Germany Says U.S. Planning Attack on Iran
German diplomats and intelligence officials are privately warning that the United States is planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities to eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuke.
There have been a recent flurry of published reports in Germany regarding E.U. fears of such a move. A report in German news magazine Der Spiegel gives details:
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
Note: Joseph Cannon's blog "Cannonfire" reported the rumors about Goss' trip to Turkey last week.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.
America is already losing one war in the region, Bush might be currently thinking "how much worse can Iran be?"
The generals in the Pentagon cannot be too comfortable with this idea. Even if the plan is only for airstrikes, the Iranians may not take it in the non-violent way we would expect.
The President doesn't listen to criticism. His advisors may be strongly warning against this move, but probably not, the sycophants that they are.
The neo-cons, with their first allegiance to Israel, have been talking up the fact that a large percentage of Iranians were born after the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. The theory is that these young Iranians do not hate the U.S., and would love to make friends with the country that gave the world Hollywood movies and rock 'n roll.
All it takes is for the United States to depose those pesky mullahs.
Does anybody think the young Iranians will greet us with open arms and flowers if we bomb the shit out of them?
Thanks to John Aravosis (AMERICAblog) for pointing out the Der Spiegel article.
There have been a recent flurry of published reports in Germany regarding E.U. fears of such a move. A report in German news magazine Der Spiegel gives details:
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
Note: Joseph Cannon's blog "Cannonfire" reported the rumors about Goss' trip to Turkey last week.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.
America is already losing one war in the region, Bush might be currently thinking "how much worse can Iran be?"
The generals in the Pentagon cannot be too comfortable with this idea. Even if the plan is only for airstrikes, the Iranians may not take it in the non-violent way we would expect.
The President doesn't listen to criticism. His advisors may be strongly warning against this move, but probably not, the sycophants that they are.
The neo-cons, with their first allegiance to Israel, have been talking up the fact that a large percentage of Iranians were born after the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. The theory is that these young Iranians do not hate the U.S., and would love to make friends with the country that gave the world Hollywood movies and rock 'n roll.
All it takes is for the United States to depose those pesky mullahs.
Does anybody think the young Iranians will greet us with open arms and flowers if we bomb the shit out of them?
Thanks to John Aravosis (AMERICAblog) for pointing out the Der Spiegel article.
posted by Effwit at 2:28 PM
12 Comments:
Diplomacy takes patience, which is exactly why this administration constantly feels the need to resort to military action. They've bastardized the art of diplomacy and replaced it with what? Bombs.
And, no doubt, Iran has a lot to do the the ubiquitous "war on terror". Osama bin Laden runs free, yet we're going to drop bombs on Tehran. Okay.
The more this plays out, the more I believe that OBL was a U.S. and Israeli tool for achieving other ends.
Happy New Years, Meatball DC. Shall be consuming your posts in the next year too.
-Meatball One
Drew L:
I am gravitating to the same position.
There is no such thing as coincidence.
Happy New Year.
Meatball One:
Skål.
Do not consume too much of my blatherings or SISD will become cross.
Happy New Year!
Even if the plan is only for airstrikes, the Iranians may not take it in the non-violent way we would expect.
Let’s suspend our usual sanity for a second and suppose, somehow, that they did interpret such a plainly unlawful, illegal and aggressive act in exactly the "non-violent" way the U.S. expects... Does the American Military + Bush Admin think the rest of the will suspend its sanity too?
Again, OBL + friends must be jumping for joy at the possibility that Bush +Co are taking further steps to burn the goodwill and good name of America into the ground.
And from where I sit it deserves to be burned to the ground. How long can “pacifist” Americans collectively blame their administration for such aggression? The roots of it are inescapably connected to the outlook of the American people. It can’t be any other way. Bush simply wouldn’t take such actions with out the tacit approval of a majority of the American public.
Dena
-- I mean't to say "rest of the world"
Dena
Dena-
I think polls show that a majority of the American public does NOT give BushCo their tacit approval. Let's face it, a meager 51% majority actually voted for this gruesome twosome in 2004 (assuming that the electronic voting results were, in fact, accurate) and 49% voted against them. That's hardly a "mandate" for anything. And I've lost count of the scandals since then.
It is, indeed, sad that a relatively large number of Americans support these people as ardently as they do. I think they could nuke half the planet and still garner support from a lot of people. Just because we're Americans doesn't mean we don't have a lot of idiots here!
Dena:
You are extremely perceptive, and have been fron the beginning.
The American people are as mystified as you are vis-a-vis the insane attitude of George W. Bush.
The President's supporters have no idea of his crimes.
They have not heard of Falluja. Many think Saddam is the guy with the beard who is blamed for 9-11.
They think the United States is winning in Iraq. They will physically challenge anyone who says otherwise.
They are stupid. But worse, they work 50-70 hour weeks to support their families and have no idea about the truths that the rest of the world have long accepted.
These people are slaves. The slaves shall serve. Bush knows this and takes full advantage of his subjects.
Have patience, the American people are actually sturring from the nightmare from which they are trying to awake.
Dena:
P.S.
Happy New Year To You!
drewl,
I know what you mean... If I lived in America I'd feel frustrated as hell and apoplectic with rage that my govt was taking actions ostensibly to "keep me safe" and "protect me" that was actually only making me more vulnerable and lining their pockets... But, I digress...
In the end, isn't the essence of democracy - doing what the people want? If the gov't isn't doing what the people want, then, is America really a dictatorship?
effwit-
You're too kind!
Let's see what happens with Congress in 06 - Let's hope that the Dems win some seats.. For the good for all our sakes - for the world.
Thanks for your blog and insights. And let's hope that people everywhere wake up from thier slumber and hold those in power accountable for actions taken in their name.
Dena
Dena-
Your point is well-taken. I'd like to believe that our system is one that prevents egregious abuses at least in the long-term. If the 2004 election were held again next week, Bush would lose in a landslide, more or less. His support has withered demonstrably since November 2004. Of course, that assumes that they wouldn't pull another virtual rabbit out of a hat in order to stoke fear in the populace (cue bin Laden cameo appearance).
Most Americans, I think by nature, are pretty ignorant when it comes to what's going on in the world and what's going on in the U.S. Most people don't know anything beyond what they may see or hear ever so briefly on TV or on the radio. Bush and company know this very well. So they've hit upon something that controls people at a very basic level: fear. Fear is such a basic, instinctive human emotion, and the Bushies play to this in just about everything they say and do. Consequently, people believe that either God or George W. Bush (or both) are going to protect them. It's really a very infantile response to fear stimuli.
As I wrote in my blog a while back, this is all about mind control on a very macro level. If one can control the minds of the people, then one can do just about anything one pleases. Bush and company are using fear to control minds and implement their plans. That's why everything they do ties back to 9/11 and the "war on terror". And if you're not with them, then you're either unAmerican or you're with the terrorists...or both. Fear and shame are powerful tools.
Where am I going with this? Actually, I don't really know. I just got on a roll! ;-) Anyway, I've been baffled for years about why so many people continue to support someone and something that is so anathema to what this country SHOULD be about. What seems so plain to me apparently isn't so plain to a lot of others. But as we've seen throughout history, people in general can be manipulated into doing just about anything. It's both sad and scary at the same time.
While Americans can be a bit slow on the uptake, one remains hopeful that the awakening of the slumbering masses will continue in 2006. That would be my New Year's wish.
Happy New Year and all the best in 2006. Cheers!
DrewL
Dena:
Thanks for the kind words about the blog.
I second your hopes for the American people.
Post a Comment
<< Home