More "plans to bomb Iran" Feinstein/Lugar briefed?

Truly a bizarre article in yesterday's Asia Times. Again the usual headline catches my eye - "Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'.

But this article provides startling details... rather like predicting rain drops to the minute, journalist, Muhammad Cohen says to watch for a NYTs op-ed in the next few days by Senators Feinstein and Lugar, protesting the proposed plan.

Even more startling... if it does happen to be factual... is the amount of detail laid out to the awaiting targets. Like Saddam's warning months in advance, again the target has ample time to move the palace patio furniture, so to speak.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents.

Cohen points to the Senate's majority vote resolution to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization as a precursor to the military action - used as part of defense of Iraq and the Quds Forces persistent interference.

One thing is for sure. If this has any fact to it, the NYTs should be running an article quite soon. If they don't, August isn't that far away to see the proof in the pudding.

I've long held this is a DNC pipedream. Short of this being some sort of a power play to force int'l action in the wake of the IAEA's unusually stern report this week, - ala good cop/bad cop - I still would find this highly surprising. With the int'l chess pieces of power on the political ME board morphing daily, it is a risky move indeed.

I guess we'll find out if my crystal ball is not only dusty, but made of cheap plexiglass.

Hillary - on how to win friends and influence people

I'm just beside myself with laughter today. It was just Mar 26th when I posted on "Just who is beating the drums of war in Iran?", noting that while the Bush admin has been constantly saying dealing with Iran was taking the diplomatic path, every liberal/progressive blog, DNC Congress elitist and left wing media was warning that Bush would be invading Iran before his term was up.

Now we have Hillary promising military attack on Iran if they attack Israel. (H/T to Flopping Aces)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Well, this is about as smart of posturing as Obama's "cowboy policy" promise to go into Pakistan, sans their blessings, upon "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's whereabouts.

Needless to say Hillary has now joined Obama with lessons on how *not* to improve our image in the int'l community. Their ideas on how to win friends and influence people leave much to be desired.

It was, of course, only a matter of time before Tehran spoke up in retort.

“We will cut off the hand of invaders with the slightest attack on the country,” Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi told a graduation ceremony of military cadets here on Monday.

snip

“Now, we are in a situation that the enemy has occupied neighboring countries (of Iraq and Afghanistan) and have surrounded us. It planned to wipe out the Islamic country of Iran by targeting mock enemies such as Taliban and Saddam but it could not.

It's interesting that Tehran has noticed a US success that the US electorate, nor the DNC, has not. That with Bush's Iraq maneuver to depose Saddam, he left us a US friendly ally in the region that's parked right in the middle of Iran and Syria. Not such a dumb strategy afterall... providing, of course, we don't abandon Iraq to militants, jihadists, and Islamic law.

But more than ever, it's the height of irony and chutpah to accuse the GOP and Bush WH for warmongering when, in fact, it is the media and DNC candidates themselves who "walk the walk" for the winds of war, and announce that Iran is in their crosshairs.

Just who is "beating the drums" for war in Iran?

Chutzpah... pfeh. Can't say much else to the absolute deception of a media headline, concocted with the intent to deceive.

Latest case in point... M K Bhadrakumar's article for the March 27th Asia Times article, "US moves towards engaging Iran".

Oh, but wait! Could just be a tricky play on words, right? "Engaging" Iran with military force vs "engaging" Iran with diplomatic talks are two different ball games. But when you read the headline, and consider the past "beating the drums of war" accusations of media, what comes to your mind first?

Slick... very slick. And still deceptive. The damage is done with the headline alone.

The opening paragraph of Bhadrakumar's article supports the "drums of war" theory.

The coming few weeks are going to be critical in the standoff between the United States and Iran as the upheaval in the Middle East reaches a turning point. And all options do remain on the table, as the George W Bush administration likes to say, from military conflict to a de facto acceptance of Iran's standing as the region's dominant power.

But since what Bhadrakumar was about to report mandated a recanting of that impression... here comes paragraph two.

One thing is clear. The time for oratorical exercises is ending. A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.

Followed by more details in paragraph's four thru six.

Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]."

Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past. There was none of the boastful claims that the US would work toward isolating Iran in its region and beyond. In fact, Bush acknowledged, "There's a chance that the US and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the [Iranian] government is going to have to make different choices. And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

Bush assured that in return the US would be "reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium]". Here again, he pointed out that the problem is that "they [Iranian governments] have not told the truth in the past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest of the world - or much of the rest of the world - to trust the Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth".

Sensationalist headlines, followed by content that has nothing to do with the news "trailer". And we wonder why so many in the world are just plain clueless about current events? i.e. why so many believe that Bush is bent on starting a war with Iran before his 2nd term is up.

Yet a closer examination of that "truth" finds that the Bush admin, while refusing rightfully to take any options off the table, has always advocated for int'l diplomacy, and encouragement to the youth of Iran to strive for changes in their country.

So who is really beating the drum for war in Iran?

How about Seymour Hirsch at the New Yorker, who's story was then redistributed by CNN. Or perhaps Pelosi? Maybe Walter C. Uhler at The Information Clearing House? How about the Libertarian Party?

Then, of course, there's Joe Biden on Hardball. And Tim Shipman, reporting for London's The Telegraph. And let's not forget the progressive site, Common Dreams.

Notice any common threads in ideology and agenda here? Of course, in the same illustrious company of the above is Chavez.

And the liberals say they aren't siding with the wrong side of the argument.... uh huh.

The result of all this BS spewed from the mouths of political opportunists? A poll saying American's don't trust Bush on Iran. Well damn... who would, after all the years of media and liberal lies?

Definitely another one of those things that makes you go "huh???" And more fodder for my "media rant" category.

Columbia U jets to Iran for apology

I'll make this short and simple.... Huh??

NEW YORK (MNA) – An academic delegation of Columbia University professors and deans of faculties plans to visit Tehran to officially apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
The delegation plans to express regret for the insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at Ahmadinejad on September 24 in his introductory speech, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in New York reported.

Since the incident, the deans and professors from the faculties of history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, philosophy, and Islamic studies have criticized Bollinger’s behavior toward Ahmadinejad.

A member of the delegation, who requested anonymity, said the main goal of the visit is to meet the Iranian president and officially apologize to him.

snip

Iran-US Naval Standoff Genuine threat? Or oil price manipulation?

It's widely broadcast that Iran's Revolutionary Guard speedboats and US Naval vessels had a real spitting contest today. In response to radio'ed threats and objects dropped in the US vessel's path, US sailors manned the guns, and the Iranians turned heel.

The usual western response happens.... tough warnings from the WH, Iranian Foreign Ministers saying it was business as usual.

What had me scratching at my head was the "whys?" of it it all. And I believe that Steve Schippert at Threatswatch.org has the answer.

We at ThreatsWatch have dismissed the Iranian threat to choke oil shipments by blocking the Strait as well as its stated aims to stop its own exports. The Iranian ‘Oil Weapon’ remains not the act of cutting off their own economic life blood, but rather the results that such threats have on oil prices to their windfall benefit.

As with other Iranian threats and actions that have caused the world oil markets to nervously drive up the price of crude, this weekend’s action also comes as oil prices fell from a November 2007 average of $92.67 to just $88.21 for December. [Source: OILNERGY: posted oil price (WTI)]

Yep. That sounds about right. It's again all about money, folks. Not an impending war. Just an effort to keep Iran's economy humming along. They are, afterall, quite dependent upon revenues representing around 80-90 percent of total their export earnings, and 40-50 percent of the government budget.


To further clarify a possible motive, the Iranian boats doing the threatening were those under control of Ahmadinejad's Revolutionary Guard, not the Iranian Navy. And the Iranian punk is under the gun for his economic policies that have resulted in a 19.1% increase in consumer prices for 2007.

So chill your nerves. Ignore the impending doom. And rest easy knowing the world still functions with money as it's guiding deity.... even in Ahmadinejad's Iran.

Columbia & Ahmadinejad Gnat on buffalo butt - The sequel

A few days ago I commented on all the media hoopla lavished on the Iranian despot. Also in that post, I mentioned that while I fully agree with Columbia U's right to invite such a guest to speak, it was a grave diplomatic error. And once the invitation was extended, they were damned if they went thru with it, and damned if they didn't. They locked themselves into the corner of the ring with no exit until the KO happened.

