'The Surge' and the coming war with Iran

by redjade Fri Jan 26, 2007 23:44

The Build Up To Iran War Timeline
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Timeline_new2_0125.html

.. .. ..

Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push
''....the Pentagon had been directed to have a viable military option for Iran in place by June 2005.

This phase of pressure was marked by increased activity directed at Congress. An "Iran Freedom Support Act" was introduced in the House and Senate in January and February of 2005. Neoconservatives and individuals linked to the defense contracting industry formed an Iran Policy Committee, and in April and May presented briefings in support of MEK before the newly-created Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the House of Representatives.

In March 2006, administration action became more overt. The State Department created an Office of Iranian Affairs, while the Pentagon created an Iranian Directorate that had much in common with the earlier Office of Special Plans. According to Seymour Hersh, covert US operations within Iran in preparation for a possible air attack also began at this time and included Kurds and other Iranian minority groups.''

go read the rest at
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Conf....html

.. .. ..

MEK - People's Mujahedin of Iran
'PMOI is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, and Iran'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_al-Khalq

the MEK are our terrorists to opposed their terrorism, even tho they opposed our terrorists once - got that?

by redjade Fri Jan 26, 2007 22:13

Bush denies preparing attack against Iran
Last week, Mr Bush ordered a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf and the deployment of more Patriot missiles in US military bases there. Richard Haass, former head of policy planning at the State Department in the first Bush administration, said the US president was leaving both the diplomatic and military option open.

“You could interpret Bush’s recent actions towards Iran in two ways – either he is increasing pressure on the regime in order to soften it up for talks over its uranium enrichment plans, or this is classic gunboat diplomacy in which the US is preparing for some kind of punitive action,” said Mr Haass. “My guess is that Mr Bush’s actions leave room for either scenario and the Bush administration remains divided over which to pursue.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1126b14a-ad6f-11db-8709-0000779....html

by redjade Fri Jan 26, 2007 15:23

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

....for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.

The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts.

more at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20....html

password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/washingtonpost.com

by redjade Fri Jan 26, 2007 13:35

According to our rumor-meister, John Negroponte will be filling Condi's current position as Secretary of State. Negroponte is currently the Director of National Intelligence (the first person ever to hold the few-years-old position) and the former US Ambassador to Iraq.

If these rumors are true, this is all interesting for several reasons:
• Condi would be the first African American and first woman in the White House, which would certainly take some of the wind out of the Dems Clinton/Obama sails.
• If Rice were on the GOP ticket, it would--in some sense--make an incumbant VP, which could be good or bad. (Remember, Bush currently has a 33% approval rating.)
• With Rice, Clinton and Obama all vying for a White House position, it would make it a virtual lock that we'd finally break the African American and/or woman barrier in '08.
• It would put someone with close ties to the Iraqi situation in a very high administrative seat.
• It would be only the second time in history that an acting Vice President was like totally in love with the sitting President. (See Garret Hobart/William McKinley.)

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2007/01/c....html

NOTE: this is from a comedy website.

by redjade Fri Jan 26, 2007 00:23

Wolf Blitzer How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?

Dick Cheney: Wolf, that's not going to happen. The problem that you've got --

Wolf Blitzer Very -- very -- warming up to Iran and Syria right now.

Dick Cheney: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time. But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --

more at
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/our-supreme-....html

rall.com

by redjade Thu Jan 25, 2007 23:53

'World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. The Democratic Party is against it. The Congress of the United States is against it. The Iraq Study Group is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Many Republican lawmakers are against it. The top brass are against it. But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? These are the unwelcome questions that President Bush's decision has forced on the country.'

- The Nation
full editorial at
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070205&s=editors

Associated Press Poll