10 Indications For Planned War With Iran.

[varian]

Will Bush expand the "War on Terror" before the next election???

There are 10 indications that the U.S. is planning to pursue military action against Iran:

1. Ignoring Iran’s proposed ‘Grand Bargain’ of 2003: Prior to Ahmadinejad’s presidency – when the reformist, pro-West, moderate president, Mohammad Khatami was in power - the Iranian government sent a secret letter through the Swiss Embassy, proposing various compromises from stalling nuclear developments to stopping support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Bush administration refused the offer, which undermined the moderate government in Iran and led to the emergence of fundamentalists in Tehran. The U.S. seemed to have a different plan for Iran, which did not call for diplomatic negotiations.

2. Allocating 75 million dollars for ‘promoting Democracy in Iran’: Although this move seems to favor democracy, many Iranians in Iran and abroad believe that this policy is designed to create social and political unrest rather than to promote democratic movements. It has actually done more harm than good; it has become an excuse for the hardliners to target activists and suppress civil movements by accusing them of operating with western ‘dirty money.’ The money has never gone to any Iranian institutes, press, civil society organizations or NGOs inside the country. Rather it has been distributed to opposition groups who are not even connected with the current society in Iran.

3. Supporting terrorist groups like ‘Jondollah’ in Iran’s Eastern Provinces: The U.S. is supporting ‘Jondollah’, a group who is notorious among Iranians worldwide, for being a terrorist organization. They have been successful in destabilizing Iran’s Eastern provinces, hence weakening the government’s central authority. The U.S. support of Jondollah was uncovered by the media, and this information has further ruined the U.S.’s reputation - even among critics of Ahmadinejad’s government.

4. Supporting opposition groups in Northern Iraq: The administration is supporting armed opposition groups such as the PJAK in northern Iraq. These groups claim that they are fighting for federalism and disintegration of Iran’s Kurdish provinces. However, these groups have no legitimacy among the Kurdish population, let alone the Iranian people.

5. Gathering international community support against Iran: The U.S. has mobilized the EU countries, and even China and Russia, to isolate Iran by cutting their economic ties with governmental and private companies. Additionally, two recent sanctions by the United Nations Security Council against Iran have applied further economic pressure on the Islamic government.

6. Stationing three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf: Three U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Persian Gulf in the last year: the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 this is the strongest U.S. military presence in the region in terms of scale, number, or advanced technology.

7. Inviting Iran’s neighbor to an arms race: The U.S. proposed a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, followed by a promise to provide $30 billion worth of arms to Israel. Ihud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, confirmed this arms deal by stating, “We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.”

8. Shifting of the U.S. foreign policy doctrine: The administration is shifting its problem with Iran from a ‘nuclear issue’ to one of ‘War on Terror.’ Therefore, regardless of the results of Iran- EU negotiations, Iran will be accused of terror activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or any country U.S. is facing opposition in. While the international community is very reluctant to let the U.S. confront Iran because of its nuclear program, the administration feels free to confront Iran using the country’s alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East.

9. Labeling the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) a ‘Terrorist Organization’: U.S. officials have announced that the administration is going to declare that the IRGC, is a terrorist group. The IRGC is a part of Iran’s army and in labeling them a terrorist organization, the U.S. is labeling the entire government a terrorist state. Hence paving the way to declare any form of military action against the in the name of “War on Terror.”

10. Political frustration and the 2008 election: For many neo-cons in Washington, a new war, even an air strike, would divert the attention from U.S. failure in Iraq. It would boost their support, as many Americans opt for maintaining status quo in the middle of war.

The complete article and related stories at the site below.


http://news.pacificnews.org/news/vie...ce607666bb743a

[bararallu]

“We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.”


Yes, the Saudis and Egypt are bastions of "moderates." There should be a $20 fine for every public use of this word.

[farmall]

"Will Bush expand the "War on Terror" before the next election???"

Perhaps.

"There are 10 indications that the U.S. is planning to pursue military action against Iran:

1. Ignoring Iran’s proposed ‘Grand Bargain’ of 2003: Prior to Ahmadinejad’s presidency – when the reformist, pro-West, moderate president, Mohammad Khatami was in power - the Iranian government sent a secret letter through the Swiss Embassy, proposing various compromises from stalling nuclear developments to stopping support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Bush administration refused the offer, which undermined the moderate government in Iran and led to the emergence of fundamentalists in Tehran. The U.S. seemed to have a different plan for Iran, which did not call for diplomatic negotiations."

Why negotiate with mortal enemies so they can buy time? Negotiation is not appropriate to cultural war, because negotiation will not help fight the enemy culture.

"2. Allocating 75 million dollars for ‘promoting Democracy in Iran’: Although this move seems to favor democracy, many Iranians in Iran and abroad believe that this policy is designed to create social and political unrest rather than to promote democratic movements. It has actually done more harm than good; it has become an excuse for the hardliners to target activists and suppress civil movements by accusing them of operating with western ‘dirty money.’ The money has never gone to any Iranian institutes, press, civil society organizations or NGOs inside the country. Rather it has been distributed to opposition groups who are not even connected with the current society in Iran."

Empowering the hardliners IS good, from the POV of escalating the conflict. Social and political unrest create the conditions for revolution by provoking a cycle of repression that becomes intolerable to the public. A weakness of religious people is that their superstition dictates their responses to threats just as it provides a context for their lives. That weakness is exploitable and should be used. When your enemy can only respond one way, he loses the initiative.

