Leading investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has made a career out of quoting unnamed sources, though he remains one of the great, living Western reporters. The editor-in-chief of the Arab Times has published a report that is hopefully woefully inaccurate:
Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.
According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”
Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”
He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.
Australian journalists need to start asking Prime Minister John Howard if he knows about such plans and what our country would do in the event of such a mission.
Trouble with these type of reports is that until something actually happens, you feel stupid to think that it could. Although in the case of Iraq I “knew” that the US would invade from very early in 2002.
Iran is a toss-up. Has Bush still got the power? It’s a real question, I think.
Good question, wbb. I’m worried that the current stance toward Syria and Iran is aimed at provoking conflict, so that Shrub and they boys don’t have to make the first move. Sadly, I get the feeling that war against Iran is on the horizon, although what shape it will take I don’t know. I hope that gut feeling is wrong.
Attacking Iran was always part of the plan, and I’m sad to say it is almost a foregone conclusion. In fact, while Iraq was the geopolitical and energy prize, Iran was alwasy going to be the one the neocons most wanted to hit, at least from a pro Zionist position.
Even with his military in tatters, Bush and Cheney probably feel they have nothing to lose and that they may be able either be able to salvage their legacy or make up for the Iraq failure (or both) if the Iran attack lives up to their wet dream of victory.
Here’s the real problem: The need to have the Democratic Party run a candidate that has a chance of winning by more than the margin of error.
Till then we are doomed by the Democratic Party Leadership to suffer narrow margin victorys and not have a mandate for change..
Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Gore? This is what we have to look forward to?
That is not the problem Ranger Rick. The Democratic campaign was completely controlled by pro war lunatic, Rahm Emanuel , who refused to support or give money to any Democratic Candidate that was running on an anti-war campaign.
Consequently, nearly 60 Iraq war vets who were running anti-war campaigns under the Democratic banner lost, albeit by small margins, because they were outspent by their Republican opponents.
Stars like Obama and Clinton are not anti-war.
An attack on Iran… Hard to imagine anyone being so stupid. Then again if anyone could reach the required level of foolishness it has to be Bush and Co.
I respect Addamos reasoning. The info about this Rahm Emanuel answers a lot of questions, also.
So, they can wound Iran, but if they can’t take it out, their problems will multiply because there might be a fair bit of money around to get 11/9 type operations up and running in retaliation. Wake up Americans, quickly.
Or is this really about enginering anothe roil spike?
In that case watch out for a recession.
As ever, the real problem is this evil nutter, Cheney.
It wasn’t Rumsfeldt that should of gone, but this other mongrel. Perhaps he is dead meat already over Iraq and and its corrupt post invasion occupation as well as Abrahamoff, but he would be just the sort to drag civilisation down with him.