TPMMuckraker | Talking Points Memo

Today's Must Read

By Paul Kiel - February 8, 2007, 9:29AM

What is the administration up to with Iran? Craig Unger, reporting on the neocons' saber rattling in Vanity Fair, provides two alternatives.

The first, courtesy of frequent TPMmuckraker subject and conservative uber-strategist, Grover Norquist:

"[The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.'"

The signs for this are numerous, Unger reports, from former CIA officer Philip Giraldi's comment to him that "I've heard from sources at the Pentagon that their impression is that the White House has made a decision that war is going to happen," to President Bush's order that the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom) "draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran."

On the other hand, Unger points out, the U.S. may just be trying to show its strength in an attempt to contain Iran:

Gary Sick [an Iran specialist with the N.S.C. under Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Carter] is slightly more optimistic that the Bush administration's Iran strategy entails more than brute force. "What has happened is that the United States, in installing a Shiite government in Iraq, has really upset the balance of power [in the Middle East]," Sick says. "Along with our Sunni allies—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—[the administration is] terribly concerned about Iran emerging as the new colossus. Having created this problem, the U.S. is now in effect using it as a means of uniting forces who are sympathetic [to us]."

"The Bush White House has already built the fire," Unger concludes. " Whether it will light the match remains to be seen."

51 Comments

| Leave a comment

What has happened is that the United States, in installing a Shiite government in Iraq, has really upset the balance of power [in the Middle East]," Sick say

That was the most compelling reason for not invading Iraq.

Posted by Rich
February 8, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink

Last night on Hard Ball, Webb brought up an important point that hasn't gotten much play...

Usually big ships are not put into the Persian Gulf because they're too hard to maneuver without "hitting" something.

But now we have a fleet there - and it's just a matter of time until we provoke someone with an accident - and then escalate that into the Iranian War.

BushCo is going to kill us all. So much for our "security"!

Posted by Sha
February 8, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink

I recommend reading investigative reporters, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele's story on SAIC, "Washington's $8 Billion Shadow", in the March issue of Vanity Fair. Barlett and Steele flat out state that SAIC is one of the reasons we are in this war.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703

Posted by Mrs Panstreppon
February 8, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink

Where have you all been the last six years?

Did you just wake up??

If Iraq wasn't going so badly, we would be in Iran now. When it is done, then you will get the impeachment!!

Posted by Clayton
February 8, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink

Clayton --> you are right. The plan at the time was to quickly secure Iraq, set up major bases in that country, and head on to Iran. Bush really seems to think he is on a mission from a Higher Power and he is just the instrument and has no real control. (No I don't think the Higher Power is Cheney although it may be.) He also has a time table to do this which is probably this summer.

Bush's plan which worked was to bring the dead home secretly, keep the taxes down so the people would not be affected, and carry on this war with the tiny few who volunteered to join the military. There is no chance with time running our that he will not make the strike. We will do all in our power to provoke it. Once another 'Maine" type incident occurs, the "these colors don't run" signs will be dusted off, the flags will be hoisted on all the BMWs, Lexuses, and the like, Bush will give a flag raiser of a speech, probably already written, and we'll gladly mark off to war to the tune of "over there."

Posted by Mat Conly
February 8, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink

Iran and Syria, actually. Perle and Adelman were salivating at the prospect, and confident that Iranians would rise against their "overlords."

Joseph Heller couldn't have begun to describe the absolute absurdity of what the US has gotten itself into in the ME.

Posted by SteinL
February 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink

We've been hearing that the "neo-cons" are going to invade Iran for years now, with some such as Seymour Hersh saying that the pentagon is planning on using tactical nuclear weapons. We keep hearing these warnings, yet no bombs have started dropping. And while many, such as Mat Conly above, claim that Bush's plan was to invade Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Moon, etc., many CIA types at the time believed that Bush wasn't invading Iraq because of Iran, Syria, etc., but rather was going after Iraq in spite of Iran, as in, Iran was much more dangerous, and the invasion of Iraq would do absolutely nothing to help the US national security interests, vis'a'vis Iran.

Bush and Cheney are belatedly realizing that in terms of the broader struggle against radical Islam the 'godfather' figure, if you will, was never Iraq (which had sketchy ties at best to these violent extremeist groups), but Iran.

Posted by bjs
February 8, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink

I dislike Grover Norquist very much, but you have taken his comments, as per the Vanity Fair article, out of context. You make it sound like he supports the Iran action, but what he actually said is that it is like a failed gambler's last throw of the dice. Please be more careful.

Posted by Roger Campbell
February 8, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink

remove the j at 11am

Posted by Geoff
February 8, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink

I have an iranian friend I've known since high school, 20 years ago. He recently told me that the total irony of this situation is that if the US were to simply wait 5 years, Iran would get rid of it's current regime all by itself. If US were to invade or bomb....argh, exactly the wrong thing to do when all we have to do is be patient!

US Sabre rattling is probably the main think keeping Amedjabad in power these days, with his plummeting approval ratings and even many Ayatollah's against him. (Castro anyone?)

My friend was very emphatic that the iranian people would take up arms against any invader, no matter how much they disliked their current govt.

Strange how Xerxes is having the last laugh!

Posted by Jeffreywithtwofs
February 8, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink

What about "Catch-2200"?

Even though 1000 times a Catch-22 situation may be hyperbole, at least it can be pronounced as "Catch-twenty-two hundred" as per the original "Catch-twenty-two". "Catch-two-twenty" lacks the aural sonority.

