United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp

As the world counts down the days until the least popular president since records began leaves office, there are worrying signs that he plans to go out, literally, with a bang:

Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.

However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.

“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.

Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.

British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Even the Brits, the main allies of the US in the Iraq war, feel that the US are gilding the lily here and overstating Iranian involvement in Iraq. But Bush, unable to persuade enough people in the military of his plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites, now plans a "tactical strike". A show of force to please his slobbering base that he has "done something" regarding Iran.

Now it is unlikely that Iran will take this as an act of war, though they would be perfectly within their rights to do so, however, if the US wants to see what Iranian interference looks like, attacking facilities within Iran might be the trigger for just such an occurrence.

According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.”

President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.

Quite how hitting one target within Iran prevents Bush from handing the "Iranian problem" over to his successor I have no idea. But then this presidency stopped being coherent a long time ago.

It's so typical of a gambler like Bush to roll the dice one last time and set off a series of events which he can't possibly predict. He's halfway out the door so why should he care what the result of his actions are, he only cares about being able to say that he did "something" even if that "something" makes things worse.

Here's a president handing over to his successor two wars, both of which - at the moment - look unwinnable. It's a simply appalling legacy. By attacking Iran, he might just make it worse. But, as I say, why should he care?

He's already said that he cares little for how history views him as he'll "be dead by then". The leader of a party which campaigns on "personal responsibility" has let it be known that he is unburdened by such matters. He really is the first Frat president, an adolescent in an adults body, in his position only because of his father's connections, and completely unconcerned about the mess that he has made.

A mess which he may make infinitely worse before he steps out of the door.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Iraq war, Iran