Our Awful Situation

« Granddad, Tell How Capitalism Committed Suicide: Mark Gilbert
Entrepreneurs lug cheap Mexican fuel across border »

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

Posted by Charlie Kilo on July 13th, 2008

But tells the Israelis not to expect any help from the U.S. Guess where American (and world) anger will be directed when gas hits $6 a gallon after an Israeli strike on Iran. That’s right…at the Jews. Interesting:

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

One Response to “President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran”

  1. John Maszka Says:
    July 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Experts have been predicting that Bush would authorize a strike on Iran for years:

    “I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
    -Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).

    Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can’t trust them. You can’t take what they at face value.

    As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate.”

    The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities.

    By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.”

    The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement.

    In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world.

    The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times.

    In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients.

    Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq.

    The question remains: Why would we expect the Bush administration to start being honest and up front about its intentions now?

    A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. We need to give Iran an honorable path of retreat. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.

    I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran’s foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.

Comments

{ }

Search

Recent Posts

Sites of Interest

Archives

Categories