Breaking News: Glenn Beck Attacks GDAEman

It has recently been reported on CNNBC that Glenn Beck has taken a swipe at me. As if I care.

See Video Here. (skip the facebook thing)

What's the Difference ....

.... between a suicide bomber at a funeral and a US Drone attack on a funeral?

In one case, the bomber dies and in the other case the bomber lives in Nevada and goes home after the bombing to see his child in a school play.

Talk about moral relativity. Add this to the list of things that show the presidency of the United States is not part of a republic of the people. The US presidency is as errant as Wall Street; it's all part of a crumbling empire that is out of control.

Today we hear reports that US drones attacked a funeral in Pakistan killing five militants and 75 civilians. Nice kill ratio. No different than a suicide bomber attacking a funeral... except for what I noted above.

I'm starting to feel like withdrawing all support from Obama, because he's become the figurehead of a crime syndicate. Does anyone else feel this way?

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Associated Press, "Pakistani Taliban chief dodged missile: officials," Munir Ahmad, June 24, 2009.

Pearl Harbor in Pakistan

Someone is going to get fired for this.

Peshawar, Pakistan, Sunday, Dec. 7, 2008. Militants blasted their way into two transport terminals in Pakistan on Sunday and torched more than 160 vehicles destined for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan, in the biggest assault yet on a vital military supply line. (AP Photo/Mohammad Sajjad)

And they did it without multi-million dollar weapons and no national debt. Looks like an empire under attack to me.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Hadyen Perpetuates Syrian Reactor Story

Are we to believe the statements below attributed by the Associated Press to CIA Director Michael Hayden? He's the same guy that had to be corrected by Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder on the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment's requirement of "probable cause" to receive a warrant for a search or seizure.

According to FAIR, On MSNBC's Countdown (1/24/06), host Keith Olbermann played video of the exchange, followed by a reading of the Fourth Amendment.

"It's hard to tell which is more frightening for those of you in favor of continuing the democracy, the mistake itself, or the general's insistence that it was not a mistake," Olbermann commented. "Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA."

Hayden's Statement:

Even without Israeli intelligence, the CIA would have known by last July that a building in Syria's western desert was meant to be a secret nuclear reactor when a pipe system from the Euphrates River to the building was constructed.

"That was a powerful cooling system going to a building with no visible heat source,"

Hayden said. Israeli jets destroyed the building in August 2007, although Syria has denied it was a nuclear facility.

North Korea's arms trade — helping Syria build a nuclear reactor, or selling missile technology to Iran — is motivated by cash.

"It's a starved economy, with very, very few sources of foreign exchange," "This is one of the ones where they can actually turn a profit."

Sounds plausible, of course, but Symour Hirsch and others seriously question the validity of this story. Reporting about five months after the Israeli bombing, Hirsh wrote in the New Yorker:

In three months of reporting for this article, I was repeatedly told by current and former intelligence, diplomatic, and congressional officials that they were not aware of any solid evidence of ongoing nuclear-weapons programs in Syria.

He continues to explain away the a key piece of so-called "evidence" of Korean involvement...

there is evidence that the [ship the] Al Hamed could not have been carrying sensitive cargo—or any cargo—from North Korea. International shipping is carefully monitored by Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit, which relies on a network of agents as well as on port logs and other records.

According to Marine Intelligence Unit records, the Al Hamed, which was built in 1965, had been operating for years in the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, with no indication of any recent visits to North Korea. The records show that the Al Hamed arrived at Tartus on September 3rd—the ship’s fifth visit to Syria in five months.

But, don't take Hirch's word.

Referring to the building that was bombed, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations group responsible for monitoring compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, said,

Our experts who have carefully analyzed the satellite imagery say it is unlikely that this building was a nuclear facility.

Sources:

Associated Press, CIA watching for al-Qaida 'succession crisis', May 28, 2008.

