Bush setting America up for war with Iran 13

From the Sunday Telegraph

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action…

…Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The full article can be read here

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

13 thoughts on “Bush setting America up for war with Iran

  • George Dutton

    Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran.

    "At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America"…

    "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran, but believed a policy of sanctions could still persuade Tehran to drop its disputed nuclear program."

    "I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are pursuing will work, but I'm not one who's going forward to say that we rule out any particular form of action," Brown told a news conference, when asked if he would rule out a military strike against Iran."

  • ChoamNomsky

    That will be the "nuclear weapons programme" of which there is no evidence.

    Enriching to weapons grade (90% U235) is a world apart from enriching to reactor grade (3-4% U235) and the ongoing inspections would pick it up. That's why NPT countries have inspections in the first place. If you can't trust the inspections then you can't trust them in any country.

    It is the US, UK and Russia (et al) who are in violation of the NPT in failing to disarm. Of course there is no big bully to make them do it, but at least the media could harass them about it.

  • godzilla

    Well quite frankly anyone serious in this business reckons that the Iranians are pretty serious about having nukes.

    So it really boils down to two alternatives… either stop them or live with it. I personally find both rather frightening but at the end of the day I'd rather take the former. And frankly I don't see the Israelians not at least trying to stop them.

    Craig, what's your take on this one ?

  • writeon

    It's interesting that the french are now talking openly about the possibility of war with Iran. I wonder if this has been co-ordinated with Washington?

    Did the UK army move from Basra so it would be closer to the boder with Iran?

    It seems strange to be discussing more war, when things are going so swimingly in Iraq! But I suppose it's obvious; the longer we stay in Iraq and the deeper we sink, then sooner or later the fighting will spread.

    It seems we're going to strike-out Iran basically, because we've got the power to do it with impunity. Iran might strike back at us in Iraq and try to shut of the gulf's oil flow, or attack the US armada of its coast. However, I wouldn't advise it as a realistic or sensible strategy; because Bush is itching to nuke Iran.

    Nuking Iran would really show the Middle East who was boss and terrify the whole world. Who might be the next target be? It would be a lesson for the world. Don't mess with the USA! Don't oppose our will or you to risk sharing Iran's fate!

    It might be called the 'Roman solution' very bloody, but effective. Wipe out opposition and set a terrible example for the whole world to see. From that point on, people would really begin to take the United States seriously!

    It would of course mean the United States becoming a fully fledged terrorist state and casting off the last shreds of constitutional and democratic government, but I doubt that means very much to Bush and the sinister movement he represents.

  • Alien

    This was the long-term plan for the Bush administration, Iraq the Iran. Now there will have to be a change in details: no invasion of Iran, but may be calculated air strikes, although I believe that the use of nukes is highly unlikely.

    In fact there is another good reason for this move now, Bush needs some sort of a snap "victory" to cover on the Iraq disaster.

    And for the consequences to the world and the US, well, do the NeoCons give a damn?! Bush will be in his Texas ranch recalling his days of "glory" and the rest will be taking care of their business, as usual.

  • George Dutton

    "Brit Hume and FOXNews.com: Pentagon Has Given Up on Diplomacy, Crafting Plan to Bomb Iran"

    "A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime"

    I wonder if that was the plan the USA and Germany worked out together to allow the USA the excuse it needed to attack Iran?. Well it is how the they work.

  • dodo

    The PR assault for war has been planned for some while.

    Juan Cole's Blog at

    on 29th August gives some brief background and included the following:

    "Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:

    They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects…."

    For some years now we have witnessed the US political momentum for an attack on Iran. All we have wondered about is timing. Wait and see.

    Interesting to note that inflammatory comments by Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, are not the first indication of a French link to strategies for Iran. Beginning in March this year, the French Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle was associated with exercises by two US Carrier fleets in the Arabian Gulf. I have no idea of the present location of the French carrier.

    Perhaps French Fries will yet return to US menus.

  • writeon

    Before we all get lost in the 'fog of war' I think it's appropriate to remind ourselves that the is no substantiated evidence indicating that Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons, or plans to produce nuclear weapons in the near future. What the future holds for us in the longer term is conjecture and we certainly don't need to launch an unprovoked, illegal and imoral attack on Iran based on what may or may not happen sometime in the future. For example, our relationship to Iran could change dramatically without the need to bomb them back to a pre-industrial state.

    On the other hand Iran does have a nuclear power programme. Which the BBC continually describes as 'Iran's nuclear programme'. The jump from producing material for nuclear power plants to producing weapons-grade material is substantial and difficult, if not impossible to hide, given the IEA's inspection regime. So the fantasy that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons and poses an threat to the world which has to be dealt with here and now is absurd nonsense. One needs to be wary and sceptical about everything relating to Iran that's produced by western governments, especially the US and UK governments. Remember the mountain of lies they produced to justify the invasion of Iraq? Remember weapons of mass destruction? Surely we must have learned something from the Iraq debacle? That our leaders lie to us when they need to and are not to be trusted. They will say anything to justify yet another war to remove opposition to their ultimate plans.

