Sunday, April 13, 2008

Patrick J. Buchanan: Petraeus Points to War with Iran

Robert Stiver wrote:

Here's the latest commentary by an informed, deeply concerned citizen: ("Petraeus Points to War With Iran," by Patrick Buchanan, April 11th, 2008)
(I disagree with one element of Buchanan's analysis: "The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand...." Petraeus is, IMHO, an ambitious, willing military-side stooge for the Cheney-led zionazineocons [note particularly the odious Lieberman in the article] and the dry-drunkenly adolescent, bellicose, irrational Bush. A lethal combination, and Gates and Mullen -- with Fallon gone and no longer providing adult supervision -- today added additional voice to the warmongering set....)
The Evil USrael Empire is on the march to war...Bob

Ronald wrote:
It's hard to improve on Bob's comment and Buchanan's short article.. One question that comes to mind: why do Bush and Cheney want to go to war against Iran and use their nuclear arsenal?

Bob suggests that it is for Israel's benefit. But such an adventure is just as dangerous for Israel as it is for the rest of the world, not least the US. (Just imagine what $200-300/ barrel oil will do to the world's economy.)

This reminds me: haven't we read recently that Putin warned Bush not to attack Iran? But if Putin did so, that might only spur Bush and Cheney to go ahead. Once again, we ask for what purpose?

One result (if not the only result) will be chaos, destruction, and more war. Does that cohere with wars for oil, for Empire or for Israel? Does that put Cheney and Bush squarely in the tradition of US presidents or does it suggest that they are exceptional, as in pathologically criminal, intent only on the elimination of the possibility of civil life everywhere just as they have succeeded in accomplishing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Palestine, elsewhere? Is Empire strengthened by these disasters? Are we achieving more or less control over ($110/barrel) oil?

Petraeus Points to War With Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 11, 2008
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.

Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.

Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."

These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."

Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?

"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."

Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:

"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.

The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?

Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:

"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander-in-chief.

In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.

Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.

Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.

Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.

And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.

This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.

Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.

The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaeda enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.

No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.

[Another quibble: Do Bush and Cheney want a short war? Will a short or long war help them stay in power longer? Although I'm wondering if Cheney's health may play a role. He seems to be sounding weaker than ever. --RB]



Ronald said...

Seth wrote:
Hi Ron,
Recall that the neo-con crowd's original plan --PNAC--was to attack Iraq and
then after a quick victory there
to then attack the stronger member of axis of evil, Iran. This had to be
delayed because of PR debacle for Bushies in Iraq. Although this does indeed put
Israel in danger, the neo-cons and Israeli leadership, contrary
to some American leftists (eg Petras, Blankfort) who forget class analysis
when it comes to Israel has never been to make Israel safer, just as it has
not been to make US safer. It has been to enable US with Israel as junior
hegemenon to rule Islamic world. It is a delusional plan but one that neo-cons
have not given up on.
If Bush does not (is prevented from attacking) attack Iran, neo-cons will
do everything to get McCain elected. His popularity indicates large segments
of American population will support neo-fascist authoritarian leader. If
elected he will attack.

Ronald replied:

Yes, there was talk of attacks on many countries after a quick regime change in Iraq,
but very soon, less than a month, Garner was replaced by Bremer.
In hindsight that signalled a long and devastating occupation.
But there's even more. Where would Israel be if Bush quickly left Iraq to the Iraqis?
Also, I just realized that the vandalization of the Baghdad museum and the universities was
an even earlier signal that their intention was to destroy Iraq, by means, in part, of creating a civil war. They're maintainign the occupation to ensure that the civil war continues indefinitely.

It's not that they want to rule the Islamic world, which is actually meaningless. Their agenda is endless war, and war against (selected countries in) the Islamic world is an excellent
stepping stone to the wars they want to wage against China and Russia -- they want all out nuclear war.
Yes, like certain unnamed 20th century leaders, they're that crazy and suicidal, and psychopathic and criminal.

Ronald said...

Seth responded:
I'm not sure exactly what they have in mind but it is obviously at the level of insanity you mention--although I think control and power figures saliently in their minds. I was not aware of plan for war with SU or China.
Of course you're aware that the plan for domination by fomenting civil wars in Islamic world was written up by Likud military strategist (Oded Yinon?) in mid-80s, and. It's discussed in Ralph Schonfeld's book on Israel-- also discussed by Israel Shahak. It was widely circulated in Israel military, and undoubtedly influenced the neo-cons. Yes the neo-cons were parasites without a host for a while but they got fatter off W, (although they've made many enemies--Andrew Sullivan is a good example of former Bush supporter who now supports Obama, Zbig Brezezinkski is another hawk who came to his senses--also Obama supporter). Thus now they are symbiotically united with McCain--after Giuliani flunked out of campaign. ( They seem to have influenced Clinton, although she is probably more conflicted than McCain--though it's not clear yet whether she'd rather see McCain win once she loses nomination, as Maureen Dowd suggested.)
Due to the fact that anywhere from 40--60% (we shall soon see) of American public has completely embraced the idea of salvation through aggressive wars ( i.e. fascism)--the myth of redemptive violence--McCain may well be elected.
I think you and I probably agree that while Obama is certainly no anti-militarist or anti-imperialist he represents a sane and rational alternative to McCain--the only hope for averting catastrophe?
(I presume he'll get nomination) and thus represents probably the only chance of restoring diplomacy as alternative to permanent war. Hopefully Bush/Cheney will be constrained from bombing Iran before Nov--he has been restrained for several yrs due to military

Anonymous said...

israelis want the chaos in iraq; the destruction of that culture, nation, the changing of its history through revision of its texts to include the Quran.

would 300 dollar/ barrel affect israel? how is 115$ affecting it?

the usa will destroy itself, the population being forced to go along, to insure israel's comfort.

what are the power mouths that are pushing for this new assault? bush is a puppet with a signature.