Fair and Accuracy in Reporting, FAIR, Probable Cause for Alarm, Media Ignores Ex-NSA's chief's of ignorance of the Constitution, January 27, 2006.

Oops! Israel Killed more Palestinian Civilians

The number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israel dwarfs the number of civilians killed by Palestinian resistors to the Israeli occupation. Below is an example of many:

3 Palestinian Civilians Killed in Ongoing Israeli Airstrikes

Three Palestinian civilians, including a thirteen-year-old were killed Wednesday when an Israeli missile hit their car. Israel called the attack an “error” and said it was targeting militants. The killings came one day after nineteen Palestinians lost their lives—the highest single-day Palestinian death toll in more than a year.

Of course it's the militants' fault, right? If they weren't resisting the Israeli occupation of their land, which began in 1948, this wouldn't have happened.

Sources:

DemocracyNow headlines for January 17, 2008.

Green Zone Attack Statistics

Updated August 9, 2007

How common are rocket and mortar attacks on the Green Zone? Far more common than the impression given by the establishment media.

Editor's Note:

When I first created this blog entry I wondered whether or not the source of my statistics, the english-speaking establishment media for the most part, were effectively reporting on Green Zone Attacks. I'm aware, for example, that Iraq Body Count's excess death inventory, based on similar sources, significantly under reports the actual figure, now estimated by independent sources to be about one million.

My concern has been echoed in a comment by "Contractor" to this blog entry. He suggests that this blog entry significantly under-reports the actual cases of Green Zone attacks:

you have nothing between June 1 and 14 Oct 2004. I can vouch that between July 20th and October 14th...we had Mortars come in almost every single day. One day we had something like 30 and the following evening another 10.

He continues...

In the entire month of September 2004, everyone put on their vests at 1830 ecause the rounds started coming in around 1900 to 1930 every night.

"Contractor's" experience is verified in a November 2004 Atlantic Monthly piece by William Langewiesche. Langewiesche writes:

On October 14 [2004] the Turkish embassy was bombed, and one person died. Mortar attacks on the Green Zone, until recently unheard of, were suddenly on the rise.

He continues,

There was talk of "sleepers" in the slums on the inside [of the Green Zone]. Even the Iraqis working for the CPA were suspect. Palace defenses, already strong, were made stronger still, so that the Palace became the Green Zone's Green Zone, as it remains today. A "town hall" meeting was called to allay fears, but it had the opposite effect. Work was disrupted. Mortars and rockets came in every night now, almost all of them falling into the Green Zone's open spaces. One of the biggest rockets landed in the Palace parking lot and took out twenty-six cars, mostly SUVs.

Langewiesche gives more insight with several more comments about mortar attacks, like the following:

Like the bombings in the city, the mortaring of the Green Zone occurred in distinct phases over time, whether in the mornings, or evenings, or late at night. Rockets were relatively rare. But the mortar attacks were so predictable at any given time that people working in the safety of the heavy-roofed Palace had office pools going on when the rounds would come in.

Original Posting:

So, how common are attacks on the Green Zone (AKA International Zone) in Iraq. According to Charles Gibson of ABC News, as of May 19, the Green Zone has been attacked 64 times since the surge began (64 attacks in 12 weeks). [1] It's not clear whether this means 64 days or 64 incidents.

My on-going count identifies 29 days in which the Green Zone was attacked since October 2003, tallied below. (obviously, an under estimate).

We just heard of another one during Blair's visit. We heard that a "blast in Baghdad struck about 6:25 p.m., just half an hour before Cheney's wrap-up news conference. It appeared to strike in the vicinity of the heavily fortified Green Zone."[2] According to a GlobalSecurity article on the Green Zone, the first attack on it was October 27, 2003, when three rockets were shot at the Al-Rashid hotel in which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying.

We hear about these notable attacks when a major dignitary visiting. What about the attacks that occur when a dignitary isn't visiting? (Not commonly reported, at least mortars and rocket attacks).

