By Kenneth J. Theisen, 9/23/06
In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 19,
2006 President Bush made clear his regime’s intentions toward Iran when he stated, “the United States respects you; we
respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and
your many contributions to civilization.
You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future. The greatest obstacle to this future is that
your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources
to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and fuel nuclear weapons.” The Iranian people who had their elected
government overthrown by the CIA and then replaced by the bloody Shah will
probably not buy this? But Bush wants Americans to buy this BS and to support
his regime in the coming war against Iran.
This was a declaration of war. We all know what happened to the people of Iraq when the U.S. started to talk about liberty,
nuclear weapons, and regime change. The Bush regime is following the same game
plan for its lead-up to war against Iran.
Many people argue that is ludicrous to imagine that the U.S. which is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan
would even consider attacking Iran.
They think that the U.S.
is only bluffing in order to gain diplomatic advantage. But to the Bush regime and a president who
claims to get directions from god, nothing is too extreme.
Anyone who has observed
the U.S. propaganda campaign
leading to the Iraq war
cannot help but notice the direct parallels to the spin now emanating from the
White House when Iran
is discussed. Remember when Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. stated that we cannot
afford to wait for the “mushroom cloud” to prove that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. The Bush regime has repeatedly stated that it will
not allow Iran
to have a nuclear weapon. We are told nuclear weapons in such a volatile area
as the Middle East are inherently a threat to
the security of the world.
Yet we seldom hear any
mention about the 10,000 nuclear warheads possessed by the U.S. or the 300 to 400 nuclear weapons possessed
by Israel, a country that
has waged repeated aggressive wars against its neighbors, including most
recently, Lebanon.
U.S. nukes are on naval
vessels all over the Middle East. And with the
publication of the Hersh articles in the New Yorker we know that U.S. war planners are considering actually using
such weapons “to take out” the threat of Iran acquiring such weapons. Can
anyone in the Bush regime spell the word hypocrisy?
Another parallel to the
buildup to the Iraq war is
the constant reference to terrorism when discussing Iran. The Bush regime’s well oiled
propaganda machine went out of its way, including making up lies, to convince
us that Saddam was connected to Al Queda and 9/11. Hardly a day now goes by
without someone from the White House charging Iran with aiding terrorists. During
the invasion of Lebanon, we
were told repeatedly by administration officials that Iran was
supplying weapons and funds to Hezbollah.
Remember when Saddam
was repeatedly compared to Hitler. Bush
regime members in recent speeches have gone out of their way to analogize the
present “war on terror” with the war against Hitler. They have condemned those
who disagree with Bush as “appeasers” who wish to repeat the mistakes of Munich in 1938. Bush even uses the term “Islamic fascists”
regularly in his speeches in order to draw the comparison. Right-wing talk radio, TV, and tabloids refer
to the President of Iran as a little Hitler.
In his U.N. speech, Bush pretended to seek a diplomatic solution to the
problem of Iran’s
nuclear activities. He stated that he has no objections to a “truly peaceful
nuclear program” and claimed he looks forward “to the day when”America and Iran can be good friends and close
partners in the cause of peace.” But these words are merely sugar-coated
bullets. The Bush regime in the buildup to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq
also pretended to be exploring all possible diplomatic solutions while it had
actually already made the decision to go to war and was actively preparing to
launch that war. The Downing
Street memos confirm this. At
one point when Saddam backed down, Bush discussed with Tony Blair possible ways
to provoke Saddam, including painting a U.S. plane with the U.N. flag and
forcing Saddam to shoot at it.
At a U.N. Security
Council meeting where sanctions against Iran
were being discussed the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, commented on
the U.S.
proposal for harsh sanctions by bluntly stating, “It looks so déjà vu.” He called the U.S.
push for a showdown with Iran
a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” John
Bolton the U.S.
representative to the U.N. responded, “If that is déjà vu, then so be it, but
that is the course we are on in an effort to get Iran to reverse its decision to
acquire nuclear weapons.”