    So, even if Iran was capable and had the desire to produce nuclear weapons, it's years away. Like with Iraq, there is no panic, no need to rush to war. Let the international inspectors do their job? But once again we won't wait for Iran to get a clean bill of health, like we couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to report that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    We'll attack Iran because we cannot live with even the possibility that at some future date Iran might develop the ability to defend itself and deter a western attack, or at least make it very costly. Iran is a thorn in our side because it is seen as alternative model to the one we wish to impose on the Middle East and its people. We want the region 'peaceful' and docile. We demand that they accept the right of Israel to take and control arab land by force of arms. We demand that they accept the blessings of modernity and the American model for economic/social development – or else! And probably most importantly; we demand that the major energy producers in the region open up their countries to unrestricted western investment and control of the remaining oil and gas reserves and at a price we are willing to pay! And this, on a basic level, is why we're going to force 'regime change' on Iran. Simply because they are in the way and are the only country in the entire region that could potentially pose a credible cultural and military opposition to our total domination of the region and its resources. So crushing Iran is an essential strategic objective. It has to be done, sooner rather than later!

    But will it work? Will the Iranians just roll over and except their loss of independence and sovereignty? Well most of the arab regimes have done it. They are all American 'protectorates' and have been for years. However, whilst the undemocratic elites may owe their survival and positions to the Americans, the fabled 'arab street' is another matter completely. Our policies are building up a massive well of resentment and anger that will one day sweep away the puppet leaders we've imposed on the arab world, then where will we be?

    Lastly, if we can't subdue Iraq, how one earth will we manage to suddue and install a friendly government in Iran, which is so much larger and with far greater population? Well, that't the problem with the region isn't it? They've got all that oil and gas, really our oil and gas if you think about it; and wouldn't life be so much easier if those folks just weren't there anymore and so resistant to 'change'? And that's where, I fear, those nasty nukes come back into the picture as the 'final solution' to the 'Muslim' question.


    Craig Murray

    I have listen your interview on BBC this morning. I just wanted to thank you for your integrity and your fight for human right.

    I am rwandese-french and am happy to hear people like you who are only motivated by the human rights and not personal interest.

    Thank you again

    BOn courage

  • gerardmulholland


    Re France's attitudes to the entire Middle East War and Occupations.

    I live near Paris Orly Airport.

    At this Airport there are three control towers.

    One is French civil aircraft control.

    One is French military aircraft control.

    One is -wait for it- AMERICAN military aircraft control which has been there ever since it took over from the Luftwaffe in 1944.

    Despite the 30 odd years from De Gaulle to Chirac during which France "withdrew" from NATO military structures and remained "only" in its political structures, this US military aircraft

    control tower remained functional.

    Lots of US military flights overfly France daily.

    Probably CIA extraordinary rendition ones too.

    When Reagan launched an entirely unprovoked attack on Libya on 15 April 1986, Fran?ois Mitterand had forbidden the US bombers (from UK bases) to overfly France and they were obliged to fly round France and Spain and over the Straits of Gibraltar.

    The big surprise is that -while publicly opposing the attack on Iraq (thus placating some three million Arabs resident in France in a total population of about 57 million)- Jacques Chirac,

    known as a "friend" of the Arabs and of Africa, allowed the US bombers flying from UK to overfly France to and from the "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad during the March 2003 invasion.

    Watching CNN we used to see the bombers take off in GUK and some 30 to 40 minutes later there they all were in formation high in the sky above us heading for their next US air command post in northern Italy.

    We counted the nearly five hour interval to the spectacular TV pictures from Baghdad showing the raids and then counted the same time for their return and, sure enough, there they were

    again in formation in the sky high above us heading back towards UK.

    Some 30 to 40 minutes later we watched them land again in UK.

    I also noticed then that France was permitting the US to use all the facilities of it's gigantic air and naval base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.

    And it still is.

    So much for the French "non-co-operation" which earned all those jeers and insults.

    Meanwhile, Craig, I expect you will be interested to hear that yesterday (Monday) the new French Foreign Minister, Dr Bernard Kouchner's extraordinary Sunday throwaway remark about

    war brought out of purdah Jacques Chirac's surrogate and preferred successor, the former PM Dominique de Villepin (the same who as Foreign Minister got the only Standing Ovation ever

    heard at the UN Security Council for his speech vetoing UN support for the invasion).

    In a TV interview of his own he roundly condemned Sarkozy and other's Gadarene rush to war pointing out that negotiation and clarification was all that they should be pursuing and also

    asking why there was all the spin about Iran's capability and intentions, none of which spin accorded with known reality.

