Bush Prepared to Attack Iran

So, it is now official - the escalation in Iraq will indeed take place and conflict with Iran seems imminent.

George Dubya's speech on Wednesday night was chock-full of fantastical proclamations about how the infusion of 20,000+ American troops will somehow end the sectarian strife in Iraq, despite the contrary opinion of military leaders, and against American and Iraqi public consent. But, perhaps even more importantly, Bush's speech unveiled a new stage in a build up to some sort of conflict with Iran.

Since declaring the entire country of Iran "evil" during his 2002 State of the Union speech, the grand statesmen and women of the Bush administration have since accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, something there is still no evidence of, and have refused to hold direct talks with Iran until they halt their nuclear energy program - another example of the Bush administrations brilliant we-will-not-negotiate-on-an-issue-until-you-give-in-to-our-demands-first strategy.

There is also speculation that the nomination of retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell to replace John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence is yet another move toward conflict with Iran. Negroponte has been an obstacle to a couple of key Bush administration policies, especially Cheney's efforts to cook the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, as well as resisting the move to increase illegal domestic surveillance. A report by journalist Larisa Alexandrovna documents the testimony of an unnamed former senior intelligence officer who says the "NIE on Iran is at issue" and that, "McConnell will go along with whatever [Cheney tells him to do] and make sure that no objective NIE comes out", as opposed to Negroponte who has demonstrated concern over such manipulation of the NIE. The desire of Cheney to slant the NIE to support an attack on Iran is eerily similar to the efforts made in the lead up to the Iraq invasion in the fall of 2002 and should be sending up flags in Congress and the streets of America.

But it seems that we are already approaching the launch date for open conflict with Iran, or may already be there. The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group has recently been sent to the Persian Gulf to join the Dwight D. Eisenhower group already stationed in the Gulf, as well as various amphibious expeditionary strike forces, in a move that suggests preparation for possible conflict with Iran. However, Bush's speech has officially let the proverbial cat out of the bag with the proclamation that "succeeding" in Iraq requires "stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges", and that this begins with "addressing Iran and Syria". He continued on saying that we must "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" and "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks "providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq".

But the next segment of Bush's speech divulges an even stronger indication that conflict with Iran, and possibly Syria, is imminent. Bush said that besides deploying the aforementioned aircraft carrier groups, he will also be deploying "Patriot air defense systems" and that "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

The necessity of Patriot air defense units - used to intercept ballistic missiles - can only mean some sort of direct confrontation with Iran, since Iran would be capable of retaliating with missiles, something fighters in Iraq do not have at their disposal. Furthermore, Bush's wording that "we will work with others" to confront Iran, all but confirms the very unsurprising scenario that Israel will be participating in some way.

Today, just hours after Bush's speech, Kurdish officials have confirmed that American forces have raided the Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil, arresting five staff members. It can be argued that this action is a literal declaration of war against Iran.

The consequences of attacking Iran are profoundly dangerous. An attack on Iran, and Syria for that matter, runs the risk of sparking a larger war that could encompass the entire region. Attacking Iran will more than likely erode the democracy movements within Iran, and will unify the Iranian people behind their government under the banner of fighting the Zionist-aligned American invaders. Even just an air attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be viewed by the people of Iran as an invasion, and will be used as recruiting fodder by Islamic extremists. These consequences are unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg.

Bush's brazen choice to disregard the American people's election-day repudiation for his lie-fueled Iraq invasion and occupation by escalating the conflict, and his view that he is also allowed to roll the dice by attacking Iran and Syria, are just the latest greatest example of his imperial rule. In his mind (and those of his handlers), Bush can literally do what ever he chooses, in spite of Congress, military leaders, public opinion, reality or common sense. Worst of all, it seems that the White House's decisions about Iraq have been made for political purposes, with little regard for military neccessity or practicality. Never in our history have we come so close to all-out totalitarian rule.

However, this is something that many of our elected representatives in Congress have yet to realize. Far too many members of Congress, both Republican and Democratic are still operating under traditional assumptions and reverence for the office of the presidency. For example, the option of cutting off funding for Bush's proposal for escalation has met considerable opposition from prominent Democrats. They claim that cutting off funds will only shortchange and disadvantage American troops on the ground, and that this would be disgraceful. Although none would admit it, this opinion is largely based in politics, as any politician, especially a Democratic one, will run the risk of being accused of not supporting the troops through their support of denying funds for Bush's escalation.

However, as Senator Ted Kennedy points out, moving forward quickly with his resolution to prevent the Bush administration's bid to send more troops and to require congressional approval for any additional deployments, will make cutting off funds less of an issue. Kennedy has brought in many democratic supporters and the goal now is to garner some Republican support for the Kennedy resolution, which will be reaching the floor within days according to Kennedy. Given the moves and statements toward Iran, there will be most likely be an amendment to the Kennedy resolution, or a new resolution which requires Congressional approval of any action against Iran or Syria.

What we need now more than ever before is for the entire Congress to realize that an out-of-control entity has been running this country into the ground and must be stopped - even if they must risk the political fallout of cutting off funds. As citizens, we can make our voice heard by calling our representatives, talking to our friends, writing an editorial for ourlocal paper, sign petitions, and if possible, march on Washington DC on January 27^th.