran is already breaching two
sets of UN sanctions.
However, outgoing British ambassador to the United States Sir David
Manning played down the prospect of war as he prepared to leave office
this week. He said he is unaware of any definite plans for war,
differentiating between what is being discussed and what is happening
on the ground.
All of this is eerily familiar, including Sir David's not being
consulted on a war. Britain as Washington's "closest ally" could be
handed a fait accompli on the battlefield again after the White House
and the Pentagon have made their plans.
The State Department reportedly prefers a combination of sanctions and
diplomacy to war. But it is under pressure to deliver, and its
position could be weakening.
Events on the ground are now drifting to a war early next year, if not
late this year. US and Israeli hardliners see Israel's recent air
attack on Syria as a successful "dry run" against Iran.
On Sunday, British news reports said the US air force and its
equivalents in Gulf allies Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have
also stepped up joint training in a prospective air attack on Iranian
nuclear installations.
The scenario apparently does not depict direct involvement by these
Gulf states in a war. However, senior military and government leaders
in these countries have bought into the idea that key assistance to US
forces like logistics, refuelling and use of air space will not
implicate them in the war per se.
Meanwhile, Iran has some options to forestall a military attack,
including pulling support from Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan where the
Taliban are making gains while British forces withdraw to US dismay.
But while this may delay, deflect, distract or even dislocate the US
war machine, it may not be enough to stop a new war.
Seeing the US-Israel connection in a possible attack, Iran has
threatened to retaliate against Israel with missiles if it is
attacked. But even this may not deter unilateralists smitten with war
mania.
Bush is not running for re-election next year, and the Republican
Party looks increasingly unlikely to win as well. So the White House
could well pull a "hat trick" with a third war in two terms, leaving
the mess and the costs to a new Democratic administration.
The Democrats would be wise to stop impending war plans, but are
unlikely to. Leading presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama and John Edwards recently showed they could not even
withdraw from the second war in Iraq, despite their party's
Congressional mandate for them to do so.
==============================
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
