Mullen: U.S. can strike Iran
Fresh in the wake of Bush saying that Iran with a nuclear weapon could lead to World War Three, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, stepped up yesterday to assure the world that America was more than capable of attacking Iran.
"From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don't think we're too stretched in that regard," Adm. Michael Mullen told reporters when asked if current operations had worn out U.S. forces.There are some who argue, and have argued on here, that the Bush administration have said that they do not want war with Iran. This is true. It is also true that Bush claimed that he did not want war with Iraq, what Bush desired in Iraq - apart from the destruction of WMD and nuclear weapons which Saddam did not possess - was "regime change".
Adm. Mullen said he has been concerned over the past year and a half with Iranian leaders' statements of intentions, Tehran's support for bombers in Iraq and Iran's covert drive for nuclear weapons. "All of which has potentially a very destabilizing impact on a part of the world, a region of the world which is struggling in many ways already," he said in his first press conference since becoming chairman Oct. 1. "So they're not being helpful."
Defense and military officials have been preparing U.S. forces within striking distance of Iran. The forces would be dominated by Navy and Air Force weapons and forces since Army and Marine Corps forces are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are two main targets of any Iranian military action, according to the officials.
First, U.S. forces are set to attack Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facilities because of the paramilitary's support and provision of armor-piercing roadside bombs. A U.S. official said the location of a factory where Iranian bomb materials are being produced has been identified.
A second target would be Iranian nuclear facilities, which are in numerous underground facilities across the country.
Regime change as a war aim is not legal, yet the American President keeps calling for it as if it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. It was notable prior to the Iraq invasion that although Bush continued to call for "regime change" that Blair, a lawyer, was very careful never to mirror Bush's stated intentions. This is because the British Attorney General had made it very clear to Blair that regime change as a war aim was an act of illegality.
Lord Goldsmith's confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, revealed for the first time last week, was equivocal about almost everything. It was clear about one point and one point only: "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.And yet Bush has, once again, recently stated that his actual aim regarding Iran is to bring about regime change.
We saw, in the build up to the Iraq war, the way in which Bush and his associates work to make war inevitable. They begin by making a demand: in the case of Iraq it was WMD and in the case of Iran it is uranium enrichment. No definitive proof is offered to back the claims that either Iraq actually has WMD or that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, but the President continues to talk publicly as if his case is based on fact rather than conjecture.Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership.
“The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government,” Mr. Bush said.
He added, “My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.”
He then subtly moves the goalposts, claiming that the aim of his campaign is to "liberate" the chosen nation through the removal of their leadership, an aim that makes war almost inevitable: as the chances of Saddam, Ahmadinejad or even Ayatollah Khamenei (the actual leader of Iran although no-one appears to have told George Bush this fact) standing down of their own free will is almost nil.
So, once again, we have Bush telling us that Iran's leadership represents a threat to the entire world order and that he desires "regime change" in that country, whilst his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reassures us that taking care of this "problem" is well within the capabilities of the US.
And all of this rhetoric is flying about without the Bush administration providing a single irrefutable piece of evidence that anything that they are claiming is based on fact rather than fevered conjecture.
I really hope that those who argue that the US has no intention of attacking Iran are right. However, to my ears, he's playing the exact same tune he played before he attacked Iraq, another country that he claimed he did not want to attack.
However, he has recently moved the goalposts significantly regarding Iran. He is no longer claiming that Iran might be attacked to stop the enrichment of uranium, he is now claiming that Iran having must never have "the knowledge necessary" for such a programme.
Yesterday, he also introduced the illegal concept that he merely wishes to bring about "regime change". That is almost impossible to achieve without a war.
The moving of the goalposts yesterday perfectly mirrors the way the goalposts were moved before the invasion of Iraq.
The march to war against Iraq started with one clear objective - the removing of Iraqi WMD - and morphed into a series of objectives - "liberating" the Iraqi people, achieving "regime change" - which together made the avoidance of war impossible. Bush, having failed to convince the American people that preventing a nuclear Iran is a good enough reason to attack them, has started to come up with other reasons.
This is all starting to seem drearily familiar.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
2 comments:
The United States, England and Iran: Oil
President George Bush often states that Iran is threatening the interests of the Unites States in Persian Gulf! What are the interests of England and the United States in Persian Gulf, the Persian front door to Iran?
A primer for discussion of these issues must start with review of British and the United States policies relative to the Persian Gulf region. Stephen Kinzer, a veteran New York Times correspondent, in his book “All the Shah’s Men, an American coup and the roots of Middle East Terror”, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, brilliantly reconstructs the events leading to the present dilemma of the United States in the Middle East. The events described in this marvelous book are not fiction, it actually happened during the summer of 1953 in Tehran, Iran.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency operation Ajax staged coup d’état in 1953 against democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. Democracy was substituted with the despotic regime of Mohammad Reza Shah. The dawn of democracy in Iran, started in late 1880, flickered by democratically elected Mossadegh, was extinguished. This was the beginning of Iranian servitude once more to the interests of England and the United States. During his last years, Shah did not trust Iranian people; his inner palace was guarded by Israel commandos. Since 1979, the United States has been punishing Iranian people for ousting the immature, weak, despotic Mohammad Reza Shah. This punishment, Iranian assert, included Iraq invasion of Iran instigated by President Regan. During this war, the United States and her satellite nations helped materially and logistically Iraqi military forces to invade Iran and use chemical and biological weapons on Iranian population.
In the preface of his book, Kinzer recalls his conversation with an Iranian lady about Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. He asked her: “What do you remember…about the coup against him?” She responded:
“Why did you Americans do that terrible thing? We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again…”
This un-American act was instigated by Winston Churchill-Anthony Eden of England and two American brothers John Foster Dulles (US Secretary of State) and Allen Dulles (Director of Central Intelligence Agency). The primary reason for this regime change was to subordinate Iranian people and exploit the Iranian natural resources.
President George Bush prevaricate his true intensions and hide the administration’s primary interest to dominate and exploit the natural resources of Iranian people. Administration states that Iran is threatening the interests of the Unites States in Persian Gulf, because Iranian defense of their homeland is considered a threat. In contrast to 1953, Iranian people are willing to die and kill to defend their homeland.
Harry Truman once said:”There is nothing new in the world except the histories you don not know.” Have we learned from our past mistakes committed during 1953 not to repeat it once more? This time the price would be much larger for both the Iranian and our American societies!
Thank you for that detailed and fascinating comment. I was aware of the US overthrowing Mossadegh and installing the Shah, although I haven't read “All the Shah’s Men, an American coup and the roots of Middle East Terror” but will see if I can pick up a copy at Amazon.
And I agree that any attack on Iran would be a catasptrophoc mistake on the US's part, but all the indications are that Bush is considering one.
Post a Comment