All Quiet On The Iranian Front ?  

I've been pondering the (lack of a) invasion of Iran lately, as it now seems very unlikely that this is going to occur in June as predicted. Obviously I'm not the only one, with Matt at Code 3 also posting on this fading mirage - although I think he is being overly harsh on Scott Ritter, who has a pretty good track record and who seems to have his heart in the right place. Ritter's comments on the suspicious rash of bombings within Iran certainly seem to ring true, and many commentators have discussed the encirclement of Iran with US bases over the last 6 months.

The CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

The Iranian elections are coming in for their share of (no doubt deserved) criticsm, along with a flurry of complaints about harsh treatment of women and dissidents, but it certainly hasn't reached the level of hysteria you would expect if an invasion was close.

Personally I have no time for theocrats and fundamentalists of any description (Muslim, Christian or whatever else) and would be quite happy to see the present Iranian regime replaced by a secular, democratic one (like the one the US overthrew in 1953, for example). However there is no likelihood of this happening as long as the US is applying pressure against the present government and thereby generating a level of internal unity.

I have been assuming the trigger for the invasion will be an Iranian refusal to halt their nuclear program (the negotiations over which are proceeding very slowly), but there are a few unreliable reports appearing that Osama bin Laden is now in Iran, which would be an even less credible reason.

If you're like me, you think that watching Fox News can be like watching a sneak preview of what the Bush administration has in store for us. That's why I found the the first segment today (June 14, 2005) on Fox's premiere "business news" program, Your World w/Neil Cavuto, pretty darn terrifying. It featured two guests who said they had "unequivocal proof" that Osama bin Laden is in Iran, that Iran is "killing Americans every day in Iraq," that "al-Zarqawi is an Iranian government agent," and that we "can't tolerate this any longer." Fasten your seat belts, everyone, and get ready for the next war.

Cavuto introduced Lt. Gen. Paul Vallely, a vicious hawk and a "Fox News contributor," and Ken Timmerman, with: It may sound odd but "if my next guests are right, it could be true. Osama bin Laden's hardly lying low but may be living large in, of all countries, Iran, with the full faith, backing, and financial support of Iran." Joining me are two men who "claim to have irrefutable information as to the exact location of Osama bin Laden."

Timmerman said he's "been tracking bin Laden's whereabouts with Iranian defectors," people who had "high-level positions in the Iranian regime" and they've come forward with "very similar information." Timmerman said there "was a meeting last year in November" between bin Laden's "number two" man, al-Zawahri, "in northern Iran with senior Iranian leaders."

Vallely said we should recall the "Bush doctrine," that "if you're supporting a terrorist, you are a terrorist," and Iran "is the center of terror today." (My emphasis.) Vallely said Iran is "supporting the operations of Zarkawi in Iraq, they're feeding the pipeline financially to Hezbollah and into Syria." He said they "don't care" because they can "play cat and mouse with us all day long" and they know that and that's what they're "doing on the nuclear program as well."

Of course, if you're into conspiracy theories, the latest report on the recent Bilderberg's meeting said the invasion has been delayed until at least August.

A French Bilderberger pointedly asked Henry Kissinger if the US government's sabre- rattling against Iran means the beginning of new hostilities. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), asking for his turn to speak, dismissed the notion of an Iran invasion as unrealistic due to the sheer physical size of the country and its population size, not to mention billions involved in getting the operation off the ground. Up to the eyeballs in the Iraq quagmire, the United States military is wary of any new adventures in the hostile terrain against a much healthier enemy, both better prepared and organised. A Swiss Bilderberger asked if a hypothetical attack on Iran would involve a preemptive strike against its nuclear sites. Richard Haass replied that such an attack would prove to be counterproductive because Teheran's counterattack options could range from "unleashing terrorism and promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that could trigger a global economic crisis".

During dinner, according to several sources, Richard Perle criticised Haass´ position and explained his opposition to his view.

...

A French Bilderberger wished to know if the impending attack on Iran would involve the United States and Israel working in tandem or "would it be a NATO operation?" The question was directed at NATO´s Secretary General Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer. Another European Bilderberger wanted to know how the US was planning to cope with three wars simultaneously, referring to Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. The reader should be reminded that there are now 150,000 US troops deployed in Iraq who are unable to move to another theatre of operations because of effective resistance tactics.

The Israeli delegation was pressed to answer if they were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The answer was incoherent.

What is so terrifying about the Iran theatre of operations is that according to our deep sources, both of whom belong to the Bilderberg Group, there are two alternative dates set for the invasion. The earliest possible date would be the "deadest of summer" sometime in August and the other alternative is the late fall campaign. It substantially confirms the information provided by Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector, who stated that "George W. Bush has `signed off´ on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005." Ritter goes on to say that the June date suggests that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness."

Technorati tags: peak oil