Posted by Aaron G. Stock
February 8, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink

Note that Unger cites Pat Lang as his source for both analysis and information regarding the president's tasking of Stratcom to plan for a massive attack on Iran. Lang abstracts these citations on his website Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007.

In contract to Unger's multipage compendium I found Lang's reduction of this horrible possibility to several paragraphs much more unnerving and impactful. Sometimes 'sound bites' have merit.

See "Unger on the Next Act" at:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Posted by alnval
February 8, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink

Having read The Plan for a New American Century back in 2001 (the neocon template for US hegemony in the middle east, starting with Iraq), I'm fully prepared to believe that "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" is real and in the planning stages.

I remember being accused of being paranoid when I predicted, immediately after 9/11, that we'd be in Iraq within months. Fasten your seat belts, folks.

Posted by Karen M
February 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink

Time for Speaker Pelosi to remind the public, the White House and the Air Force that taxpayers provide her jet transport and security because she's third in line for the Presidency and the most important Member of Congress. It's not because she's a Democrat, because she's equally corrupt as her predecessor, or because she has better taste in clothes or furnishings.

Time for Speaker Pelosi to promptly convene hearings on the purported immediacy of an Iranian threat. If the only sport Mr. Bush and company know how to play is hardball, it's time to show the Republic that slowpitch is not the only sport Democrats can play.

Posted by mbbsdphil
February 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink

Hasn't the neo-con plan all along been to create a moderate (or so they had thought) pro-american shiite crescent from the far edges to Iran to the shores of Syria? with a little help from our friend Ahmed Chalabi? Foment a revolution in Iran by pressure or by force and then go do Syria and the Neo-cons have done their work... with a few frayed ends is all...?

Posted by oppositionradio
February 8, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink

One has only has to look to see whose hand is up our puppet President’s butt to figure this all out. Who benefits . . . Follow the money . . . Whatever cliché you want paints the same picture. One just has to choose the sanest sounding option:

The real issue here is not about any Middle Eastern country whose name begins with an “I” (whether it ends in an “N”, a “Q” or and an “L”).

This is about keeping Saudi Arabia content. The Sunni governed Saudis benefit tremendously religiously by having the ‘Evil American Dawgs’ destroy the Shia dominated Iraq and Iran. The Saudis get power in the form of the OIL half of oil-dollars and Whore-for-hay’s folk outside the White House gets power in the DOLLAR half of that equation.

Attacking Iran is yet another misdirection/distraction with special benefits ($$$) to the Bush Plutocracy. They are hoping that we will be distracted by the shiny new war.

INQUIRY: Is anyone else having reoccurring dreams about the original Bastille Day?

Posted by Richard L. Adlof
February 8, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink

"Usually big ships are not put into the Persian Gulf because they're too hard to maneuver without "hitting" something."

Like, say, perhaps someone (maybe the Captain of a U.S. Navy ship, say the U.S.S. Vincennes, just as an example), mistakes something innocent (maybe say, an Iranian airliner, just as an example) as a threat, and shoots at it?

I would say Jim Webb speaks from experience. Wasn't he Sec of the Navy at the time of the Vincennes incident?

Posted by brianm0122
February 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

with a few frayed ends is all...?

"Hey, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed!"

Posted by Nell
February 8, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink

Everyone here seems to just accept that the neocon's PNAC is in play and that we can do nothing except hold on to our asses. There's always that one unforeseeable,unexpected action that upturns even the best laid plans. As has been noted we would already be in Iran is not for the trouble in Iraq. Here's more...the Libby trial is going after Cheney...the oversight committee is going after everyone...public outcry against Iraq policy and against invading Iran...democratic congress and soon to be presidency...and hopefully not only impeachment of Cheney/Bush but charges of treason so the next gathering of republican leaders will be the federal prison...and more coming each day. Pelosi needs to make it known that Cheney/Bush can be removed from office for being a threat to national security before impeachment proceedings ever begin should they invade Iran without prior senate approval.(I just hope she isn't killed, congress dismissed and martial law declared before '08 elections. Congress needs their own premptive'Blackwater' or do they not think it possible?) Still...the best laid plans...

Posted by bjobotts
February 8, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

They are almost out of money, out of soldiers, out of bullets.

What are they going to invade Iran with? Pink and Blue buttons?

What happens when an Iranian rocket sinks a carrier or two? They can't leave the gulf without passing through the straights of hormuz. It's so narrow that the Iranians will use cannon fire to sink those ships. The narrowness and lenth of the gulf has always been a bad reason for us to be invading Iraq, the supply lines are too long and tenuous and could be cut in a moments notice by a beligerent Iran.

What is the reason they'll have for Americans fighting and dying in Iran?

Send your own boy over to kill and be killed, else shut up.

A war in Iran will mess with oil prices one more time. I'm sure that will help their cause.

The American people are on to these guys, they have a very short leash. This could easily end up in the streets. And that will end the conservative tied for infinity in the U.S.

Posted by Tim
February 8, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink

give me back my pants

Posted by Robrobbounce
February 9, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink

I don't believe there are two stories. This administration has planned to attack Iran all along and would have done so but for the elections and mess in Iraq. They're planning a way to finesse the move so that Bush can have his clueless John Wayne moment and delusions about a glorious long term legacy. The smarter oil cartel and neo-cons can have their oil profits and world hegemony.

Posted by carol
February 9, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

Posted by andrey@gmail.com
April 29, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

hello

Posted by kriss@gmail.com
April 30, 2007 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

hello

Posted by dmitry@gmail.com
May 1, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink