Richard WarnickAre You Ready for This?
Recent developments indicate the USA will be ready to launch a strategic bombardment of Iran two weeks before Election Day.
The Bush administration wouldn’t attack Iran if they were reasonable and rational. But they aren’t, or they would never have invaded Iraq or allowed Israel to attack Lebanon. As the Boston Globe put it, “For political cynics who believe Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove would stop at nothing to hold onto power, a first strike against Iran would be the ultimate pre-election ‘October surprise.’â€
The USS Enterprise Carrier Strike Group and a destroyer squadron are already deployed in the Arabian Sea to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions over Afghanistan. Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include a destroyer, a frigate a cruiser, an attack submarine, and a fast combat support ship. The “Ike Strike” Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, is on its way to the region and scheduled to arrive October 21 with the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. It includes a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate, a submarine escort, and supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian coast.
The first news of the “Ike Strike” orders came from disgruntled naval officers who complained they were being sent to attack Iran without congressional authorization.
A third group of U.S. warships, Expeditionary Strike Group 5, left San Diego on September 13, bound for the Persian Gulf with 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton. They have an air combat element of helicopters and Harrier jump jets. The flagship of this strike group is the assault ship USS Boxer. Other ships include a dock landing vessel, a transport ship, a cruiser, and two guided-missile destroyers. A Coast Guard cutter and a Canadian frigate are attached to this force.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, military planners could target limited air strikes at the most crucial Iranian nuclear facilities, or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a range of WMD-related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq. A substantial number of land-based aircraft are available in the region, including F-15Es, F-16s, and heavy bombers. Naval aircraft such as F-14Bs and F/A-18s are available aboard the carriers. Approximately 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and submarines could also be used to strike fixed locations.
What does the Bush administration plan to do? Bluffing is not their style. According to Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel and one of the military’s most respected specialists on war simulation: “One source of the momentum in Washington for a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is the strategic observation that if such an attack is inevitable, then it is better done sooner than later.â€
“The very ambiguity of the intelligence picture has become another argument for military options, because even if U.S. policymakers could agree on a firm policy red line, there would be no way of determining if and when Iran crossed that line. Vice President Cheney’s espoused calculation for dealing with global threats is that if there is even a 1 percent chance of a country passing WMD to a terrorist, the United States must act. Because there is a 1 percent chance Iran could pass WMD to a terrorist, the Bush administration finds itself obliged to reject nonmilitary options.â€
What about the Congress?
President Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending “war on terror.” Secretary of State Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October 2005 that the position of the Bush administration is that no congressional authorization is required for a strike on Iran. Last June, Congress failed to approve a proposed amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that would have required the president to get authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran. Congress will be in recess until some time in November.
What’s the downside of attacking Iran?
The Iranians may have the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, the only entrance to the Persian Gulf. The Strait is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and roughly 40% of the world’s oil is transported through this passage each day. Iran is reported to have the newest generation of Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles. In addition, they could deploy mines and submarines.
Crude oil prices would spike to $200 a barrel by some estimates, sparking a global recession.
Moqtada al-Sadr has said publicly that if the United States were to attack Iran, he would target US forces in Iraq. Iran could upgrade technology among Shiite militias in Iraq, with weapons like the wire-guided anti-tank missiles Hezbollah had in Lebanon. Sabotage of Iraqi oil pipelines is considered likely.
Hezbollah, generally considered the world’s most dangerous terrorist group (and largely sponsored by Iran), could conduct acts of terror against US interests and/or attack Israel.
Syria and Iran signed a defense agreement on June 15. Under this agreement, Syrian forces would be brought into the fight in the event of an attack on Iran.
Hardest to predict are the results of the inevitable worldwide wave of anti-USA outrage, especially among muslims. Because of the Sunni-Shiite confessional split, it’s unknown whether the reaction will be serious enough to topple governments such as the government of Pakistan.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago — I seriously don’t know what we peace and justice activists can do anymore — there’s never been anyone this crazy in the White House before.
