Definition of insanity, revisited

Second carrier group deployed to Gulf as U.S. approves plans for Iran counterstrike

World Tribune
Friday, May 2, 2008

LONDON — The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans ir response to an Iran attack.
Western diplomatic sources said the U.S. military’s Central Command has submitted plans for an air and naval strike on Iran. The sources said the plan envisioned escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against U.S. military assets in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, on April 29, a second American aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, steamed into the Gulf in what officials termed a show of force. They said the U.S. Navy plans to withdraw a carrier group, USS Harry S. Truman, from the region.
“There is tremendous tactical benefit to us to operate the two side-by-side in restricted space,” Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday. “We can generate more sorties, some of them strike, some of them reconnaissance, some of them to perform other operations.”
“This is not some grand scheme to destroy the Iranian regime and its nuclear program,” a source said. “It is a practical plan on how to respond to an Iranian strike or a provocation.”

Officials said the Defense Department has sought an update for plans to attack Iran amid what they term its “increasingly hostile role” against the United States. The officials cited the weapons flow to insurgency groups in Iraq as well as confrontations with U.S. ships in the Gulf.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Secret Bush “Finding” Widens War on Iran

ANDREW COCKBURN
Counterpunch
Friday, May 2, 2008

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.

Armed Might of US Marred By Begging Bowl to Arabs

Sometime in the next two weeks, fleet radar operator may notice a blip on their screens that represents something rather more profound: America’s growing financial weakness. The blip will be former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin’s plane commencing its descent into Abu Dhabi. Rubin’s responsibility these days is to help keep Citigroup afloat despite a balance sheet still waterlogged, despite frantic bail out efforts by the Federal Reserve and others, by staggering losses in mortgage bonds. The Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund injected $7.5 billion last November (albeit at a sub-prime interest rate of eleven percent,) but the bank’s urgent need for fresh capital persists, and Abu Dhabi is where the money is.

Even if those radar operators pay no attention to Mr. Rubin’s flight, and the ironic contrast it illustrates between American military power and financial weakness, others will, and not just in Tehran. There’s not much a finding can do about that.

Andrew Cockburn is a regular CounterPunch contributor. He lives in Washington DC. His most recent book is Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM

France: We must avoid bombing Iran

Press TV
Friday, May 2, 2008

Washington and its allies must find a solution not to confront Tehran in a way that will involve ‘bombing Iran’, says the French Premier.

“We have to do everything we could to avoid finding ourselves faced with the only solution of bombing Iran,” Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Friday in a news conference.

His remarks come at a time when US echelons have ratcheted up the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, which the country says is solely aimed at producing electricity and other peaceful purposes.

Washington and its number one ally, Israel, have also threatened the Iranian nation with military strikes if Tehran does not halt its nuclear activities.

Fillon also called on Iran to engage the West regarding its program or face global isolation.

“The only option is to pressure the Iranian government through diplomatic means, economic means and financial means,” he added.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Liberty or Death on May 2, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Bro, I didn’t write the article, i just copied it. i don’t know why you’re pissed off at me.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Liberty or Death on May 2, 2008 at 4:39 PM

But, since you asked so nicely…

With this in mind, are you (RMC1618) really advocating we continue on the path of negotiation and appeasement, a path that has accomplished NOTHING except make us look weak and placed us in a more precarious and dangerous situation?

in my opion, the results of our methods have not been in our favor, and i think a new strategy should be implemented. War however, (large scale bombings, boots on the ground) should be our very last resort. i think a lot of people today have forgotten just what war means, they think it’s something they can watch on TV, while flipping back and forth with American Idolatry. i believe a lot of people think we can “just go to war” like it’s some casual thing we do everyday.

So RMC1618, should we wait until we see a mushroom cloud over one of our cities before doing something since it is obvious the tact we have taken over the last 29 years has done more harm than good? If you think we should continue to wait and continue to appease and negotiate would you mind petitioning the Mad Mullahs in Iran to aim that nuke over your city and not mine!

if you support a foreign policy of preventive attacks, that’s you. i personally dont.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Liberty or Death on May 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM

I’m not pissed, I thought you were supporting further negotiations and incentives with Iran, something the left thinks will work even though 29 years of futility have proven otherwise. If I came across that way I apologize.

no harm, no foul.

The whole “give appeasement a chance” crowd and ideology is leading us further and further into a dangerous abyss, that’s all I’m saying.

i’m not for “appeasing” anybody.

If you’re not one that supports this path to nowhere well then you’re smarter than most as you see what’s going on, where we are headed when it comes to Iran, and what needs to be done to protect ourselves. We can protect ourselves but only if we can get those with their heads still stuck up their arses (lefty moonbats and give appeasement a chance crowds) to also see the light before it’s too late, but the clock is ticking and there isn’t much time left to continue wasting on negotiations and incentives that have yet to work in 29 years of trying.

i agree that a conciseive decision must be made with Iran, but i’m just not with these Warhawks who want to nuke every country that looks at us funny, that see war as the first soultion. If Iran engages in activities that are, or have become an immanent threat to the the United States, her citizens, or the constitution, then i am oathfully, and morally oblighed to take action. other than that, i cannot in good conscience, agree with large scale military action against a soverign nation.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM

misterpeasea on May 2, 2008 at 8:01 PM

i thought they were interesting because i hadn’t heard those stories anywhere else, and i knew no one on this blog would have talked about it, there’s too much Obama going on!. Particularly the Admiral Fallon story, all i heard from the media was “Irans pushing it’s luck again” i don’t turn to alternative sources because i agree or disagree with their point of view, i find that different places will report stories that other won’t. even with the big boys, Fox will report stories that CNN and pMSNBC won’t.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM

alright guys, it was fun playing along, you guys have really cool toys, but i have an early morning and i need to hit the sack.

have a blessed night.

RMC1618 on May 2, 2008 at 9:01 PM