Comes today's op-ed piece by Howard Galganov in the Israeli Insider that waxes eloquent my very statements.

snip

To the self-absorbed academic leaders of Columbia and their infantile Leftist students, they KNEW that they would get out of Ahmadinejad in open debate, what the rest of the world could not.

Because of their absolute belief in their own power of reason and persuasion, they would teach Ahmadinejad a lesson.

Instead, Ahmadinejad showed them to be the fools they are.

When the backlash hit the leaders of Columbia for inviting this vile piece of work, and the realization sank in that there was going to be a price to pay for being so stupid, it didn't take much time for the academics to prove that they were even that much more stupid than they already were.

snip

Having Ahmadinejad as a Columbia guest speaker was the perfect podium for him to speak to his people back home. It didn't matter what the rest of the world thought about his speech and Q&A, since it only mattered how it was conveyed to the people Ahmadinejad leads.

As poorly as Columbia handled this mess, is as good as Ahmadinejad took advantage of it. The crass remarks put forward by Ahmadinejad's host, Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, simply reinforced the Iranian image of the Ugly American.

Absolutely... Columbia administrators were pompous fools to believe any words from Ahmadinejad could erase his deeds. Let him speak, my arse. Why? Why not just look at what he's done? Read his speeches... he gives plenty of them. Ask the Iranians who've been punished under his short rule thus far? If they are still alive, that is.

But Columbia's head honchos dug their own grave... and as a country who believes in freedom, we let them jump in. Altho many of us did so, shouting warnings along the way as to how ridiculously stupid an exercise in free speech it was. But they compounded the original error - digging that grave even deeper - when Bollinger opened his mouth and introduced his invited guest with all the grace of a coyote munching on a roadrunner.

But Galganov brings up another reality from it all that constantly weighs heavily on my mind... our leaders of the future.

snip

I watched and listened to many of Columbia's students defend their University's decision to invite this religious genocidal nut-job, and came away with the sad reality that these little schmucks will one day manage the affairs of America and elsewhere. How utterly depressing.

I can forgive "children" for being stupid, because children have to learn. But, what I find unforgivable, are the adults (Deans and Professors) who should have known better.

But how could they know better if they never left the halls of academia?

snip

If anything positive comes from this mess, it will be that we should understand that the world of academia is a pretend world that should not be taken seriously.

And that "children" who haunt the corridors of higher learning are nothing more than "children", who have yet to grow-up and understand that there is a real world out there that is very much different than the pretend world they are taught to believe in.

snip

In the last few years, the world of Leftist elitist academia has been an embarrassment, with professors who are at best incompetent, and at worst imposters, liars and purveyors of untruths. This all splashes back on Democrats.

What Columbia succeeded in doing with their invitation to Ahmadinejad was two-fold. It further empowered a very wicked man amongst his own people. And it showed academic elitism for what it truly is.

Unfortunately, and as Galganov also points out, the liberal wing of our country has a death grip on our educational facilities. Liberal control and the "love the one with" notions started entering our schools hot and heavy right about the time of Vietnam. Yes... been there done that. I am of that generation. I watched educational criteria and curricula morph over the decades, to my astonishment.

It may be well worth noting that Mr. Galganov - and myself - have much to be concerned over these future leaders being graduated today. After all, take a good look at the composition of our Congress, and most especially our Democrat candidates. These pols governing our lives today are mostly those from the liberal educational years of Vietnam and just beyond. They take their greatest pride insisting war solves nothing, and everyone - including terrorists - will negotiate and honor the outcomes. They do not have the heart to fight for this country with anything but words.

So I add to Galvanov's assessments that: not only has the liberal academia shown how inept they are, and how engaging in discussion with terrorists is most often unsuccessful. But they have shown us that we will continue to be in deep shit with our future leaders under their tutelage.

Or, as Tony Blankley put the same thought today in his column...

It was said back in the 1970s that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. But if liberals permit America to be mugged by our lethal enemies, they (and we) may not survive to become sadder and wiser conservatives.