Friday, February 02, 2007

Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran

By Robert Parry
February 2, 2007

George W. Bush is again guiding the nation toward a preemptive war – this time with Iran – without allowing anything like a full debate of the underlying facts, probable consequences of the conflict or peaceful alternatives.

Bush is following the same course he chose in the run-up to war in Iraq: he insists that war is “a last resort” yet puts in motion the engines of war; he times the release of alarming intelligence reports for maximum political effect; he brushes aside doubts and warnings; he then presents war as unavoidable or a fait accompli.

Read on.

3 comments:

cobbnek said...

I am afraid the only way the Congress and the U.S. public can be shocked-frightened-into supporting a war with Iran, including conscription, if for one of our capital ships to go to the bottom of the Persian Gulf or other such tragedy which can be laid a the feet of Iran. Cobbnek

Andrew said...

I was stationed in Kuwait & Iraq in '04-'05. When we first arrived, the general feeling was that we would be going to Tehran or Damascas in '06. This wasn't official, of course, and none of us saw anything in writing. No one believed, however, that the military's mission was just Iraq. The vicious rise in insurgent/resistence attacks no doubt slowed things down, but I doubt the original plans have changed.

Without a doubt, Iran is involved in Iraq's internal politics, as is Syria. So is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and probably Israel. If Canada or Mexico were in the middle of a civil war, we'd be there, so it's neither unexpected nor surprising. The rhetoric about Iran that's been increasing over the past six months is also neither unexpected nor surprising.

Get ready.

Chris Horton said...

Much thanks to Robert Perry and Consortiumblog for helping keep the ball in the air.

I have been reading in the international press through truthout.org and from people like Perry and Scott Ritter (www.thenation.com, Jan. 11, must reading) about the Iran war preparations. I have been warning friends, political contacts, associates, political listservs, my congresspeople and committee heads, local and regional newspapers, newsletters and radio programs about this. People evidently don't want to hear it or believe it. I have a long history of getting letters to the editor published, but letters on this are not being printed. The press seems determined to treat all the war signs as too improbable to credit. And of course most people's attitude is that if this were really happening, the Times or the Post would be reporting it. (The Times, to its credit, lifted a little corner of the curtain in a front page article by Savid Sanger, 1/28, but he is very careful to treat the danger as being from "accidental war".)

Even anti-war activists mostly fail to see an attack on Iran as a major threat and as a transformative event. Many seem to believe that because the Administration lacks the troops and political support to win in Iraq, and is on the defensive, that a major attack on Iran can't happen. What they fail to see is that an attack on Iran could change everything, including Bush's position, and would put us all on the defensive. It would be preceeded by some incident that would be used to whip up war hysteria. Loud bullying voices would dominate the airwaves, and the "responsible" Democrats would piss all over themselves trying to prove that they were as patriotic as anyone.

Cobbnek, in his post yesterday, mentions conscription. Bush obviously needs that to win in Iraq, never mind Iran, so the initiating incident would have to be dramatic. In the absence of evidence that such an incident may be impending, few seem willing to think much about it, in spite of the good historical precedent for this scenario and the logic that points to it as Bush's obvious best move.

This post to Consortiumblog won't reach the millions, or even most anti-war activists. But hopefully it will reach some people who will engage in a serious conversation about how we can turn this situation around, and quickly. How can we get large numbers of people prepared to resist war hysteria and to view shocking events skeptically? How can we build pressure quickly on our friends in Congress to urgently investigate and expose the war plans and preparations? How can we get the peace movement to focus on Iran and speak in a voice loud anough to be heard above the background chatter? And how can we break into the mainstream media?

Please add comments. And never despair.

Chris Horton