As I wrote in my post on the same topic, I heard someone say that it’s time to up civil disobedience from all of us if the US attacks Iran.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Let me see if I understand. You are upset that the U.S. might attack Iran? Don’t we have enough to worry about in regards to civil unrest in the world without worrying about a theoretical attack?
Jenni,
What do you have planned for your civil disobedience campaign? Move into the woods, and not pay your taxes? Or, something else?
October 4th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Tyler - all I can say is HAHAHAHAHA. Splendid example of utter nonsense. You don’t understand if you have to ask why, in a world filled with unnecessary violence, we would possibly be worried about a huge increase in it.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
I used to think Bush and his asshole-brigade would not be so stupid to attack Iran, but now I am not so certain. Maybe Bush really does talk to God and we are now witnessing the actual Second Coming, except only in slow motion building to an unimaginable end.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
That’s my ship! What’s it doing in your blog? Bring it home, NOW!
October 4th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Tyler,
Since you seem to be a bit dim and wonder why people might be upset over ANOTHER war, I’ll give you a few clues:
Death, destruction, creation of more terrorists bent on killing us, billions and billions more tax dollars spent to kill and destroy (and bankrupting our future), overextended military which is at the breaking point as it is, war is evil, environmental destruction, possible use of nuclear weapons — just to name a few.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:47 am
As much as I hate to say it Tyler is right. You’ve all whipped yourselves into a frenzy over what is probably just “military maneuvers†in the Persian Gulf meant to help with negotiations with Iran. The United States is not going to attack Iran right before a mid-term election. You’re so excited to find something new to hate Bush over that now you’re accusing him of stuff you’re pretending you know he’s going to do.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder , writes about the prediction that the U.S. will engage in another cold war whereby Iran will now be the boogie-man.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-34.htm - ” Neocons may be Down, not Out, with a Nuclear Iran”
October 5th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Just to clarify the intent of this post, I honestly don’t know if the USA will attack Iran before the election. I think there is a lot of evidence that our forces are going to be prepared to bomb Iran soon.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Yo Jeremy M.
If you are one of the proud remaining supporters of Bush - i.e., you don’t hate the sonofabitch - then you obviously are NOT paying attention. Turn of Sean and Rush and look out the window for once, you will be shocked at what you see.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Tehran is toast in the next 30-90 days. It’s all part of the plan. Iran does not have Nukes, will not have Nukes in the near future and much less any credible delivery system to be a credible threat. The whole “dirty bomb” lone terrorist cell scenario is a long shot and therefore a tough sell. This Naval movement is clearly an act of WAR. How any reasonable person could interpret it to be part of DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS I can’t really imagine.
President Bush was at the U.N. the same day that President Ahmadinejad spoke to the General Assembly 2 weeks ago. If NEGOTIATIONS were the objective what better time than to make a connection. Instead, the Bush Administration continued to demonize Iran and make more threats of violence. And President Ahmadinejad continued to attack Bush’s claims about Iran’s violent nuclear ambitions.
Let’s get one thing straight, Iran has NEVER attacked nor threatened to attack the United States. Hostage crisis aside, Iran is not making threats to attack the U.S. That is an out and out lie from the Bushites. Iran has much to worry about from the United States given our history. Our government chose to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954 and install a King, The Shah, with CIA trained secret police to suppress the popular movements in that country. The democratically elected government in 1953 decided to nationalize Iran’s oil industry in the interest of economic justice for the people. A cardinal sin and one that Iran has paid and continues to pay dearly for being so progressive in such an oppressive Imperial system as ours.
Iran is far from being an agressor here. Reports show that US Special Forces and of course the spooks have already infiltrated Iran to mark potential targets. Movement of the battle groups is simply the next phase in this process. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think G.W. Bush would prefer to attack Iran. Like most bullies, who are cowards by definition, G.W. probably hopes Iran will simply back down to the bullying and accept the humiliation and abuse.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:31 am
on march the armies of winless endeavor
when do the people rule? that would be never
yes, we public yield to a tightening tether
it is upon us now, he Constitution sever
and on languish loyal opposition
for reason perversion has them riven
for it to be this far along
it’s pretty clear, they are not strong
woe would I give, to be so wrong
but then again, where is the throng?
that toss these men, from our granted posts
is not the LAW, what matter most?
we go on to war, with shortening pockets
the people we press, they buying new rockets
we move then on forward, tear their arms from their sockets
making excuses, as the gun we do cock it
the rest of the world, they lie in wait
watching and waiting ridiculous date
as our wars move forth at a galloping pace
do we not wonder for whom do we race?
