Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Iran linked to Lockerbie bomb: This story, that it was Iran, not Libya's Gaddafi, that was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, has been around for a long time. If true, it means the Libyans were framed and the UK Justice process is a corrupt charade. Unfortunately, such things are possible. Back in the day, Gaddafi was the 'new Hitler.' It will be interesting to observe whether the charge is revived in the media system ahead of the planned war on Iran. Somebody once said 'the struggle against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.' Most people would not remember Lockerbie, much less who was responsible. If history were rewritten to put Iran in the frame, would anybody notice?

Iran linked to Lockerbie bomb: This story, that it was Iran, not Libya's Gaddafi, that was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, has been around for a long time. If true, it means the Libyans were framed and the UK Justice process is a corrupt charade. Unfortunately, such things are possible. Back in the day, Gaddafi was the 'new Hitler.' It will be interesting to observe whether the charge is revived in the media system ahead of the planned war on Iran. Somebody once said 'the struggle against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.' Most people would not remember Lockerbie, much less who was responsible. If history were rewritten to put Iran in the frame, would anybody notice?

Iraq war among history's 'dumbest'

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said Tuesday."

I think he is exaggerating a little bit here. The actual Barbarossa moment (still to come) is when Bush attacks Iran....

But the realisation is dawning widely that the Iraq war is a disaster with immense strategic significance. If the US is ultimately ejected from Iraq, which looks more and more likely, its hegemonic ambitions in the region and globally are essentially defeated.

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said Tuesday."

I think he is exaggerating a little bit here. The actual Barbarossa moment (still to come) is when Bush attacks Iran....

But the realisation is dawning widely that the Iraq war is a disaster with immense strategic significance. If the US is ultimately ejected from Iraq, which looks more and more likely, its hegemonic ambitions in the region and globally are essentially defeated.

Iraq war among history's 'dumbest'

'War on Terror' failing

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

'War on Terror' failing

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.