Setting Up Iran

So here we are, facing ourselves wearily into another new year of what is likely to be increasing global turmoil and bloodshed. It would be nice to think that, for once, someone, somewhere in the echelons of power would see sense and decide that enough is enough. Sadly, the likelihood of that happening seems as remote as the likelihood that Jesus will soon be appearing on a white cloud to "rapture" the world's Christians up to heavenly bliss with their "lord and savior".
No indeed, there is no land of milk and honey on the horizon. This year we can expect the opening of more fronts in the phony "war on terror" and further requests from our dear leaders for 'we the people' to relinquish more civil rights and believe the unbelievable. How many more will succumb this year? Time will tell we suppose. But for now, the natives in the Pentagon are getting restless again. The drums of holy war are sounding once more, drawing our collective gaze towards Iran and its soon-to-be-drastically-reduced population.
Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
Ian TraynorMonday January 17, 2005The Guardian
American special forces have been on the ground inside Iran scouting for US air strike targets for suspected nuclear weapons sites, according to the renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
In an article in the latest edition of the New Yorker, Hersh, who was the first to uncover US human rights abuses against Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison last year, reports that Pakistan, under a deal with Washington, has been supplying information on Iranian military sites and on its nuclear programme, enabling the US to conduct covert ground and air reconnaissance of Iranian targets, should the escalating row over Iran's nuclear ambitions come to a head.
Acting on information from Pakistani scientists knowledgeable about Iran's nuclear programme, Hersh reported, US commandos have penetrated territory in eastern Iran seeking to pinpoint underground installations suspected of being nuclear weapons sites.
Hersh told CNN yesterday: "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites.
"The last thing this government wants to do is to bomb or strafe, or missile attack, the wrong targets again. We don't want another WMD flap. We want to be sure we have the right information."
Here we have a problem. What are the definitions, in this context, of the words "wrong" and "right". Is Hersh implying that the bombing of Baghdad is understood as a genuine "mistake" by the Bush administration? If they could take it back, would they? Clearly, from the point of view of Bush and Co, the only thing "wrong" about the lead up to and actual invasion of Iraq was that they were unable to pass off the childish "evidence" for Saddam's WMDs on the UN and that, as a result, some members of the public also became aware that the US government was deliberately lying to them.
Hersh continues by saying that, in regard to bombing and invading Iran, "we want to be sure we have the right information". Clearly by "right information" Hersh does NOT mean actual REAL proof that Iran is developing WMDs with a view to attacking America, but rather information that will successfully convince the world that this is the case, even when in reality it is not.
The New Yorker report said the Americans have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions over and inside Iran since last summer with a view to identifying up to 40 possible targets for strikes should the dispute over Iran turn violent.
There's that word again, "should". Synonyms are: "if", "in the off chance that", "in the event that", all conveying the idea that the dispute with Iran may or may not turn violent, and most importantly, if it does, it will be the result of some external factor over which no one has any control.
The reality, of course, is that there is a 100% likelihood that Iran will be attacked, regardless of the existence or otherwise of any WMDs.
Why?
Because the Neocons and Israel desire it. The only thing left to decide is how best to convince the public that the upcoming attack on Iran is NOT about American and Israeli state terrorism and an illegal land and resource grab, but rather because Iran really is a threat to the whole world.
We sincerely hope that everyone is by now aware that we are witnessing the initial stages of a repeat of the Iraq debacle, where the American and British government openly LIED TO THE WORLD about the threat that Saddam posed, and then attacked and killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians FOR NO GOOD REASON, other than to satiate their own greed and power lust.
"This is a war against terrorism and Iraq is just one campaign," Hersh quotes one former US intelligence official as saying. "The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next we're going to have the Iranian campaign."
Another unnamed source described as a consultant close to the Pentagon said: "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."
That appeared to be a reference to noted "neocons" in Washington, such as the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and others.
Arguments about Iran's suspected nuclear programme have raged for 20 months since it was revealed that Tehran had been conducting secret nuclear activities for 18 years in violation of treaty obligations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had inspectors in the country throughout the period. While finding much that is suspect, the inspectors have not found any proof of a clandestine nuclear bomb programme.
The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has infuriated the Bush administration over his even-handed dealings with Iran, while the Europeans have been pursuing a parallel diplomatic track that has won grudging agreement from Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment activities.
Notice what "infuriates" Bush (and his handlers) these days: even-handedness, diplomacy, dialogue, all anathema to the policies of a dictatorship.
Hersh reported that the US campaign against Iran is being assisted by Pakistan under a deal that sees Islamabad provide information in return for reducing the pressure on Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced metallurgist who is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and who was revealed last year to be the head of the biggest international nuclear smuggling racket uncovered.
Since confessing his activities and being placed under house arrest almost a year ago, Mr Khan has been incommunicado.
After months of failure to get permission, IAEA inspectors last week gained access to the Parchin military facilities outside Tehran, which the Americans contend has been a centre for Iranian attempts to refine missile technology for nuclear purposes, although experts agree that Iran does not yet have a nuclear capability.
Now here's where it gets REALLY interesting. For those that believe that the current war on terror just came "out of the blue" - think again. The "end times" in which we seem to find ourselves have been in the planning for many, many years and there is no lack of evidence to prove it.
By now it should be obvious to everyone with two functioning neurons that the Washington Neocons were determined to invade Iraq regardless of the lack of evidence to support their claims that Saddam posed a threat to America. It is also very clear that, for many years prior to the invasion, Saddam had been falsely portrayed as "evil incarnate" in order to convince the public that a war in Iraq was needed. It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that these same Necons have developed equally deceptive plans to justify their next stage in the bogus war on terror - Iran.
As it happens, while we were all fixated on the Iraq quagmire at the beginning of last year, this "evidence" was quietly released, but naturally, it was not what it seemed.