I think like a revolutionary and want to see old systems destroyed to facilitate transition, so I agree with stirring the pot. A "moderate" Iran (oops, $20 usage fine!) will still be controlled by Islamonazis, so the solution is to destabilize it instead. The only "good" Iran is one deliberately destroyed by the very people who live there.

"3. Supporting terrorist groups like ‘Jondollah’ in Iran’s Eastern Provinces: The U.S. is supporting ‘Jondollah’, a group who is notorious among Iranians worldwide, for being a terrorist organization. They have been successful in destabilizing Iran’s Eastern provinces, hence weakening the government’s central authority. The U.S. support of Jondollah was uncovered by the media, and this information has further ruined the U.S.’s reputation - even among critics of Ahmadinejad’s government."

Fighting is fighting, for power is all and cultural war means the concept of innocence is obsolete for all sides. The only "terrorists" are the enemy. The other sort are "freedom fighters".

"4. Supporting opposition groups in Northern Iraq: The administration is supporting armed opposition groups such as the PJAK in northern Iraq. These groups claim that they are fighting for federalism and disintegration of Iran’s Kurdish provinces. However, these groups have no legitimacy among the Kurdish population, let alone the Iranian people."

They are willing to fight and risk death, the Iranian people are the ones responsible for the Iranian mullocracy, so let one attack the other.

"5. Gathering international community support against Iran: The U.S. has mobilized the EU countries, and even China and Russia, to isolate Iran by cutting their economic ties with governmental and private companies. Additionally, two recent sanctions by the United Nations Security Council against Iran have applied further economic pressure on the Islamic government."

Islam threatens Russia and China as well as the EU. Iran is an enemy. Not the mullahs, let's not pretend they exist in a vacuum, but the country itself.

"6. Stationing three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf: Three U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Persian Gulf in the last year: the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 this is the strongest U.S. military presence in the region in terms of scale, number, or advanced technology."

There not being a strategic interest in stationing forces near Tierra Del Fuego, it is a logical place to put them. They will always be somewhere, so why not have them handy?

"7. Inviting Iran’s neighbor to an arms race: The U.S. proposed a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, followed by a promise to provide $30 billion worth of arms to Israel. Ihud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, confirmed this arms deal by stating, “We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.”

As if KSA could "threaten" anyone with its decorative and defensive military. Consider the sales a subsidy to US defense industry.

8. Shifting of the U.S. foreign policy doctrine: The administration is shifting its problem with Iran from a ‘nuclear issue’ to one of ‘War on Terror.’ Therefore, regardless of the results of Iran- EU negotiations, Iran will be accused of terror activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or any country U.S. is facing opposition in. While the international community is very reluctant to let the U.S. confront Iran because of its nuclear program, the administration feels free to confront Iran using the country’s alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East."

We are enemies, so all useful diplomatic maneuvering is appropriate.
BTW it would be absurd for Iran NOT to support fighters in other countries. It is in their perceived interest to overthrow other regimes. That can be countered with an even higher level of destabilization the dis-integrates enemy states, so while Iran promotes destabilization the US can logically do the same thing.

"9. Labeling the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) a ‘Terrorist Organization’: U.S. officials have announced that the administration is going to declare that the IRGC, is a terrorist group. The IRGC is a part of Iran’s army and in labeling them a terrorist organization, the U.S. is labeling the entire government a terrorist state. Hence paving the way to declare any form of military action against the in the name of “War on Terror.”

Integrating the IGRC as part of the Army is like integrating the SS in Wehrmacht campaigns. They may fight, and fight well, but their primary purpose is vanguards of cultural war.

"10. Political frustration and the 2008 election: For many neo-cons in Washington, a new war, even an air strike, would divert the attention from U.S. failure in Iraq. It would boost their support, as many Americans opt for maintaining status quo in the middle of war."

Nothing like brinksmanship.
Iraq was bound to fail because only certain cultures will want democracy and of those only certain cultures will not democratically unite to attack the West. Now that we have it confirmed by Iraqis themselves that they are merely worthless homicidal tribalists, we can move on to something else less naive than trying to teach a pig to sing.

[Achihud]

A weakness of religious people is that their superstition dictates their responses to threats just as it provides a context for their lives. That weakness is exploitable and should be used. When your enemy can only respond one way, he loses the initiative.

There are two ways to lose a war in the head; FEAR and recklessness so never fear but know the enemy better than they know themselves and they will grow over-confident for sure, all 1.4 billion of them!

Iraq was bound to fail because only certain cultures will want democracy and of those only certain cultures will not democratically unite to attack the West. Now that we have it confirmed by Iraqis themselves that they are merely worthless homicidal tribalists, we can move on to something else less naive than trying to teach a pig to sing.

I'm saddamed oops...saddened by this end conclusion but gotta looove the style!

[farmall]

"they will grow over-confident for sure, all 1.4 billion of them!"

Quantity is not quality, and the majority are simple, expendable rustics who cannot bring firepower to bear on us unless we visit in person and try to make them behave.

There were over a billion Communists during the Cold War, and they had massive military power. Islam does not have that yet, which is good reason to escalate the conflict before the enemy can make Iran the "arsenal of Mullocracy".