I include videos of the April 12, 2007 cafeteria bombing and a car bombing in a recent blog entry, How Long Can US Hang on in Iraq? In that essay I quote former CIA analyst and White House briefer, Ray McGovern, saying the US won't be able to hold onto it's bases in Iraq for more than a year or two.

Another sign of the erosion of Green Zone security was included in a May 10, 2007 DemocracyNow! headline news piece:

Meanwhile in Baghdad, the U.S. embassy has ordered all staff to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors in the Green Zone. The order comes following a wave of recent rocket attacks. The Green Zone is one of Iraq’s most heavily-guarded areas.

The new order came after a May 3 mortar assault that killed four foreign US embassy workers. The attack was at least the third straight day the Green Zone was attacked, according to HeraldNet.

Aside from being a foreign occupying force, walling itself off from an increasingly dismal Iraqi society, the US has a another disadvantage in selecting the Green Zone location. It housed Saddam Hussein's main presidential palace prior to the 2003 invasion, thus representing a psychological symbol to some of the attackers.

Here's an informal Tally of Attacks on the Green Zone:

Note: Many rocket and mortar attacks occur that don't seem to be reported in the establishment media, my primary source. As described in the "Editor's Note," above, this tally is certain to significantly under count the incidents of Green Zone attacks.

October 27, 2003, Al-Rashid Hotel hit while Paul Wolfowitz was visiting. Considered the first attack on the Green Zone according to GlobalSecurity article.

May 17, 2004 A suicide car bomb in Baghdad kills the head of Iraq's Governing Council Abdul-Zahra Othman Mohammad, a prominent Shi'ite politician from Basra also known as Izzedin Salim. More than a dozen others were also killed in the blast at the gates of the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.

June 1, 2004 The second car bomb exploded outside an entrance to the U.S.-led coalition headquarters compound in Baghdad. The U.S. military said three Iraqis were killed and 20 wounded near the area known as the "Green Zone."

October 14, 2004 Two suicide bombers penetrate the highly guarded green zone in Baghdad and detonate bombs in their backpacks. 5 (updated to 10) are killed, 4 of them Americans. 20 others are wounded. US State Department spokesperson Richard Baucher said, "It's not the first time that there have been attacks on the Green Zone. Most of the previous attacks have been mortars and things like that." "You'll also remember it's not -- that there was a explosive device that was found in the so-called Green Zone Cafe not too long ago as well." [Link]

October 27, 2004 The first day of Ramadan, four car bombings took place in Baghdad, including the headquarters of the International Red Cross. The Green Zone was mortared.

December 4, 2004 Two car bombs killed sixteen people and wounded 38 others when they exploded at an entrance to Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.

January 29, 2005 A rocket hit the U.S. Embassy compound inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, killing two people and wounding at least four. According to the embassy spokesman, all of them are Americans.

July 14, 2005 We woke today to the muted sounds of thumps and booms. One big one, followed by a smaller one. Then mortars flew over our home. It was another attack on the Green Zone, and it killed two people. The first explosion was a car bomb that hit the fortified complex's entrance that civilians, journalists and even National Assembly members often use to get inside. The second boom was a suicide bomber who rushed into the crowd that gathered following the first explosion and blew himself up.

April 23, 2006 Seven Iraqis died when three mortars hit just outside the heavily guarded Green Zone in the capital, not far from Iraq's Defense Ministry. Police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said it was hard to identify the seven dead because the powerful blasts and shrapnel severed their limbs and destroyed their identification cards.

April 28, 2006 Two mortars or rockets were fired at downtown Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, where Iraq's government meets and the U.S. Embassy is located.

November 22, 2006 A bomb exploded in an armored car among those belonging to the speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani wounding the American security guard who was driving it out of a parking area in the government Green Zone.

January 25, 2007 Two mortars bring Green Zone under assault. The U.S. military said six people had been wounded, five of them slightly, but little damage was caused to buildings.

