A reply to the MER analysis and the article by Wayne Madsen of an impending U.S./Israeli attack on Iran:
I've heard about this spooky story from many other sources besides Madsen. I was about to write my own posting, which
would have required sifting through those other sources and picking out citations. I posted Madsen's because it came along conveniently and saved me the time of doing the culling from
the other sources. FACTS: (1) the Israelis have accepted the
'bunker busters'; (2) the Israelis and the White House have separately threatened Iran with attack on more than one occasion; (3) Iran has expressed an intention to preemptively protect itself. Madsen or no Madsen, an attack on Iran in the not-too-distant-future is a very likely possibility. It would
be the natural next step after the invasion of Iraq in terms of the Agenda for the New American Century.
Whether or not it occurs before the election would be purely a matter of political strategy. Madsen's hypothesis would be interesting if it were purely theoretical. It moves beyond
being merely interesting if his reports about the JFK battle
group are accurate. Do you have any reason to believe they are
Obviously it would not be an ideal political scenario for Bush
if he simply invaded Iran without immediate cause just before
the election. Here is a much more sensible scenario: The
"missing explosives" we've been reading about are put into a
missile by U.S. intelligence, and fired with damaging effect
at a major Israeli target from inside Iraq, but from close to
the Iranian border. This is immediately interpreted by the
global media as attack by Iran on Israel and Israel then
responds with a major attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
The Iranians then respond with an attack on Israel, and the
U.S. "comes to the rescue" of its ally with all guns blazing.
This is more in keeping with the tradition of how the U.S. has
initiated conflicts over the past two centuries.Bush then
looks like a decisive hero, and gets re-elected.
In this regard it is important to understand that the invasion
of Iraq is proceeding much more smoothly than most reports
indicate. The objectives of the invasion are (1) to build a
number of permanent U.S. military bases as a springboard for
more wider aggression, and (2) to secure Iraqi oil reserves
for the long term. These objectives are being achieved with
great success, and at great profit to the neocons cronies
(Halliburton et al). All the disorder in Iraq, and the 1,000
American troops killed are both of very little concern to the
White House. The troops are just expendable cannon fodder, and
the disorder is of no concern whatever. The more Iraqis killed
the better, regardless of how. The temporary interruptions in
the oil supply are also of little consequence, indeed they
increase the price of oil which helps the oil companies. It is
the long-term exploitation of Iraqi reserves which is of
Expanding the war to Iran only seems senseless if you believe
the interpretation that the Iraq invasion is going poorly.
That interpretation is based on the myth that the U.S. is
trying to achieve order and democracy in Iraq. Why would
Washington care about that? Does democracy make any sense within
the value matrix of the neocons? I don't think so.