Thursday, January 11, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:00 PM
The President did seem to make one thing clear, in his clearly uneasy address to the nation last night. He's not messing around with Iran.
Some reports read his remarks as grave...
My sources in the Pentagon say this is what they think it really means:
1. He is putting external military pressure on Iran. Note that we will soon have three carrier task forces in the region. Admiral Fallon, the new CENTCOM commander, is known for his use of naval forces to sway geopolitical pressure. Also, watch for overflights by more U.S. aircraft from places like Diego Garcia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Some are drones looking at Iranian military and nuclear positions. Many subtle activities are underway and Iran is very much aware otherwise it wouldn't have staged three major military maneuvers in 2006 or continued to shake its arms rattle at the U.S.
2. The U.S. is aggressively going after Iranians inside Iraq. We have bombed numerous sites along the Iraq-Iran border, e.g., Iranian consulate in Irbil. We have captured al Qods (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) et al inside Iraq and exposed them to media light and used their information for follow-up action. No longer will the Iranians have freedom to maneuver in that country. We are building a case.
3. SEC. STATE Rice will be in the Gulf this weekend to garner diplomatic pressure on Iran. There will be new economic pressures as well.
4. I expect more clandestine actions to assist Iranian resistance groups as well.
Is it working? Perhaps. Oil prices have dropped 11% in two weeks. It's not just because warm weather has kept northern hemisphere consumption down. No, the markets understand that Iran will exercise more wisdom regarding its oil policy and the flow from Gulf states will continue.
Food for thought...
Your Pentagon source(s) are not giving you all there is. Much more is going on. Both Israel and the US are planning (and have been practicing)military maneuvers, never seen before in history.
Little did we know that Jimmy Carter's lies and cowardice in dealing with Iran and the deposement of Shah would have such horrific consequences some 30 years later. |
|
Please inform me how many Iranians you think should be slaughtered to make us feel better about ourselves.
Tell me also whether bombing Iran and slaughtering its people will in fact stop them from getting nukes, instead of proving to them that they need nukes (to protect themselves from people like you who want to slaughter them).
I mean, Comrades, I appreciate your desire to eliminate the undesirables, but you know, I tend to think that committing genocide isn't something you should take lightly. Maybe it's me, and I'll eventually come around to your way of thinking and root for mass murder of Iranians. |
|
Snapdigger,
It's fair to state that you misinterpret what is going on.
Nobody is advocating slaughtering the Iranian people. On the contrary, the Iranian people are our friends. Any bombing mission would target identified nuclear proliferation facilities, in order to set back their program.
Our "enemy" is the wild and crazy fundamentalist factions within the Iranian government who threaten to wipe other sovereign states off the map.
|
|
|
Why do you think that an aerial campaign against Iran would lead to mass Iranian casualties? I strongly doubt that we would replay "Bomber Harris" and the Dresden raids of 1944. People engaged in wartime/military production or related activities are, in fact, legitimate targets. Fire bombing entire city neigborhoods is not considered a legitimate use of force. That is why we do the former...and not the latter. |
|
"Any bombing mission would target identified nuclear proliferation facilities, in order to set back their program."
Which would merely delay them from getting nukes, not stop them, as well as proving once and for all that they *need* nukes.
So the only concrete result of such a bombing campaign would be the deaths of many innocent Iranians, plus turning the Iranian people (our "friends") permanently against us. Dumb and evil idea. |
|
Snapdigger,
Iran has promised to wipe other soverign states off the map. Therefore, we want to delay Iran from developing their nuclear program. That's the point.
Just out of curiosity, what is your reason for not objecting to Iran having a sustainable nuclear program ?
|
|
|