March 22, 2007 Insurgents attempt to assassinate United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his visit in Baghdad. The rocket attack caused no injuries but rattled the heavily guarded Green Zone. It struck right after Prime Minister al-Maliki, standing next to Ban, had finished telling reporters that Ban's visit was a sign that Iraq was on the road to stability.

March 23, 2007 A suicide bomber passed through security checkpoints undetected on 23 March and was able to detonate his belt next to Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie, Iraq's deputy prime minister, as he left afternoon prayers. Nine people were killed although, remarkably, Mr Zubaie survived.

March 27, 2007 A U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded from indirect fire -- a term usually used for mortars or rockets -- in Baghdad's heavily fortified international Green Zone on Tuesday, the U.S. military said. A U.S. government contractor was killed as a result of a rocket attack on the Green Zone on Tuesday, the U.S. embassy said in a statement.

April 12, 2007, Iraqi Parliament cafeteria hit by suicide bomber invasion, killing at least 26 and injuring 54.

Monday, April 30, 2007 (See May 1)

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 (See May 3) Mortar rounds slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone on Tuesday, with one striking within 100 yards of the Iraqi prime minister's offices, a government official said. No casualties were reported. It was the second attack against the Green Zone in 12 hours. The first round of explosions occurred at about 10 p.m. Monday and another round struck at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.

May 2, 2007 (See May 3)

May 3, 2007, four Filipino contractors working for the American government are killed in a rocket attack. The deadly incident was at least the third straight day the Green Zone was attacked, according to the HeraldNet

May 9, 2007 Cheney spoke less than an hour after an explosion could be heard in the embassy. Reporters covering the vice president's unannounced visit were briefly moved to a more secure area. (not sure if this was "in" the Green Zone.)

May 15, 2007 (See May 16).

May 16, 2007 At least nine apparent mortar rounds slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone on Wednesday, wounding at least six people, the second such attack in as many days. (actually 10 rounds, two dead, more injured). AP details.

May 19, 2007 Green Zone attacked during British Prime Mister Tony Blair's visit.

May 21, 2007 A mortar shell struck the roof of Iraq's parliament inside Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone on Monday, shaking the building but causing no casualties.

June 14, 2007 Insurgents fired a barrage of rockets into the Baghdad Green Zone, hitting a street Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had visited just minutes before. Police said there were some casualties but no other details were immediately known.

June 21, 2007 At least four mortar rounds landed inside Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone which houses the U.S. embassy, an Iraqi interior Ministry official said. A column of black smoke was seen rising from the Green Zone.

July 4, 2007 (almost) U.S. helicopters attacked a group of extremists preparing to fire a rocket toward the Green Zone, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

July 7, 2007 Four consecutive explosions were heard by KUNA's correspondent here [in green zone], likely to have been caused by mortar shells, and were followed by the wailing of sirens.
Columns of thick black smoke were seen, apparently from a fire that had erupted at one of the locations.

July 10, 2007 Insurgents unleashed their most intense mortar attack to date on the Green Zone on Tuesday, killing 3 people and wounding 18, according to a statement from the American Embassy. [A]ccording to one American official in the Green Zone who spoke on condition of anonymity, the attack may have involved as many as 31 mortar shells.

At least 20 mortar rounds and Katyusha rockets struck the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday afternoon, killing an American service member and two other people in an attack on the heart of U.S. and Iraqi government facilities in the capital.

August 2, 2007 More than ten mortars fell in the early hours of Monday onto the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad, eyewitnesses said. "Over ten mortars landed into the Green Zone in central Baghdad," an eyewitness told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq.

Lighter Side:

Jon Stewart video interview with Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Emperial Life in the Emerald City."

Sources:

1. Raw Story, Edwards and Sheehan, May 17, 2007, includes video.

2. Associated Press, Cheney visits Iraq to press for progress, May 9, 2007

3. The Atlantic Monthly, William Langewiesche, Welcome to the Green Zone, November 2004.

How Long Can US Hang on in Iraq?