Today
the Bush administration also gives lip service to using diplomatic means to
avert a crisis with Iran, but after so many lies only a fool would buy the
“trust me” line coming from the White House. According to Hersh’s
sources in one of the New Yorker articles, the U.S. already has covert military teams on the ground
in Iran
searching out targets. The U.S.
is also spreading money around in Iran’s various ethnic areas to buy
collaborators. Both actions were taken in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion and also the invasion of Afghanistan. They are part of the U.S. game plan
in prepping countries for full-scale attack.
Another familiar tactic is putting pressure on intelligence
agencies to “come up” with intelligence which supports the Bush regime’s
assertions. A month ago, the House Intelligence Committee issued a report
written by a Republican staffer, critical of the intelligence community for it
failure to document Iran’s
seeking of nuclear weapons. The author is Fredrick Fleitz, a former special
assistant to UN ambassador John Bolton. The committee asserted that Iran
is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in Natanz.
According to David Albright, a former nuclear
inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security, “This is like prewar Iraq all over again You have
an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that’s
cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors.” Officials of the United Nations’
International Atomic Energy Agency have pointed our at least five major errors
in the report and deny any evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
Vice-President Cheney has played his role too. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq he was
the regime’s point man that assured us “we have to assume that as soon as the
world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he [Saddam
Hussein] will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once
again reconstituting his nuclear program. He has pursued nuclear weapons for
over 20 years. Done absolutely everything he could to try to acquire that
capability and if he were to cough up whatever he has in that regard now, even
if it was complete and total, we have to assume tomorrow he would be right back
in business again.”
And in February 2005 he had this to say about Iran, “It all
turns on this question of whether or not they should be enriching uranium. They
claim they”re doing it only for peaceful purposes, although there is some
evidence to suggest that they have military aspirations and they”re trying to
acquire nuclear weapons.” Of course he
did not say what this evidence is because he has none.
In 2004, the White House issued this statement, “It
is not a straightforward problem but at some point the costs of doing nothing
may just become too high. In Iran, you have
the intersection of nuclear weapons and proven ties to terrorism.” Then from Condoleezza Rice on February 9,
2005, “Iran Should not use the cover of civilian nuclear power development”to
sustain a program that could lead to a nuclear weapon.
Another common thread between the build-up to war
in Iraq
and today is the creation of alternative methods to obtain intelligence by the
White House. In the lead-up to war in Iraq, the administration created
the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCEG) under Douglas Feith and
Office of Special Plans (OSP) under Abram Shulsky in the Pentagon to evaluate
intelligence. What they really did was to manufacture and twist “intelligence”
to support the regime’s actions. Both Feith and Shulsky are leading neo-cons
who have been itching for war against Iraq
and Iran
for many years. These were the people who allegedly found ties between Saddam
and al Qaeda that were used by the regime to justify war against Iraq.
Now the regime has created the Iranian Directorate
(ID) which plays the same role as the PCEG and OSP. The leading figure within
the ID is Shulsky who regularly briefs Dick Cheney. Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Venable
confirmed that Shulsky, “”continues in his position as Senior Advisor to the
USD, focusing on Mid-East regional issues and the global war on terror.” As war gets closer, look to ID cherry pick
and cook intelligence for the regime.
Remember the yellowcake from Niger that “confirmed” that Iraq had a
nuclear weapons program. Although this
story was thoroughly discredited, it is back in a different form. But now it is uranium 238 from mines in the Congo. In the August 6, 2006 Sunday Times of London there
was an article entitled, “Iran’s
Plot to Mine Uranium in Africa.” The article stated, “A United Nations report,
dated July 18, said there was “no doubt” that a huge shipment of smuggled
uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from
the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo.
“Tanzanian customs officials told The
Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas,
and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check.”