  • writeon

    France was the only major western country in the 'american sphere of influence' to have an even moderately 'independent' foreign policy. This was always dubbed as being 'anti-american' even though it wasn't. For various reasons in just wasn't slavishly pro-american, or american right or wrong. It was even thought to have a 'neutral' stance on the Middle East, another oversimplification.

    It's new right-wing government has apparently changed all that at a stroke, choosing to redefine itself as very definitely a part of the american sphere. For obscure reasons the new french government seems set on proving its loyalty to the United States. Not only that France now seems to have a Middle East policy which isn't that different from Israel's, which is even odder!

    Given that France's scepticism about the benefits of invading Iraq, and the popularity of this stance in France and around the world, and that French scepticism has been proven to have been totally justified; it's therefore, frankly bizarre that Sarkozy and Kouchner should choose to reverse this prudent policy, and instead support the current US administration's aggressive, destabilizing and profoundly dangerous 'stategy' for re-shaping the Middle East! It's odd, very odd. And at a time when all the world thinks Bush is an incompetent bungler! What possible reason could France have for moving closer to the US after all we've seen and learned and at a time like this. Is it because Sarkozy has been told by Bush that he intends to attack Iran and repeating Chirac's policy had no effect so why bother with the effort?

    It's depressing that we may be moving rapidly towards yet another war in the Middle East. What a waste of lives and resources. If we attack Iran this will be yet further evidence that we're a morally degenerate culture that gorges itself in blood and what's to rape the world for as long as we can, no matter what the human and environmental consequences are.

    This attack could go anywhere, especially if it goes wrong, especially if Iran chooses to fight back. Let's hope they don't. They should just bunker-down and take it and survive. If they retaliate, which they have every right to do, it could get very nasty indeed, and I fear 'we' may escalate the conflict and as a 'last resort' use our nuclear option.

  • Boss

    So this is the new world order, Iranians get attacked and don't respond!!! Cuz, they should not!

    In Nuremberg Trials, the various prosecutors, reading out the charges against the war criminals, almost in every case stating; the charges of crimes against peace, disregard of international treaties, disregard of international law, crimes against civilians, and destruction of civic infrastructures.

    These charges can easily be brought against the current bunch of war criminals in office, without much effort, however, in the current climate of international lawlessness, the probability of any such trials are very low, if none existent.

    Disregard of NPT, by the nuclear bomb owners, and their favourite rouge states, compounded with deliberate misuse of NPT for aggressive, and nefarious intent, in effect have undermined the International Atomic Energy Authority, pushing it, to teetering at edge of irrelevance.

    Iran's civil nuclear programme, having been portrayed as 'nuclear programme' which is shorthand for nukes, and bombs, is then used as a pretext for overt hostility, with a view to initiation of a war on Iran. A war on a peaceful and sovereign nation, that has not threatened, and or fought any wars of aggression for at least the last four hundred and fifty years.

    The absurdity of Zeitgeist, further promotes the notion of a nuclear attack on a none nuclear country, and or 'shock and awe' redux, Iraq II the movie. The simplicity of this evil mindset beggars belief.

    Notwithstanding the uncalled for aggression against Iranians, apparently they are required to take it and lump it. This is one position, insane as it is, however, evidently when the asylum is ran by the lunatics, the insanity of it all somehow can be explained away as 'normal'.

    Nevertheless Iranians having witnessed the carnage in Afghanistan, and Iraq, will be ill disposed to the notions of letting the hoards of these latter day Mongol to step one single step in their lands. Hence, in retaliation to any attacks they will come out fighting in a rapidly escalating war, that could within a very short time lead to an actual world war.

    Any war on Iran in fact will kick start the Poland Scenario of WWII, hence resulting in direct confrontation between the US, and perhaps Nato, and SCO countries, resulting in a full and final nuclear exchange. The fact that China, and Russia aware that, these are vast countries, and their lack of infrastructures, and the lesser dependencies of their populations on local, and central governments, stand these countries to survive a nuclear attack. Alas this cannot be true of the Western countries, and their populations.

    Finally, any attack on Iran, will demonstrate that US is a present, and clear danger to China, and Russia on their own door steps, an outcome that these powers will not be readily accepting, and or subscribing to. Hence, the very high probability of their involvement in stopping the US march on the planet to baggsy its' resources.

    The sanguine pontifications of; 'let us hope it will all end well', somehow are pure bollocks, this attack will begin a world war, at the end of which bankers will not emerge the winners, as they did in the last one. Planet Cinder will have little use for any gold, and silver, never mind the green backs, and triple rated shares.

  • George Dutton

    "According to Fox News, at a meeting held in Berlin at the beginning of September, the German government refused to support intensified sanctions against Iran. This is alleged to have been decisive in the decision by the Bush government to go to war. With reference to "diplomats from other countries," the report states that German government officials "gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities."

Comments are closed.