I've recently written, and debated on Mahablog, about my sense that the Democrats won't make a move to "own this war" until sometime after November 2008. The Democrats will stay in Iraq even if they take office in 2008, and won't get to choose when combat operations stop.

Then, I made a counter-argument to my position, debating the other side. On the April 23, 2007 Flashpoints radio program, Former CIA analyst McGovern said:

We may be able to have permanent military bases for a year or two, it's not going to be possible to keep them. It's just not possible in this day and age to invade an occupy a country the size of Iraq with 140,000, or if you put in 500,000 it still wouldn't work.

He cites 1.3 billion "ticked off" Muslims, porous boarders, and General Petraus's book on counter insurgency.

Today, we read that a rocket attack on the Green Zone "killed four Filipino contractors working for the U.S. government." We also learned that this "was the third straight day that the zone was hit by rockets or mortars, heightening concerns about security in the area." And we all remember, on April 12, DemocracyNow and others reported:

An explosion has been reported inside the Iraqi parliament building in Baghdad. There are early reports at least two Iraqi parliament members were killed and others injured. The blast took place inside a cafeteria where Iraqi parliamentarians were eating lunch. The parliament building is located inside Baghdad’s heavily-guarded Green Zone.

Cafeteria Bombing in Green Zone

Car Bombing in Green Zone

Hmmm... Bush sends 20,000+ additional forces to secure Baghdad, and there are "heightening concerns" about security in the most secure part of Baghdad. I'll grant it makes sense to have more US casualties during this surge, but one would think there would be more security. If the US is counting on attrition to turn the corner, they might want to get more fingers to count on.

If the Democrats wait just a little longer, according to McGovern, the insurgency might do their job for them. I think they're going to wait until at least November 2008.

Sources:

4 killed in Green Zone rocket attack, Associated Press, May 2, 2007, THOMAS WAGNER.

Photo Credit: This famous picture is the supposedly the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Dutchman, Mr. Hugh Van Es.
~

Will the World Sit by and Watch if the US Attacks Iran?

In July 2006, the world sat by and watched Israel destroy much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure including roads and bridges, water systems, electric power plants telecommunications towers, government buildings and thousands of businesses and residential homes.

Fast forward to Iran. According to a recent, well documented article by By Michel Chossudovsky [1]:

... the planned air strikes are by no means limited to Iran's nuclear facilities. Central Command Headquarters in Florida (CENTCOM) has already selected a comprehensive list of military and civilian targets. Industrial sites, civilian infrastructure including roads, water systems, bridges, electric power plants telecommunications towers, government buildings are part of the assumptions underlying the Blitzkrieg. "A single raid could result in 10,000 targets being hit with warplanes flying from the US and Diego Garcia."[2]

In retrospect, the 2006 US/Israel assault on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure looks like a practice run for the pending attack on Iran. Will the world sit by and watch it done to Iran?

Iran, itself, is likely to respond. According to Chussudovsky, Iran could respond "in the form of targeted strikes on US military facilities in the Iraq and the Gulf States," and Israel. Iran also has intelligence assets around the world who could take action. Deeper assessments of the Iranian response are provided in a 2004 paper by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies [5], and an article by Wayne White. [6]

But, will the rest of the world sit by and just watch? Maybe. However, several reactions are conceivable.

First, Israel could be drawn into the conflict, that is, if they are not involved from the beginning.

Second, united by American aggression against the predominantly Shia Iran, many Shia factions in Iraq might not sit by and watch. Even if the Iraqi Shia don't rediscover common cause with the predominantly Sunni Iraqi insurgency, they could find common cause with Iran. In the past, there were signs of a growing unified Shia/Sunni resistance to US occupation. Many believe the US promoted sectarian violence in Iraq to "divide and conquer" this growing unity between Shia and Sunni. However, even without renewed unity, the Shia connections to Iran are strong, and Shia resistance to the US is a real possability as described at length in the CNS paper [5].