Proof positive right? However the U.N. report does not mention Iran at all
despite the claim in the story. And why
would Iran
which has its own uranium mines need to import uranium? But look for this story to have the half-life
of uranium. Maybe it will even make it
into a State of the Union speech like the yellowcake. This story has all the
earmarks of a disinformation campaign conducted by the intelligence community.
Still another
similarity is the “great concern” that the Bush regime has for human
rights. In September 2002 Bush expressed
this concern for the human rights violations in Iraq. “Last year, the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely
grave violations of human rights, and the regime’s repression is all
pervasive.” Compare this to the
statement from the U.S. State Department issued in January 2005, “The continued
harassment and arrest of proponents of moderation, pluralism, and political
reform are in violation of international standards of human rights.” In his speech to the U.N. on September 19,
Bush also emphasized the lack of human rights in Iran. This from a regime which has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan,
condoned torture, imprisoned tens of thousands of Iraqis, killed hundreds of
thousands, and here at home abandoned the people of New Orleans.
While keeping Iran from
obtaining the bomb, fighting terrorism and concern for human rights are the
window dressing that is being used to prepare us for war against Iran, the real
reason for the war is regime change. Bush states, “The world cannot be put
in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon.” But what
he really means is that the U.S.
intends to maintain its dominant position in the world. In order to do that it
must control the vast petroleum reserves of the Middle East, which is also a
strategic location at the intersection of Africa, Asia and Europe. Control of the Middle East is crucial to the U.S. plan to
dominate the world for the indefinite future.
Just like in Iraq, regime
change is necessary in Iran
for the U.S.
to achieve its goals. The Iranian government has ties to other powers such as Russia and China,
but it also pursues agendas that interfere with the U.S. agenda. For reasons of it own,
the Islamic regime supports forces in Lebanon,
Palestine, and Iraq
that conflict with U.S.
goals. In Iraq many of the
leading Shi”a clerics were in exile in Iran
during the years of Saddam’s rule and some still receive support from Iran.
But regime change poses serious challenges for the U.S. U.S. ground forces are stretched
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of being welcomed as liberators, as we were told repeatedly by such
luminaries as Dick Cheney, the U.S.
has faced heavy resistance in Iraq.
Even in Afghanistan,
which is portrayed as a major victory, resistance is growing.
The U.S. currently lacks the
forces to launch a major ground invasion of Iran. So other options are being
considered according to Hersh. And one of these options is the use of nuclear
weapons or “bunker busters” for targets deep underground, such as
nuclear facilities in Iran.
Despite attempts by the administration to play down this option, we should not
be misled. Bush, Cheney and Rice have all made public statements saying that
“all options” are on the table.
In January 2001 an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National
Institute for Public Policy issued a report that recommended the treatment of
tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. weapons arsenal. It stated
that such weapons are particularly useful “for those occasions when the
certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond
the promise of conventional weapons.” Several of the signers of this
report are now high-level officials in the Bush Administration. Chief among
them is Bush’s National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley. They also include the
Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone; and the
Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Robert
Joseph. These are some of the people now advising Bush about Iran.
For
those who think we have plenty of time to stop a war with Iran, think
again. On September 21, 2006 the
raw story (rawstory.com) published a story entitled, “Senior intel
official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option” by Larisa
Alexandrovna. It reported that a senior
intelligence official familiar with Pentagon planning claims that the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have started “branches and sequels” contingency planning for
attacking Iran. This planning is done after an initial attack
plan has been decided upon.
The
senior intelligence official, along with other military sources, confirmed to raw
story that the nuclear option is still on the table. The official also
stated, “The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible
bombing campaign against Iran’s
nuclear facilities. In the past, only
the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the
mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran’s ability
to develop a nuclear weapon.”
It is
my belief that the only way to stop a war against Iran is by driving out the Bush
regime. But even if war against Iran was not in
the cards, there are so many other reasons to do so. October 5th is the beginning of
what will develop into a mass movement of millions and that is what it will
take to drive this regime from power. We
all have to act now. We can not sit back and watch while the world is destroyed
around us.