October 5th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
One Nephi,
I don’t hate bush but I also don’t support his or his party’s policies. I’m a Democrat and I want Democratically controlled government.
We’re not going to be at war with iran this year. If you guys would come back down to earth with the rest of us and try to be rational and realistic our side might be able to pick up a few more of the people in this state who don’t like Bush but who like the looney left even less. Thats all I’m saying.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
As if anything the Bush Admin has done in the last 5 years been rational and down to earth.
Does war with Iran make sense? No, but so many, many unbelieveable and non-sensical things have happened that I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen.
We’ve also been warned that Rove has an October surprise.
I’d be very grateful to be wrong about this.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
“Let’s get one thing straight, Iran has NEVER attacked nor threatened to attack the United States. Hostage crisis aside, Iran is not making threats to attack the U.S. That is an out and out lie from the Bushites.”
Sabcatsyndicate,
Why put the hostage crises aside? Because, it was President Carter, not Bush, that put the embargo on Iranian oil, and severed diplomatic relations with Iran due to the hostage crisis. The hostages spent 444 days in captivity, and a Democratic President recognized Iran’s role in that attack.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html“
October 7th, 2006 at 9:35 am
We should also put the Iran hostage crises in perspective. Would the radical clerics have been able to harness popular unrest for the revolution had the U.S. not proped up a corrupt and anti-democratic dictator in Iran? Would there have been the unrest for the clerics to utilize had the U.S. government not overthrown a democratically elected government in the fifties in favor of the autocratic Shah? By proving ourselves hypocrites in the cause of Democracy and self-determination, we ourselves created our own enemies. We brought the hostility which led to the hostage crises–and even the hostility of current Iranian leaders– on our own heads.
If our leaders insist on sowing the wind, we cannot whine when we reap the whirlwind. Rather than escalate the cycle of violence withmilitary “exercises,” preparations for potential military action, and playing some infantile game of chicken between governments, we should take the moral course by seeking to heal the wounds our predecessors caused and try to build bridges.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Derek,
I thoroughly agree with you. Americans were stunned at the “sudden” anger and hatred Iranians had for the U.S. What Americans didn’t know, and Iranians did, was that the U.S. and Britain had been thwarting democracy and the Iranian people’s will for a long, long time. Our government’s hypocricy, both in the past and the present, may be our biggest obstacle in international relations.
Tyler,
There are many in and retired from the military who fear an idiotic attack on Iran. This is from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen/3:
The retired generals’ revolt may be inspired by their apprehension over a wider Mideast conflict spreading to potentially nuclear Iran, writes former Pentagon planner and now antiwar critic Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and a razor-sharp PhD. Writing in MilitaryWeek.com, she speculates that the generals are trying to get rid of Rumsfeld now to head off a conflict with Iran. The Bush Administration reportedly has contingency plans to bomb Iran’s UN-disapproved nuclear sites. Some underemployed Navy and Air Force officers are lobbying to strike Iran, but the overstretched ground combat forces overwhelmingly oppose it as the worst of all possible wars. She writes: “If Rumsfeld retires, we will not ‘do’ Iran under Bush 43.” Such concern over Tehran is well founded. According to Kwiatkowski and retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, American Special Forces are already secretly inside Iran, identifying potential targets for future air strikes. The Iranians are of course aware of their uninvited visitors.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
[...] Here on October 4 I predicted that the USA would be in position to attack Iran before this year’s election, with two carrier strike groups and a Marine expeditionary strike group. The Bush administration has been reported to be seriously contemplating war with Iran to bring about regime change, for example in a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh last April. [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Well…..here it is….November 3rd. And guess what???? No attack on Iran! Maybe we ARE in the Persian Gulf only for manuevers.