Third, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded by Russia, China and several "stan" nations, is considered to be a counter balance to NATO. Although SCO claims it isn't a military bloc, it does have a security cooperation component. Iran is an observer nation to SCO. The SCO nations might not sit by watching. China and Russia held joint military exercises in 2005, and both have significant economic and military sales relationships with Iran. [3] (Asia Times Link). Finally, Russia does have a military alliance with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, (CSTO). They conducted war games on August 24, 2006.

These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, are in direct response to US military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. [4]

Fourth, global terrorist attacks could be conducted by those who sympathize with Iran, or simply want to use the US attack as a pretext.

Fifth, the world economy might not "sit by and watch." Oil corporations will, yet again, reap windfall profits as oil prices soar. However, businesses that are sensitive to oil prices, like trucking and airlines, will be shocked. Other businesses and consumers will feel the impacts. Whether or not a systemic chain reaction will undermine the global economy must always be a concern.

Sixth, although my faith in Senator Joe Biden is thin, he has promised a "constitutional confrontation" if Bush attacks Iran. My understanding of the constitution, based on the Supreme Court decision in Campbell vs Clinton, is that Congress has to pass an explicit law before it even has standing for a "constitutional confrontation."

They must, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, preclude any additional deployment of United States Armed Forces to the operations in Iran. Congress must explicitly refused to authorize or appropriate the use of funds for an operation on Iran. This is necessary to establish an actual confrontation between the legislative and executive branches sufficient to confer standing to Congress in the U.S. Supreme Court should the President disobey their directive and should they seek intervention of the judicial branch. (Campbell vs Clinton).

So, in the end, we can expect protests in the US and other countries, an initial US military "success," dutifully portrayed by the corporate media, followed by a replay of the Iraq unraveling on a regional scale. Zbigniew Brzezinski recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, if Bush continues on his current path, we can anticipate

military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Sources:

1. "Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT), Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 21, 2007. (Updated February 23, 2007).

2. Gulf News, February 21, 2007.

3. Asia Times, June 4, 2005, "The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran," Jephraim P Gundzik.

4. Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats Michel Chossudovsky, Global Resarch, August 24, 2006.

5. "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, August 12, 2004.

6. "U.S. attack on Iran would be huge mistake," February 11, 2007, Wayne White, former deputy director of the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Office, focusing on Middle East issues, especially Iraq and Iran.
~

Murtha Seeks to Stop War in Iran

The buzz is that the Bush administration is considering an imminent attack on Iran, the word I hear is "Spring." Spring begins March 21, 2007.

President Bush believes he has the authority from Congress to launch an assault on Iran. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes Bush doesn't have the authority to invade Iran.

Obviously, John Murtha isn't taking any chances with a president who flouts the law. So, John Murtha is attempting to assert Congress's authority to prevent the Executive Branch from committing an act of aggression against Iran without explicit consent from the Legislative Branch. The Breaking Story

24 minute video of Murtha interviewed by MoveCongress.Org
~

Reasons for Attacking Iran

The drum beat of war with Iran is unmistakable. A synopsis of that would be it's own topic. We're facing a "Boy who cried wolf moment," but I'm not buying the drum beat; don't worry George. You won't be eaten.

The Bush administration is demonizing Iran, with occasional foot-in-mouth assistance from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and compliance of the corporate mass media. But the Iranian constitution gives Ahmadinejad little power, so ignore the man who dresses like Obama behind the curtain.

Most of the drum beats are just propaganda excuses. For example, "Iranian's have refused some IAEA inspectors, and inspections." This is an excuse that the US engineered by securing special inspections through obscure actions of the UN Security Council, which the US knew Iran could not accept. The US was then able to point to "Iran's refusal to allow IAEA inspections", thereby making Iran look unreasonable, like they're hiding something. But, just as in Iraq, Bush must have underlying motives, or reasons, for war with Iran, right?

The Reasons for Attacking Iran:

These are the reasons that I think are motivating the Bush administration.

