Post by Watchman on May 7, 2005 12:38:38 GMT -5
"Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran", by Scott Ritter, former US Chief Arms Inspector in Iraq, Raiders News, May 3, 2005
"Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told. When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.
"Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date' ... the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The president had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the president ordered."
Thus far, we have been told several things:
1) The President of the United States believes that the "decisive date" by which American and/or Israeli had to act to prevent the kind of Iranian enrichment which would make a nuclear warhead was June, 2005.
2) An American attack plan seems to be contingent upon some degree of stability in Iraq by that month
3) An American attack is planned to be both aerial and "massive".
4) President Bush ordered the Pentagon to have both the plans and the "military capability" ready to go in June, 2005
Now, let us return to this featured story for more detail. Iran has gotten more belligerent as the time marched on toward June, 2005. She is apparently not afraid of the big, bad, American wolf.
"That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the president himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history. The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's nuclear programmes ... In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East." (Ibid.)
Iran seemingly is not worried about a possible attack on her facilities by either America or Israel. We shall view this factor in a few minutes, but for now, let us return again to Ritter's article.
"The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way ... It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme? Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme 'doomed to fail' ... The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Muhammad al-Baradai. And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005." (Ibid.)
Ritter repeats this date again, trying very hard to impress it upon our minds -- June, 2005. But, then, he repeats it again:
"According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff." (Ibid.)
Then, Scott Ritter sounded a warning very reminiscent about our false public rhetoric in the year before the Iraqi invasion: the Bush Administration has no solid evidence to back up their warnings that the current Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear warheads.
"Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's nuclear intentions are obvious. In response, the IAEA's al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a 'smoking gun' which would prove Iran's involvement in a nuclear weapons programme." (Ibid.)
Did you catch that phrase?: " Bush Administration has no solid evidence to back up their warnings"
Nevertheless, Bush officials seem ready to regurgitate their Iraqi propaganda campaign to justify an attack.
"But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran ... the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East." (Ibid.)
This last sentence reveals something very interesting: Ritter considers the mass media to be complicit in the attacks we have carried out thus far in the Middle East. Perhaps, he believes, the Bush Administration might not have been able to invade Iraq under such false pretenses had not the mass media been more critical of his statements. Ritter is absolutely correct. The mass media has been a covert ally of the Bush Presidency, especially regarding the plan to attack Iraq. Cutting Edge daily drew upon foreign news sources for our Daily News Update section for the entire year prior to the actual invasion (March 20, 2003). Since these news sources were not as controlled as the American sources, we understood that President Bush and his men had NOT proven their case concerning Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. As our military forces were rolling across the Iraqi border, we warned that there was not one shred of proof; now, two years later, we were proven correct -- from the mouth of the White House inspector!
Yet, President Bush seems to be determined to repeat this past pattern of behavior regarding Iran. Mass Media stands accused of being quietly complicit.
Now, let us quickly discuss the requirement, as stated above, that the attack on Iran was dependent upon some degree of stability in Iraq. Cutting Edge readers will know that there is no such stability, but you gain that knowledge because you have been reading Cutting Edge news stories and news analysis. The average American reading the average American newspaper and watching the average TV news coverage, may not realize how badly things are going. While some of the carnage is reported, not all is. Further, American politicians and generals have strongly stated in the past few weeks that America is starting to win this war, and that the Iraq will be able to shoulder its own defense soon.
The average American may view the Iraq situation as having achieved some stability.
The bottom line is simple: America seems determined to attack in June, 2005, and has ordered its military to be prepared to carry out such an attack.
"Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told. When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.
"Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date' ... the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The president had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the president ordered."
Thus far, we have been told several things:
1) The President of the United States believes that the "decisive date" by which American and/or Israeli had to act to prevent the kind of Iranian enrichment which would make a nuclear warhead was June, 2005.
2) An American attack plan seems to be contingent upon some degree of stability in Iraq by that month
3) An American attack is planned to be both aerial and "massive".
4) President Bush ordered the Pentagon to have both the plans and the "military capability" ready to go in June, 2005
Now, let us return to this featured story for more detail. Iran has gotten more belligerent as the time marched on toward June, 2005. She is apparently not afraid of the big, bad, American wolf.
"That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the president himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history. The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's nuclear programmes ... In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East." (Ibid.)
Iran seemingly is not worried about a possible attack on her facilities by either America or Israel. We shall view this factor in a few minutes, but for now, let us return again to Ritter's article.
"The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way ... It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme? Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme 'doomed to fail' ... The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Muhammad al-Baradai. And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005." (Ibid.)
Ritter repeats this date again, trying very hard to impress it upon our minds -- June, 2005. But, then, he repeats it again:
"According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff." (Ibid.)
Then, Scott Ritter sounded a warning very reminiscent about our false public rhetoric in the year before the Iraqi invasion: the Bush Administration has no solid evidence to back up their warnings that the current Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear warheads.
"Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's nuclear intentions are obvious. In response, the IAEA's al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a 'smoking gun' which would prove Iran's involvement in a nuclear weapons programme." (Ibid.)
Did you catch that phrase?: " Bush Administration has no solid evidence to back up their warnings"
Nevertheless, Bush officials seem ready to regurgitate their Iraqi propaganda campaign to justify an attack.
"But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran ... the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East." (Ibid.)
This last sentence reveals something very interesting: Ritter considers the mass media to be complicit in the attacks we have carried out thus far in the Middle East. Perhaps, he believes, the Bush Administration might not have been able to invade Iraq under such false pretenses had not the mass media been more critical of his statements. Ritter is absolutely correct. The mass media has been a covert ally of the Bush Presidency, especially regarding the plan to attack Iraq. Cutting Edge daily drew upon foreign news sources for our Daily News Update section for the entire year prior to the actual invasion (March 20, 2003). Since these news sources were not as controlled as the American sources, we understood that President Bush and his men had NOT proven their case concerning Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. As our military forces were rolling across the Iraqi border, we warned that there was not one shred of proof; now, two years later, we were proven correct -- from the mouth of the White House inspector!
Yet, President Bush seems to be determined to repeat this past pattern of behavior regarding Iran. Mass Media stands accused of being quietly complicit.
Now, let us quickly discuss the requirement, as stated above, that the attack on Iran was dependent upon some degree of stability in Iraq. Cutting Edge readers will know that there is no such stability, but you gain that knowledge because you have been reading Cutting Edge news stories and news analysis. The average American reading the average American newspaper and watching the average TV news coverage, may not realize how badly things are going. While some of the carnage is reported, not all is. Further, American politicians and generals have strongly stated in the past few weeks that America is starting to win this war, and that the Iraq will be able to shoulder its own defense soon.
The average American may view the Iraq situation as having achieved some stability.
The bottom line is simple: America seems determined to attack in June, 2005, and has ordered its military to be prepared to carry out such an attack.