1) Controlling Iran has always been part of the neo-con master plan that Bush has bought into. Controlling Iran, like Iraq, entails the benefits of control over natural resources, if only to create predicatability, not necessarily stealing the wealth. Control also entails brining Iran into the corporate globalization free market world view. I find it hard to believe Bush thinks they can achieve "regime change," nevertheless, control is a long-term motivation.

2) Nearer-term, Bush needs to weaken Iran. He must first have chaos in Iran before he can have control. This goal is more urgent, because of the way things have gone badly Iraq. The logic is simple:

The US can't continue to occupy Iraq, because US soldiers are getting chewed up, it's too costly, and the US public is getting restless.

The US can't leave Iraq, because Iraq is now run by Shia political parties that are friendly to Iran, and leaving now would yeild too much regional influence to Iran.

Solution? First attack and weaken Iran, THEN pull back from Iraq (leaving behind US military bases, of course). Call it "The Third Way" to resolving the Iraq problem.

3) Israel Wants It. I confess. I've bought into the perspective that, "What Israel wants, the US wants." Just look at the way Hillary Clinton and John Edwards pander to the Israeli lobby? As far as Iran goes, the message to the Israeli vote is that "Everything is on the Table." Does Israel have any reasons? That doesn't really matter, but in general, they want control too.

4) Potential Nuclear Weapons in Iran. Even if Iran is ten years away from having a nuclear weapon, that's too soon. If an attack could make that twenty years, that's a good thing. Attack them in another ten years, and reset the clock again. Keep doing this, and.... we'll, you get the idea. Preventive war is now a formal part of American miliatry strategic policy, so we might as well make use of it, right? Who's going to stop us?

The recent propaganda about Iranians providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is being floated as a trial balloon in this reagard. But the logic falls a little flat; Iran's Shia allys are basically in power in Iraq, and thus don't need weapons to fight the US, and Iran's enemies are the Sunni "Saddam dead ender insurgency" fighting the US. This ties into number 2) above. That is, the US doesn't want Iran to gain influence in the region. Even if Iran isn't giving weapons to the insurgency, the US doesn't want Iran currying favor with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Other Thoughts on the Topic:

The Provoked Response: This is no more a "reason" than the Tonkin Gulf incident was a reason for escalation in Vietnam. That is, the US will try to provoke a response from Iran, and use that as a pretext for attacking (As if nukes ain't good enough you say). This reason hasn't yet materialized, but it will. It will be bolstered by the drum beat of demonization that provides a fertile foundation for the unsuspecting American TV watchers (I hope I'm wrong about this). It helps that they're religious fundamentalists and we're, ah'hem, not. The Iranian Supreme Leader, a title to which Bush and Cheney aspire, has offered predictions to this end: terrorism or human rights violations. So has Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I think five reasons are enough. I suppose the benefits to the defense industry lobby might be another "good reason", but I don't want to be accused of being too cynical. Testing new bunker busters is another good reason, but that's probably considered a mere side-benefit to the inside-crowd who are taking us to war in Iran. Then, there is also the mesianic reason, against which former National Security Advisor, Zignew Brzezinski, spoke out against in his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's hard to tell whether this later "reason" is actually motivating the Bush people or is just part of the Bush propaganda drum beat, in this case designed to rally his radical base of christian crusaders.

Scott Ritter offers another reason. The big bully has gotten beat in Iraq. It's time for the deafeated bully to vent elsewhere.... like Iran. To this many people might say say, "We can't go into Iran. We're already stretched too thin in Iraq." We're not "going in to Iran." We're just going to bomb the bajeebers out of 'em. We've got three aircraft carrier groups over there. CNN viewers will get to see more Clintonesque cruise missile launches. No, this isn't a wag-the-dog rationale... OK, maybe that's a "side-benefit."

There are other reasons being given, some of them, while intended to be humorous, have a sickening grain of truth to them.
~